Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 74-1686ORDINANCE NO. 74-1686 AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE HEARING GIVEN TO THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SUNDRY STREETS IN THE CITY OF PLAINVIEW, TEXAS, WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREINAFTER DEFINED, AS TO SPECIAL BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO SAID PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF SAID STREETS WITHIN SAID LIMITS, AND AS TO ANY ERRORS, INVALIDITIES OR IRREGULARITIES IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR CONTRACT THEREFOR; FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREETS WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED AND ENHANCED IN VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE A3.IOUNT OF THE COSTS OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE, AND AS, ASSESSED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWqS]ERS THEREOF, LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF IMPROVING SAID STREETS WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES UPON THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID WORK, THE MANNER AND TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER AND METHOD OF COLLECTION OF SAID ASSESSMENTS AND CERTIFICATES; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PORTIONS OF STREETS DESCRIBED IN ORDINANCES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF CERTAIN STREETS, IN REGARD TO WHICH THE IMPROVE- }~NTS WILL NOT BE BENEFITED IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PORTIONS OF THE STREETS IN REGARD TO WHICH VALID ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE LEVIED IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO JUSTIFY THE PORTION OF SAID STREETS, AND PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF ANY LIEN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AS AGAINST THOSE STREETS IN REGARD TO WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT MADE FOR IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS PASSAGE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE~CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLAINVIEW: SECTION 1. Texas, finds: The City Council of the City of Plainview, (a) That the City Council of the City of Plainview, Texas, has heretofore by Ordinance No. 74-1565 enacted on the 25th day of June, 1974, and also by Ordinance No. 74-1618 enacted on the 27th day of August, 1974, determined the necessity for and ordered the improvement of portions of sundry streets in the City of Plainview, Texas, within the limits therein defined, and in the manner and according to the Plans and Specifications therefor, which Plans and Specifications have heretofore approved and adopted by the City Council. (b) That a Notice duly executed in the name of the City of Plainview, Texas, of the enactment of said above described Ordinance No. 74-1565 has been heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of July , 1974, filed with the County Clerk of Hale County, Texas, the county in which the City of Plainview is situated, and such notice has been duly recorded in Volume 570 at page 11-125 of the Deed of Trust Records of Hale County, Texas. (c) That said City Council after having advertised for bids in the manner as required by law did award the contract for the construction of said improvements to High Plains Pavers, Inc., a corporation, upon its best and lowest bid therefor. (d) That the City Council caused the City Engineer to prepare and file estimates of the costs of such improvements and estimates of the amount per front foot proposed to be assessed against the property abutting each of such streets within the limits hereinafter defined, and against the real and true owners thereof. (e) That upon the filing of said estimates the City Council did by ordinance duly enacted on the 10th day of September, 1974, provide for and order a hearing to be held beginning at 10:00 A.M. on the 17th day of October, 1974, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall of Plainview, Texas, at which time and place all persons, firms, corporations, and estates owning or claiming any such ~abutting property or any interest therein, and their agents, and attorneys, and all other persons interested therein, were to appear and be heard in person or by counsel, and such Ordinance directed the City Clerk to give due notice of such hearing in the manner required by law, and such Ordinance further directed the City Clerk to give additional ~itten notice of the hearing by depositing in the United States mail at least fourteen days before the date of the hearing, written notice of such hearing, postage prepaid in an envelope addressed to the owners of the res- pective properties abutting such streets, highways or portion or portions thereof to be improved as the names of such owners are shown on the then current rendered tax rolls of the City of Plainview and at the addresses so shown, or, if the names of such respective owners did not appear on such rendered tax rolls, then addressed to such owners as their names are shown on the current unrendered rolls of the City at the addresses shown thereon; and that notice to the railroad or railroads be given by depositing in the United States mail at least fourteen days before the date of the hearing a written notice of such hearing postage prepaid in an envelope addressed to said railways as shown on the then current rendered tax rolls of the City of Plainview at the address so shown, or, if the name of such respective railways did not appear on such rendered rolls of the City, then addressed to such railways as the names are shown on the current unrendered rolls of the City at the addresses shown thereon; and that all of such notice did ~omply with_t.he provisions of Section 9 of Article 1105-b, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes as amended by Acts of 1967, 60th Legislature, Page 365, Chapter 176, Paragraph 1. (f) That after due publication of such notice and after mailing notices postage prepaid to the landowners as required by law, and on the 17th day of October, 1974, at 10:00 A.M., said public hearing was opened and held in accordance with said Ordinance and Notice, at which time and place an opportunity was given to all of the above mentioned parties, agents and attorneys to be heard and to offer evidence as to all matters in accordance with said Ordinance and Notice, at which time the following appeared and testified as follows: The City Engineer of the City of Plainview briefly described the improvements proposed to be constructed and briefly explained the method of apportionment of cost. -3- The City Clerk then stated that a Notice of the Hearing had been published in the Plainview Daily Herald on the 13th, 20th and 27th days of September, 1974, and in the manner required by law. The City Clerk testified that Notice of said hearing i was duly published in the Plainview Daily Herald as afore- said, and that he had mailed to each landowner Notice of the hearing by depositing in the United States mail at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing written notice of such hearing, postage prepaid in an envelope addressed to the owner of the respective properties abutting each street, highway, highways or portion or portions thereof to be improved as the names of such owners are shown on the then current rendered tax rolls of the City of Plainview and at the addresses so shown, or that if said names of such respective owners did not appear on such rendered tax rolls, then addressed to such owners as their names are shown on the current unrendered rolls of the City at the addresses sho~ thereon, and that he had mailed notice to the railroad or railroads by depositing the same in the United States mail at least fourteen days before the date of the hearing a ~ritten notice of such hearing, postage prepaid in an envelope addressed to the said railroad as shown on the then current rendered tax rolls of the City of Plainview at the addresses so shown, or if the name of such respective railways did not appear on such rendered rol].s of the City, then addressed to such railways as the names are shown on the current unrendered rolls of the City at the addresses shown thereon. The Mayor then, by referring to the Engineer's Roll, and by first calling the name of the owner, and then the description of the property and the designated Unit Number, called for all persons interested in the improvements under consideration to come forward and be heard. The following is a summary of the testimony of all who appeared. Mr. Danny Owen testified that he was in the real estate business in Plainview, Texas, that he had been for years and that because of the nature of his business he was familiar with the reasonable market value generally of City property in Plainview and that he had observed value of property that had pavement, curb and gutter as compared with that property that did not have abutting_ pavement; and that he had made a personal inspection o ~f -4- each and every parcel of property described and referred to in the Engineer's Roll. The Mayor called for testimony as to each Unit and parcel of property in the Engineer's Roi1, but he did not refer to the same in the order in which it appears in the Engineer's Roll. Testifying as to each parcel of property as it was called and testimony asked for in regard thereto~ Mr. Danny Owen testified as to the market value of the property as it was at the time of the hearing and his opinion of what the market value of the property would be if the paving and improvements were constructed and made, and that the difference between the market value of the property before and after the paving and improvements would be the value of the enhancement of the paving and improvements to each particular abutting tract. Testifying in this manner he testified as to parcels as follows: -5- Unit 1-1-74 (Engineer's Roll) Parcel as Numbered.on Value'of Property Value after Engineer's.Roi1 A's IS Improvements Enhancement i $4,500.00 $5,000.00 2 3,500.00 3,850.00 3 4,000.00 4,400.00 4 400.00 800.00 5 450.00 850.00 6 600.00 1,000.00 7 1,200.00 3,750.00 500 00 350 00 400 00 400 00 400 00 400 00 2,550.00 Unit 2-1-74 1 1,100.00 2,100.00 1,000.00 2 5,500.00 6,500.00 1,000.00 3 4,500.00 5,000~00 .~500.00 Unit 3-1-74 1 6,500.00 7,750.00 1,250.00 2 11,000.00 12,300.00 1,300.00 3 8,000.00 9,300.00 1,300.00 4 9,500.00 10,750Q00 1,250.00 Unit 4-1-74 1 9,000.00 10,000.00 1,000.00 2 14,000.00 15,300.00 1,300.00 3 10,000.00 11,500.00 1,500.00 4 9,750.00 10,800.00 1,050.00 Unit' 5-1-74 1 8,500.00 9,500.00 1,000.00 2 10,000.00 11,200.00 1,200.00 3 9,500.00 10,650.00 1,150.00 4 10,000.00 11,300.00 1,300.00 Unit 6-1-74 1 13,000.00 14,500.00 1,500.00 2 900.00 1,250.00 350.00 3 13,000.00 14,500.00 1,500.00 4 12,000.00 13,500.00 1,500.00 Unit 7-1-74 1 9,000.00 10,300.00 1,300.00 2 5,000.00 6,000.00 1,000.00 3 12,000.00 14,000.00 2,000.00 4 900.00 1,250.00 350.00 Unit 8-1-74 1 300.00 700.00 400.00 2 3,000.00 3,750.00 750.00 3 3,000.00 3,750.00 750.00 4 2,750.00 3,500.00 750.00 5 6,000.00 6,750.00 750.00 6 150.00 350.00 200.00 7 5,750.00 6,500.00 750.00 8 4,500.00 5,000.00 500.00 9 4,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 10 2,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 11 250.00 650.00 400.00 12 1,000.00 2,200.00 1~200.00 Unit 9.-1-74 1 3,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 2 300.00 700.00 400.00 3 6,000.00 6,500.00 500.00 4 3,600.00 4,000.00 400.00 5 1,300.00 2,500.00 1,200.00 6 1,000.00 1,900.00 900.00 Unit 10-1-74 1 4,500.00 5,000.00 500.00 2 500.00 1,200.00 700.00 3 3,750.00 4,300.00 550.00 4 3,750.00 4,300.00 550.00 5 3,000.00 3,500.00 500.00 6 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 7 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 8 1,500.00 2,000.00 500.00 9 1,500.00 2,000.00 500.00 Unit 11-1-74 1 6,000.00 7,000.00 1,000.00 2 400.00 900.00 500.00 3 400.00 850.00 450.00 4 750.00 1,250.00 500.00 Unit.-12-1-74 1 5,000.00 6,500.00 1,500.00 2 4,500.00 6,000.00 1,500.00 3 3,800.00 5,000.00 1,200.00 4 400.00 900.00 500.00 Unit 13-1-74 1 3,800.00 5,000.00 1,200.00 2 1,500.00 3,000.00 1,500.00 Unit 14-1-74 1 400.00 800.00 400.00 2 300.00 800.00 500.00 3 2,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 4 6,500.00 7,500.00 1,000.00 -7- 1 2 3 4 1 2 Unft' 'i5'-1'-'74 300.00 4,000.00 1,500.00 7,000.00 ~Unit 1,000.00 5,000.00 750.00 5,000.00 2,500.00 9,500.00 2,000.00 6,000.00 450.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1 2 3 4 500.00 9,000.00 10,500.00 6,000.00 Uni't I7-1-74 1,000.00 10,000.00 11,500.00 7,000.00 500.00 i,O00.O0 1,000.00 1,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 1,500.00 200.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 2,000.00 Unit 18'1-74 3,000.00 300.00 300.00 600.00 700.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 500.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 300.00 600.00 800.00 3,200.00 1,000.00 300.00 650.00 300.00 1,200.00 Unit i9-1-'74 400.00 750.00 1,200.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 400.00 1,000.00 400.00 2,000.00 100.00 150.00 400.00 800.00 1,000.00 100.00 350.00 100.00 8,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 600.00 2,500.00 400.00 1,500.00 600.00 600.00 850.00 400.O0 200.00 800.00 200.00 350.00 1,250.00 Unit 20-1-74 900.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 900.00 1,000.00 1,250.00 600.00 300.00 1,200.00 300.00 550.00 2,000.00 300.00 1,000.00 600.00 500.00 300.00 400.00 400.00 2OO.O0 100.00 400.00 100.00 200.00 750.00 -8- Unit 21-1-74 1 3,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 2 2,700.00 3,100.00 400.00 3 2,500.00 2,900.00 400.00 4 3,000.00 3,450.00 450.00 5 200.00 400.00 200.00 6 50.00 150.00 100.00 7 250.00 400.00 150.00 8 1,250.00 2,000.00 750.00 9 3,500.00 4,500.00 1,000.00 10 1,000.00 1,500.00 500.00 11~ 1,500.00 2,000.00 500.00 12 200.00 300.00 100.00 13 750.00 1,000.00 250.00 14 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 15 350.00 500.00 150.00 16 500.00 950.00 450.00 17 1,000.00 1,500.00 500.00 18 600.00 1,500.00 900.00 Unit 22-1-74 1 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 2 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 3 350.00 500.00 150.00 4 1,000.00 , 1,500.00 500.00 5 850.00 1,250.00 400.00 6 250.00 400.00 150.00 7 350.00 700.00 350.00 8 5,500.00 6,000.00 500.00 9 4,500.00 5,500.00 1,000.00~ 10 4,000.00 4,500.00 500.00 ilo 400.00 600.00~ 200.00 12 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 13 200.00 350.00 150.00 14 1,400.00 2,000.00 600.00 15~ 200.00 350.00 150.00 16 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 17 3,000.00 3,500,00 500.00 Unit 23-1-74 1 6,000.00 8,000.00 2,000.00 2 300.00 500.00 200.00 3 2,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 4 300.00 500.00 200.00 Unit 24-1-74 1 2,000.00 2,600.00 600.00 2 1,500.00 1,900.00 400.00 3 200.00 350.00 150.00 4 600.00 950.00 350.00 5 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 6 600.00 1,000.00 400.00 7 1,500.00~ 2,000.00 500.00 8 1,000.00 1,500.00 500.00 9 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 -9- (Unit 24-1-74 Cont'd.) 10 700.00 1,200.00 500.00 11 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 12 2,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 13 1,500.00 3,000.00 1,500.00 1 2 3 4 Unit 25-1-74 3,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 150.00 750.00 600.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unit 26-1-74 100.00 400.00 300.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 800.00 2,500.00 1,700.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 Unit 27-1-74 1,700.00 3,000.00 1,300.00 750.00 1,250.00 500.00 400.00 850.00 450.00 3,000.00 4,500.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500°00 500.00 850.00 1,250.00 400.00 2,000.00 2,750.00 750.00 600.00 1,100.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 750.00 1,250.00 500.00 Unit 28-1-74 1 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 2 1,500.00 1,800.00 300.00 3 1,800.00 2,200.00 400.00 4 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 5 1,300.00 1,800.00 500.00 6 500.00 500.00 0 7 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 8 10,000.00 10,000.00 0 9 Unit 29-1-74 1 600.00 1,000.00 400.00 2 300.00 500.00 200.00 3 350.00 550.00 200.00 4 1,200.00 1,600.00 400.00 5 900.00 1,354.00 454.00 6 400.00 600.00 200.00 7 2,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]13 Unit 30-1-74 150.00 300.00 150. 500100 850.00 350. 800.00 1,200.00 400~ 800.00 1,200.00 400~ 700.00 1,100.00 400~ 1,200.00 1,600.00 400. 1,000.00 1,400.00 400. 1,000.00 1,400.00 400. 500.00 1,300.00 800. 500.00 900.00 400~ 1,600.00 2,400.00 800. 2,500.00 4,000.00 1,500. 2,000.00 3,500.00 1,500. O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 1 2 3 4 5 Unit 31-1-74 14,000. O0 17,500.00 3,500.00 1,000. O0 1,400. O0 400.00 10,000. O0 10,850. O0 850~ O0 ' ~ ~ 2,500.00 2, ooo. oo 3. ooo oo 1. ooo. oo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10o 11: Unit 32-1-74 800.00 1,400.00 600.00 3,500.00 4,500.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 6,500.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 3,500,.00 1,000.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 500.00 1,750.00 2,250.00 500.00 800.00 1,350.00 550.00 500.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 3,500.00 4,500.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Unit'33-1-74 5,000.00 5,500.00 500.00 500.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 200.00 500.00 300.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 500.00 2,750.00 3,250.00 500.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 Unit~34,1~74: 1 5,000.00 6,500.00 1,500.00 2 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 3 3,000.00 3,500.00 500.00 4 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 -11- Unit 35-1"74 1 3,500.00 4,200.00 700.00 2 4,000.00 4,800.00 800.00 3 300.00 800.00 500.00 4 4,000.00 4,800~00 800.00 Unit 36-1-74 1 200.00 500.00 300.00 2 14,000.00 15,000.00 1,000.00 3 16,000.00 17,000~00 !,000.00 Unit 37-1-74 1 3,000.00 3,500.00 500.00 2 300.00 650.00 350.00 3 500.00 1,000.00 500.00 4 3,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 5 6,000.00 7,500.00 1,500.00 6 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 7 350.00 850.00 500.00 Unit 38-1-74 9,000.00 10,000.00 1,000.00 6,500.00 7,000.00 500.00 7,000.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 8,000.00 8,500.00 500.00 8,500.00 9,000.00 500.00 8,000.00 8,500.00 .500.00 Unit 39-1-74 1 6,500.00 7,500.00 1,000.00 2 8,500.00 9,500.00 1,000.00 3 8,000.00 8,500.00 500.00 4 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 5 8,500.00 9,000.00 500.00 6 8,000.00 8,500.00 500.00 7 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 8 10,000.00 11,000.00 1,000.00 9 8,000.00 8,500.00 500.00 Unit 40-1-74 1 6,000.00 7,000.00 1,000.00 2 2,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 3 9,000.00 9,500.00 500.00 4 8,000.00 8,500.00 500.00 5 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 6 7,500.00 8,000.00 500.00 7 8,000.00 9,000.00 1,000.00 -12- Unit 41-'1-74 1 4,500.00 5,500.00 1,000.00 2 6,000.00 7,000.00 1,000.00 3 1,000.00 2,000,00 1,000.00 4 7,000.00 8,000.00 1,000.00 5 8,000.00 11,000.00 3,000.00 6 35.00 150.00 115.00 7 13,000o00 14,000.00 1,000.00 8 10,500.00 11,000.00 500.00 9 20,000.00 21,000.00 1,000.00 10 11,500.00 12,000.00 500.00 11 10,000.00 10,500.00 500.00 12 13,500.00 14,000.00 500.00 13 600.00 800.00 200.00 Unit 1-2-74 1 300.00 600.00 300.00 2 5,000.00 6,000.00 1,000.00 3 200.00 350.00 150.00 4 5,000.00 6,000.00 1,000.00 5 2,500.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 6 3,000.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 unit' 2a2~74 1 5,500.00 6,500.00 1,000.00 2 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 3 400.00 650.00 250.00 4 450.00 700.00 250.'00 5 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 Unit 3-2-74 t 4,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 2 1,850.00 2,500.00 650.00 3 1,350.00 1,650.00 300.00 4 400.00 650.00 250.00 Unit 4-2-74 1 3,500.00 4,250.00 750.00 2 150.00 800.00 650.00 3 4,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 4 1,750.00 2,500.00 750.00 5 400.00 750.00 350.00 Unit 5-2-74 1 7,500.00 9,500.00 2,000.00 2 2,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 3 1,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 -13- 1 2 3 4 300.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 Unit 6-2-74 850.00 4,500.00 1,450.00 5,000.00 550.00 1,000.00 450.00 1,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 700.00 1,000.00 150.00 150.00 500.00 100.00 750.00 2,250.00 200.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 300.00 5,000.00 7,500.00 Unit 7-2-74 950.00 1,750.00 450.00 400.00 1,000.00 500.00 1,250.00 2,750.00 450.00 1,750.00 3,000.00 850.00 600.00 6,000.00 8,500.00 250.00 750.00 300.00 250.00 500.00 400.00 500.00 500.00 250.00 750.00 500.00 350.00 300.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20,000.00 1,000.00 20,0O0.O0 3,000.00 7,000.00 5,000.00 2,750. O0 1,200.00 Unit 8-2-74 Unit 9-2-74 25,000.00 2,000.00 25,000.00 4,500.00 9,500000 6,000000 3,250.00 2,400o00 5,000.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 1,200.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4,800.00 8,500.00 6,000.00 3,500.00 1,600.00 3,200.00 35,000.00 Unit 1-3-74 7,500.00 10,000.00 7,750.00 4,800.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 40,000.00 2,700.00 1,500.00 1,750.00 1,300.00 900.00 1,800.00 5,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Unit 2-3-74 25,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 -14- 1 2 15,000.00 3,000.00 Unit 3-3-74 17,500-. O0 5,000. O0 2,500.00 2,000.00 1 2 3 4 ~600.00 1,000.00 300.00 3,000.00 Unit 4-3,74 1,850.00 2,500.00 1,200.00 4,500.00 1,250.00 1,500.00 900.00 1,500.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8,500.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 4,5OO.OO 7,250.00 6,000.00 1,200.00 6,500.00 Unit 1-4-74 11,000.00 12,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 8,500.00 7,500.00 2,500.00 10,000.00 2,500. 2,000. 1,000. 1,500. 1,250. 1,500. 1,300. 3,500. O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 1 2 3 35,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 Unit 2-4-74 40,000.00 6,500.00 7,500.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 1 2 3 4 5 Unit 3-4-74 5,000.00 7,500.00 2,500.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00 -15- FRANK R. DAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW of Plainview, Texas, appeared representing Norman Dulaney and Mrs. Blanche Ihlenfeldt as opposed to the paving in Unit 2-3-74 and Unit 3-3-74, stating that the street did not drain and that the paving would be underwater during the periods of excessive rainfall and that the cost of the paving would not enhance the value of the property as much as the cost to the owner of the land. NORMAN DULANEY also appeared in person pertaining to the same units mentioned above and took the same position. MALCOLM TISDEL appeared in opposition to the paving in Unit 3-3-74 to the land owned by him in said unit stating that the enhancement of the property of improvements would not be as much as the cost of improvements to him. MRS. J. J. EDWARDS appeared by letter in opposition to the paving of her property located in Unit 3-3-74. LLANO INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. appeared by correspondence as being in opposition to the paving of their property located in Unit 3-3-74. BILL WEAKS appeared by letter in favor of the property located in Unit 3-3-74. LANCE MARRIOTT appeared in favor of the paving in Unit 30-1-74 and in which Unit he owns property. JUAN A. MEJIA appeared in favor of paving the property located in 30-1-74. JESSE MARRIOTT appeared and stated that he was in favor of paving property owned by him in Unit 30-1-74 and that he would sign a Mechanic's Lien. DAN MARRIOTT appeared and was opposed to paving his abutting property located in Unit 7-2-74. RUPERTO PADILLA appeared by letter and stated that he was in favor of paving the street abutting his property located in Unit 7-2-74. MRS. T. E. ALEXANDER (representing Mrs° A. D. Hughes, Mrs. R. R. Young, and J. T. Alexander) appeared by letter and opposed the paving in Unit 7-2-74. FORT WORTH & DENVER RAILROAD appeared in person and by letter and stated that it would not enhance their property to put curb and gutter thereon and under the law they were only obligated to improve the property where the rails were and two feet on each side thereof. pANHANDLE COMPRESS COMPANY appeared by letter and opposed by letter the paving of their property located in Unit 7-2-74. LUTHER BRADY appeared by letter and opposed the paving in Unit 7-2-74. DAN MARRIOTT appeared by letter and opposed the paving in Unit 4-2-74. CECIL R. MCCORMICK appeared and opposed the paving in Unit 2-4-74. REV. GLENN GODSEY representing himself and his church appeared and was in favor of paving in Unit 25-1-74. -16- DOUG GRAHAM appeared representing the LIZZIE MERRY, AN TRUST and stated that he was against paving the street abutting the property owned by the Trust in Unit 25-1-74, and that the cost of the paving would not enhance the value of the property equal to the cost of the paving and that he would sell the property for the cost (proposed cost) of the paving. PLAINVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT appeared by letter and stated that they did not own the property located in Unit 25-1-74. MARY GODSEY appeared as Trustee representing Andrew Pacheco as being in favor of the paving in Unit 22-1-74. JOE W. BAKER appeared by reply to the Notice and by correspondence as being opposed to the paving in Unit 22-1-74. RAUL LANDEROS appeared by letter and was in favor of paving in Unit 22-1-74. ARISTEO GALVAN appeared in person and stated that he was in favor of the paving in Unit 26-1-74. MANUELITA AGUILAR (represented by Mrs. Chavez) appeared by Mrs. Chavez and was in favor of paving in Unit 26-1-74. THE LIZZIE MERRY~tN TRUST represent'ed by Doug Graham in person appeared as being opposed to the paving of property owned by them and located in Unit 26-1-74, and testifying as he had previously testified pertaining to the enhancement. ALBINO and RAY SAENZ appeared and were represented by Jesus Barrera and Rev. Godsey, and stated that they were in favor of the paving in Unit 21-1-74. LUIS SEPEDA, FRANCISCA SOLIS both appeared in person and stated that they were in favor of the paving in Unit 21-1-74. FOXWORTH-GALBRAITH LIIMBER COMPANY appeared by letter as being opposed to the paving in Unit 21-1-74. ISAAC SEPEDA appeared by letter and was in favor of the paving in Unit 21-1-74. J. W. BAKER appeared by letter being opposed to paving in Unit 21-1-74. FORT WORTH & DENVER RAILROAD CO. appeared represented by Mr. Neil Kretzer, both in person and by letter to the Council stating that he was opposed to the opening of the crossing in Unit 33-1-74, stating that there was a crossing just one block from there and this would be a traffic hazard to have another crossing close to one that is already there. ADELA FRANCO represented by Jose Rodriquez vgho was also present and stated that ADELA FRANCO was opposed to the paving in Unit 2821-74. B. E. MYERS appeared pertaining to the paving in Unit 3-1-74 and stated that he was opposed to the paving. SIMON CASTILLO appeared and stated that he was in favor of the paving in Unit 3-1-74 and that he would sign a Mechanic's Lien. JESSE R. KIDWELL appeared and stated that he was in favor of the paving in Unit 4-1~74. -17- AUBREY E. LACEY appeared and stated that he was opposed to the paving in Unit 4-1-74 and FRANK L. PEREZ appeared as also being opposed to the paving in said Unit. FLORID I. HARMON appeared and stated that the property was his homestead, referring to the property in Unit 4-1-74 and that he was opposed to the paving. JOANN HARRISON appeared pertaining to property that she owns in Unit 5,1-74 and said that she could not afford to pay for the paving and that she was opposed. GEORGE L. DAVIS appeared pertaining to the paving in Unit 5-1-74 and said that he could not afford to pay for the paving and that it was his homestead and that he was opposed to it. LARRY WRIGHT appeared as being opposed to the paving in Unit 5-1-74 and said that he could not afford to pay for the paving to be assessed against him in that Unit and that the property was his homestead. C. W. MURPHY, JR. appeared as being opposed to the paving in Unit 6-1-74 and said that he could not afford to pay for the cost of paving. ALVIN R. FORD and JAMES R. ALDERSON both appeared as being opposed to paving in Unit 6-1-74. GREGORIO D. RODRIGUEZ appeared pertaining to the paving in Unit 7-1-74 and stated that he was in favor of the paving. BILLY L. NYE also appeared pertaining to said Unit and stated that he was in favor of the paving. ANTONIO LA FUENTE also appeared pertaining to the paving of Unit 8-1-74 and stated that he was in favor of paving in that unit. CRESCENCIO GARZA also appeared pertaining to the paving in Unit 8-1-74 and stated that he was in favor of the paving. ROMAN HERNAI~DEZ appeared (by letter) pertaining to the paving in Unit 8-1-74 and stated that he was opposed to the paving. SALVATION A~MY stated (by letter) that they could not afford to pay for the paving pertaining to the property in Unit 9-1-74. FAUSTINO CERDA appeared and stated that he was opposed to the paving and ELPIDIO RENTERIA appeared and said that he was in favor of the paving (both of them appearing by letter. Letters were introduced as evidence from CLEMENTE GALVAN and ARTHUR R, GARCIA pertaining to the paving in Unit 10-1-74 both of them being in favor of the paving. Letters were introduced from JUANITA ALANIS and JOE BAKER pertaining to paving of property owned by them in Unit 10-1-74, both were opposed thereto. JOSEPHINE PARKER stated that she was opposed to the paving of the property owned by her in Unit 11-1-74. ANNIE Z. TILLIE appeared also pertaining to said Unit by letter and stated that she was opposed. E. M. GIVENS appeared by letter and stated that he was opposed to the paving of the property owned by him in Unit 13-1-74. MRS. S. E. CURRY appeared by letter as being opposed to paving of the property owned by her in Unit 14-1-74. -18- . ANNIE MAE JACKSON JONES appeared by letter and was opposed to the paving of the property owned by her in Unit 16-1-74. JESSE SHOALS appeared and was opposed to paving the property in Unit 17-1-74. FRANKIE CARTER, VELMA CAMPBELL and WALTER GRIFFIN appeared and were in favor of paving the property located in Unit 17-1-74 and stated that they would sign Mechanic's Liens. J. B. ROBERTS appeared for LLANO INVESTmeNTS pertaining to the paving in Unit 18-1-74 and stated that pavi~g-w6Uld~not enhance the { ropertz as much as it would cost and they would rather deed it than be iable ~or it. MARY L. FORBES also appeared pertaining to Unit 18-1-74 as being opposed to the paving as was CLAUDE R. CASE who appeared pertaining to Parcel 6 of the property in Unit 18-1-74. Letter was introduced from L. E. WILSON stating that he was opposed to paving in Unit 19-1-74, as was C. P. QUISENBERRY whose letter was also introduCed. GRACIE LEWIS appeared as being opposed to paving of her property located on Unit 20-1-74. BEDEL LOPEZ appeared~and stated that he was in favor of paving of the streets in Unit 23-1-74 in which unit he had property involved. CARLOS TREVINO, JR. mailed in a letter which was introduced stating that he was also in favor of the paving in that unit. JACQUES SATURNIO sent in his letter and stated that he was in favor of paving property in Unit 24-1-74 and that he would sign a Mechanic~ Lien. JESUS BARRERA appeared and stated that he was in favor of the paving in Unit 24-1-74, that the same (the property owned by him in that Unit) was his homestead and that'he would sign a Mechanic's Lieno(by letter) ESTEBAN DIAZ also appeared by letter stating that he did not wish to pave and that he could not pay for paving of his property located in Unit 24-1-74. FRED'FOSTER appeared and stated that he was in favor of the paving in Unit 27-1-74 and SOTERO RODRIQUEZ also appeared and was opposed to the paving in Unit 27-1-74. ERNEST KOVAR appeared and stated that he was opposed to paving in Unit 27-1-74 and that he had no money to pay for it. OLLIE MIXON also was opposed to the paving of Unit 27-1-74. D~MACIO FRANCO stated that he was not able to pay for the paving pertaining to the paving in Unit 28-1-74. PANHANDLE COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. appeared by letter as being opposed to the paving in Unit 28-1-74. CECIL McCORMICK's letter was introduced and he was opposed to the paving of the property in Unit 29-1-74, as was FLOYD THOMPSON and E. P. KUYKENDALL. LANCE J. MARRIOTT appeared by letter and stated that he was in favor of paving his property located in Unit 30-1-74 and that he would sign the Mechanic's Lien, as to the same effect was the letter of JUAN MEJIA. -19- JESS H. MARRIOTT was in favor of paving Parcels 11 and 12 o~med by him in Unit 30-1-74 and stated that he would sign the Mechanic's Lien. He was opposed, however, to paving the property owned bv him and being Parcel 13 on the~grounds that it would not enhance the property as much as the cost of the paving. In regard to Unit 31-1-74, the TRUSTEES of GLAD TIDINGS CHURCH was in favor by letter and PLAINVIEW OIL & BUTANE was opposed to the paving as was EDGAR E. McDONOUGH. MR.~.and MRS. M. D. CARROLL both appeared and Mr. Carroll stated that they could not afford to pave or to pay for the paving of the property owned by them in Unit 32-1-74 and were therefore opposed to paving and also stated that the same is their homestead. JOE COX and STEVE HURT appeared and stated that they were opposed to the paving of the property owned by them in Unit 32-1-74 and questioned the enhancement of the value of the property as much as the cost of paving. ANNIE B..~MEALS appeared and was opposed to paving the property until she had received other public utilities that she needed and couldn't get. REDI-FUEL, INC. appeared by letter and stated that they desired to pave and would pay for their part of the paving. Pertaining to Unit 33-1-74, W. D. HOLLARS appeared by letter and stated that he would pay cash for paving. FORT WORTH & DENVER RAILWAY CO. appeared by NEIL KRETZER and stated that they were opposed to the assessment to them of the amount shown in Unit 33-1-74. MICHAEL WALL and CHESTER FRAME were in favor of paving the Unit 33-1-74 in which they own Parcels 8 and 9, respectively. BILLY RAY FRANKLIN was in favor of paving the property and stated that he owned Parcel 11 of Unit 34-1-74. P~RY BUBLIS appeared by letter stating she was in favor of paving pertaining to Unit 34-1-74. BERTHA HUDDLESTON HOLT was opposed to paving in Unit 34-1-74 in which she owns Parcel 4. WILSON DAFFERN appeared by letter and stated that he was in favor of paving Unit 36-1-74 and would pay cash. OPAL FAYE WOOD was in favor of paving Unit 37-1-74 and would sign a Mechanic's Lien (by letter). M. E. HENDERSON was also in favor and stated that he would pay cash. (by letter) Pertaining to Unit 38-1-74, letters were introduced as being opposed to the paving from DEE BUSBY, RUBEN MARTINEZ, JOHNNY GRAY, and J. J. S~MBOL appeared in person and opposed the paving. MRS. FREDA N. WILCHER stated that the paving~did not touch her property. ORAND MEAD and J. T. DAILY also were opposed to the paving of Unit 38-1-74 and appeared by letter. In regard to Unit 39-1-74, DAVID DAILY, JR., E. N. MUSE, MRS. A. C. MOORE, S. H. WATSON, JOE BRUCE SANDLIN and J. T..DAILY were all opposed to the paving in that Unit. 20- WILL FONDREN, J. J. CRANK, PAUL H. McCARTY, FANNIE RICHEY, MRS. A. J. KIERKSEN, and D. W~ DUNCAN being the property owners in Unit 40-1-74 except Parcel 6, were all opposed to the paving of that Unit. In regard to Unit 1-2-74, TERESA REAS appeared for her mother, MItS. MANUEL LEAL in regard to Parcel 6 and stated that she could not afford to pay for the paving and did not have the money and that it was her homestead. MARTIN ORTEGON appeared by letter as did RENULFO RENTERIA and J. M. TREVINO and they stated that they were in favor of the paving and that they would sign a Mechanic's Lien, in regard to Unit 1-2-74. By letter the following opposed the paving in Unit 2-2-74, J. M. TREVINO, MARTIN ORTEGON and DORIS CROSSLAND. In regard to Unit 3-2-74, LARRY WILLIkMS, the owner of Parcel 3 was opposed to the paving and said that he would sell the property for $750.0Owhich was less than the cost of the paving to him. In regard to Unit 4-2-74, CECIL R. McCOR_MICK and DAN MARRIOTT were opposed to the paving of that unit as were JOE W. BAKER and P. V. CARGILL. In Unit 6-2-74, JOSE RAMOS, MAXIMO ALANIX, MANUEL RAMIREZand ALEJANDRO CASTILLO were all opposed to the paving and they were the owners of all of the parcels in that unit. In regard to Unit 8-2-74, PANHANDLE COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE and PANHANDLE & SANTA FE RAILROAD CO. were opposed to paving of that property. In regard to Unit 9-2-74, JOE COX and STEVE HURT appeared in opposition to the paving. REDI-FUEL, INC. appeared by letter and stated that they were in favor of the paving and would pay what it would cost them. B. K. THRUSTON appeared by letter and was in favor of paving in Unit 1-3-74. Pertaining to Unit 1-4-74, W. E. GOODGION was opposed to the paving until such time as the horse situated existing on Mr. Henry' property was straightened out and that lot cleaned up. S By letter, D. W. HENRY was.opposed to the paving of Unit 1-4-74. By letter, ELLEN S. ASH and CLARENCE A. GAITHER were both opposed to the paving in Unit 1-4-74. In_regard to Unit 2-4-74, B. K. TH~ISTON and WADE CLARK by letter were in favor of the paving. PLAINVIEW CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, owner of the property in Unit 3-4-74 let it be know~ that they were opposed to the paving insofar as they had to pay for it because they had no money available to pay for it. C. B. CLINE, JR. appeared by letter and stated that he was in favor of paving in Unit 3-4-74. No further testimony was introduced at said hearing. -21- The meeting recessed at 6 P.M. (at which time in the Council Chambers there was no one who wished to be heard) until 7:30 P.M. The hearing resumed at 7:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked if there were any other parties present who desired to be heard on any matter in connection with the improvements under consideration, but there being no other persons present who desired to be heard, the Mayor announced that the hearing was closed and directed the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance incorporating the findings of the City Council when made. (g) That at said hearing no protests, objections or testimony were offered as to said improvements, the contracts or assessments therefor; or as to any of the proceedings in reference thereto except as hereinabove set out; that the City Council has heard all parties who appeared and desired to be heard as to the special benefits, in enhanced value to accrue to said abutting property and the real and true owners thereof as compared with the portion of the cost of constructing said improvements proposed to be assessed against said abutting property, and has heard all parties appearing and offering testimony, together with all objections and protests relative to such matters and relative to any errors, invalidities or irregularities in-any of the pro- ceedings and contract for said improvements, and has given a full and fair hearing to all parties making or desiring to make any such protest or objection or to offer testimony, has fully examined and considered all of said evidence, matters, testimony and objections offered. ~ (h) That based on the evidence, matters, testimony and objections considered at such hearing the said City Council has determined that the properties, and each and every parcel of such property abutting upon the streets and Units as hereinafter set out, will be enhanced in value and specially benefited in an amount in excess of the amount of the cost of such improvements proposed to be, and as hereinafter, assessed against each of said parcels of property, abutting upon said streets, and the real and true owners thereof, except as hereinafter found and determined. -22- (i) That said City Council is of the opinion, and finds, that the Front Foot Plan or Rule, if uniformly applied will result in an equitable adjustment of the costs to be assessed against abutting properties and the real and true owners thereof. And, therefore adopts the Front Foot Plan or Rule for the apportionment of costs of said improve- ments as against the abutting property and the real or true owners thereof. SECTION 2. There being no further protests or testimony for or against or in reference to said improvements, benefits or proceedings, said hearing granted to the real and true owners of properties abutting upon said streets or Units, within the limits herein defined, and to all persons, firms, corporations and estates and railroads, owning or claiming same or any interest therein, shall be, and the same is hereby closed, and all protests and objections whether specifically mentioned, or not, shall be, and the same are hereby overruled and denied, except as hereinafter provided in this Ordinance designating those said protests that are s~stained. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines upon the evidence heard in reference to each and every parcel of land '~ ~ abutting upon the streets and units hereinafter set out that the enhancement in value to accrue to said property and the real and true owners thereof by virtue of the construction of said improve- ments in said portions of said streets, will be in excess of the amount of the costs of said improvements propoSed to be made, and as assessed against said abutting properties~and the real and true owners thereof; and finds that the apportionment of the costs of said improvements and the assessments hereinbelow made are just and equitable and produce substantial equality, considering the benefit.s received and the burdens imposed thereby, and are in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the Charter of the City; and further finds that all proceedings and contracts heretofore had with referenc~ to said improvements are in all respects regular, proper and valid, and that all prerequisites to the fixing of the assessment liens against said abutting properties, as hereinafter described, and the personal liability of the real and true owners thereof, whether named or correctly named herein or not, have been in all things regularly had and performed in compliance with the law and the proceedings of said City Council. -23- SECTION 4. In pursuance of said Ordinance duly enacted by said City Council authorizing and ordering the improvement of said streets and units as hereinbelow set out, which Ordinance was passed, as aforesaid, on the 10th day of September, 1974, and in pursuance of said proceedings heretofore had and enacted by said City Council in reference to said improvements and by virtue of'the powers vested in said City with respect to said street improvements by the laws of the State of Texas, with particular reference to Chapter 106 of the Acts of the First Called Session of the 40th Legislature of the State of Texas, known and shown as Article l105-b Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended, and Section 199 of the Charter of the City of Plainview, Texas, there shall be, and is hereby levied, assessed and taxed against the respective parcels of property hereinafter described and abutting upon said streets and units hereinafter set out and within the limits below defined and against the real and true owners of such property whether such real and true owners be named or correctly named, or said properties be correctly described herein or not, the several sums of money hereinbelow, mentioned (in the inserted and attached Engineer's Roi1) and itemized opposite the description of the respective parcels of said property, the number of front feet of each, and the several amounts assessed against same and the real and true owners thereof, and the names of the apparent owners thereof, all as corrected and adjusted by said City Council, and as shown on the Engineer's Roll for paving assessment, inserted herein and made a part hereof and being as follows, to-wit: -24- ~ r ~ r Z 0 o ~ --,I ,,I- Z I11 f.~ ! I '1~1 I11 I11 O' ! m i11 o m ~ 0 0 '! rml · m 0 ., r' m Z G~ U) C o r r -r Ill .o hq Z {mm 0 ;0 .( Z 0 .o '~ Z I11 O) I ! ! ,,, r ~ r Z Z 0 x<~ o ~ ~ ~ z 0 ~ .( ]) o ol r' 0 0 ~0 ~ 0 0 Z 0 ~ Z 0 o :~ ~ ,,4 O; (") ]) 0 ~ 0 Z · , 0 0 0 1 0 I- r' ra ..-i .-.,i 0 i ! 0 r la, 0 m -4 -! 0 ! Z G) C J) ! ! f- 'irt m _ ~ 0 0 I'll ~<~ ~zo_~ m m m m 'lq m m 0 m --I I I m z o o I r r 0 ~ .~ ! 0 Z Z 0 X~ m z ~o~_ Z 0 0 ' 0 ~ -4 Z 0 ! 0 1 'r~l ,~,. I11 rtl 0 II.Y. /1~ ,i~ / / t 11 /I I / 0 Z 0 r' z ~o=_ 0 -i 0 o Z I11 I11 0~. U) ra =4 -4 0 ~o .~ m I11 ~ r ~ r 0 r r o m _~ ! Z m I11 o~ o I ITl G) Z I m o o iii X~, o m .~ ! 0 -i 0 · r r ! 0 r Il m ~ 0 m -4 ! ~ - -- ~ ' ~ [ . I I ~ 1~ I'° ~ ~' ~- ; / t ¢~- . / ~ { · [. [ / · t {~ i ~ ~ ~ / +~-' : ~ ,~ ,T~z / t - ~ , ~I , ~ o ~, , ! , ~ ~ j -- ~ ~ ~ l-- ,~ . ~1 ' ' i ~ I ~ ~11 ). ~ ' ~ : - ~ ~ ~qi {: : ~: i ~ . . ~ ~ i . . ,..~~! . · ~ :~ = ': ~ ~: ~ : . ', · I I ~ t I · · , ~ . ~ ! , ~ ' ' i 'T- { ' '~' I :~CllC~ ' i '6' ~ ~o ~i , ~ II ,~., ~ ~ , ~ , ' ,,~ - * ~ 0 I 'In Z rn I11 0 o ~ -~ _~ ]) 0 -I I ~r I"Jl -I Z ~ o ~o~ SECTION 5. The assessments levied in Section 4 above are for a portion of the costs of said improvements in the streets and Units therein set out, and the assessments for the improvements in said Units are in nowise related to, or connected with, the improvements or assessments in any other of the streets or Units described zn said ordinance or each other; and in levying said assessments the amount so assessed for the improvements in said Units have been in nowise affected by any fact or thing in any way connected with the improvements or the assessments therefor in any other of said Units. The omission of the improvements in any of said streets or Units as a whole shall in nowise affect nor impair the validity of the assessments in any other of said Units and the omission of the improvements in any particular street or Unit in front of any parcel of property exempt from the lien of such assessments or against which a valid property assessment cannot be levied, shall zn nowise affect nor impair the validity of the assessments against the other properties in such Unit. SECTION 6. The several sums mentioned above in Section 4 hereof, assessed against said parcels of abutting property and the real and true owners or owner thereof, whether said owners be named or correctly named, or said properties be correctly described herein or not, together with interest thereon at the rate of seven and one-half per cent (7 1/2%) per annum and with reasonable attorney's fees and all costs and expense of collec- tion, if incurred, are hereby declared to be and made a first and prior lien upon the respective parcels of property against which same are assessed from and after the date said improvements were ordered by said City Council, and a personal liability and charge against the real and true owner or owners thereof, whether or not such owner or owners be named or correctly named herein, paramount and superior to all other liens, claims or titles, except for lawful ad valorem taxes; and that the sums so assessed shall be payable to the City of Plainview, or its assigns as follows, to-wit: in three (3) equal installments, the first of which will be payable ten (10) days after the com- pletion of the specified improvement of such Unit and the acceptance of said improvements by said City Council, the second installment shall be due and payable one (1) year after the first installment is due and payable, and the third installment shall be due and payable two (2) years after the first installment is due and payable. Ail of such amounts so assessed shall bear interest annually from the date the first installment is due and -25- payable until paid at the rate of seven and one-half per cent (7 1/2%) per annum, past due installments or principal to bear interest at the same rate per annum until paid, so that upon the completion and acceptance of the said City Council of the improvements in any Unit or portion of street above defined, the assessments against the property abutting upon such completed and accepted Units shall be and become due and payable by install- ments and with interest as above provided; however, any owner of such property shall have the right to pay off the entire amount of any such assessment, or any installment thereof before maturity by paying principal and accrued interest to date of said payment; and provided further, that if default shall be made in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when due, then the entire amount of said assessment upon which default is made, at the option of the City of Plainview, or its assigns, shall be and become immediately due and payable and shall be collectible, together with reasonable attorney's fees and all costs and expenses of collection, if incurred. SECTION 7. If default shall be made in the payment of any of said sums herein assessed against the said parcels of property, and the real and true owner or owners thereof, collection thereof shall be enforced at the option of the City of Plainview, or its assigns., either by suit in any court having jurisdiction, or by sale of the property assessed as nearly as possible in the manner as may be provided by law in force in said City for the sale of property for the collection of ad valorem taxes. SECTION 8. For the purpose of evidencing said assessments, the liens securing same and the several sums assessed against the said parcels of property, and the real and true owner or owners thereof, and the time and terms of payment, and aid in the enforce- ment thereof, assignable certificates shall be issued by the City of Plainview, Texas, to the City of Ptainview upon the completion and acceptance and payment by the City of Plainview to High Plains Pavers, Inc.~for said improvements in any Unit or portion of street above defined, which certificates shall be executed by the Mayor in the name of the City, attested by the City Clerk with the Corporate Seal, and which shall declare the amounts of said assessments and the times and terms thereof, the rate of interest thereon, the date of the completion and the acceptance of the improvements for which the certificate ms issued; and shall contain the name of the apparent owner or owners as accurately as possible, and the description of the property assessed by lot and block number or front foot thereof, or such other descriptions as may otherwise identify the same, and -26- if the said property shall be owned by an estate or firm, then to so state the fact shall be sufficient, and no error or mistake in describing any such prgperty or in giving the name of any owner or owners, or otherwise, shall in anywise invalidate or impair the assessment levied hereby or the certificate issued in evidence thereof. The said certificate shall further provide substantially that if default shall be made in the payment of any installment of principal or interest ~hen due, then at the option of the City of Plainview, or its assigns, or the holder thereof, the whole of sai.d assessment ~vidence thereby shall at once become due and payable and shall be collectible with reasonable attorney's fees and all expenses and costs of collection, if incurred.; and said certificate shall set forth and evidence the personal liability of the real and true owner or owners of such property, whether named~ or correctly named therein or not, and the lien upon such property, and that said lien is first and paramount thereon, superior to all other liens, titles, and eharges, except for lawful ad valorem taxes, from and after the date said improvements were ordered by said City Council, and shall provid~ in effect, that if default shall be made in the payment thereOf, the same may be enforced, at thle option of the City of Plainview, or its assigns, either by the sale of the property therein described in the manner provided for the collection of ad valorem taxes as above recited, or by suit in any court having jurisdiction. Said certificates shall further recite in effect that all the proceedings with reference to making said improvements have been regularly had in compliance with the law in force in said City and proceedings of the City Council of said City, and that all pre- requisites to the fixing of the assessment lien against the property and the personal liability of the real and true owner or owners thereof, evidenced by such certificates, have been regularly done and performed, which recitals shall be evidence of all the matters and facts so recited, and no further proof thereof shall be required in any court. The said certificates may have coupons attached thereto in evidence of each or any of the several installments thereof, which may be signed with the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk. Said certificates shall further provide in effect that the City of Plainview, Texas, shall exercise all of its lawful powers, when -27- requested so to do by the holder of said certificates, to aid in the enforcement and collection thereof, and said certificates may contain other and further recitals pertinent and appropriate thereto. It shall not be necessary that said certificates shall be in the exact form as above set forth, but the substance and effect thereof shall suffice. SECTION'9. Ail such assessments levied are, and shall be a personal liability and charge against the respective real and true owner or owners of said abutting properties, notwithstanding such owner or owners may not be named or correctly named, and any irregularity in the name of the property owner, or the description of any property or the amount of any assessment, or in any other matter or thing shall not in anywise invalidate or impair any assessment levied hereby or any certificate issued, and any such mistake, or error, invaliditiy or irregularity, whether in such assessment or in the certificates issued in evidence thereof, may be, but is not required to be, in order to be enforceable, corrected at any time by the City Council of the City of Plainview, Texas. The total amounts assessed against the respective parcels of property abutting upon the Units or portions of streets above set out, and the real and true owner or owners thereof, are the same, or less than, the estimates of said assessments prepared by the City Engineer and approved and adopted by said City Council, and are in accordance with the proceedings of said City relative to said improvements and assessments therefor, and with the terms, powers and provisions of said Chapter 106 of the Acts of the First Called Session of the 40th Legislature of the State of Texas, commonly known as Article l105-b of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended, under which terms, provisions and powers of said Acts said improvements and assessments were had and made by said City Council. SECTION 10. That~based upon the ~hearing pe~ta~ning'~to the ~~e~-~shetd:on Octob~r 17j 1'974~ ~t~ .Council finds that because of problems of enhancement, homestead, desire of abutting property owners to pave abutting streets, it is not feasible or practical to pave all of those certain streets, not included and described in Section 4 hereof, but referred to and designated in Ordinance No. 74-1623 of the City of Plainview. The Mayor of the City of Plainview is hereby authorized to execute releases of any lien either express or implied of the City of Plainview affected in any way by Ordinance No. 74-1623 -28- and prior ordinances referring to the same property and streets that is not included and covered by this Ordinance. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed as affecting in any way a release of the City's liens or any other rights or equities that the City has by virtue of this Ordinance and prior ordinances pertaining to the abutting property described in this Ordinance and in regard to which a lien zs fixed in accordance with the terms and provisions of Article l105-b, of the State of Texas. 'SECTION 11. The fact that the portions of the streets and Units as~ofore and hereinabove provided for are in bad and dangerous condition and should be improved without delay creates an emergency and imperative public necessity for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, requiring that the Charter Rule providing that no ordinance shall go into effect before the expiration of ten days from the date of its final passage and all other rules requiring more than one reading, or prohibiting the passage of an ordinance on the date introduced and the taking effect of said ordinance on the day of introduction and passage, be and the same are hereby suspended; and this Ordinance shall be passed and take effect as an emergency measure and be in full force from and after its passage as provided by law, and it is so ordained PASSED this the 10th day of December , 1974, by an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) or more of the City Council. APPROVED this the ATTEST: 10th day of December , 1974. / ~_/~. l-iN D. Mayor ~City of Plainview M. Clerk City of Plainview