Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - City Council - 1989 - 01/17 - Special CalledALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLRD - SPECIAL SESSION RECONVENE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAIN (MCDERMOTT) STREET ASSESSMENT PHASES II AND III JANUARY 17, 1989 Present: Joe Farmer, Mayor Council Members: Rex Womack Jerry Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Bobby Glass Jim Wolfe Jim Pendleton Gary Edstrom City Staff Jon McCarty, City Manager Marty Hendrix, City Secretary A. Don Crowder, City Attorney Bill Petty, Director of Community Development Guests- Conrad Callicoate, consulting engineer with Graham Associates, Inc. Bruce McCarver, the appraiser, representing with Metro Appraisal Service, Inc. With a quorum of the Council Members present, the called - special session of the Allen City Council was called to order by Mayor Farmer at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the Allen Municipal Annex, One Sutler Circle, Allen, Texas. Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F. M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) from U. S. 75 to Allen Drive, McDermott Drive from Allen Drive to a Point 360 Feet East of the East Right -of -Nay Line of Dogwood Drive, Dogwood Drive from Main Street to McDermott Drive, and Main Street from Dogwood to State Highway 5 Within the City Limits of (Agenda Item II) ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 2 the City of Allen, As to the Amount to be Assessed Against Rath Abutting Property and Owner Thereof, and to All Persons Interested in Said Matter, and As to the Benefits to Said Property by Reason of the Improve- ments or Any Other Matter or Thing in Connection Therewith on the Above Subject Streets. (Agenda Item II) Mayor Farmer advised the Council of some handout materials that had been distributed to the Council and explained that one showed the engineer's roll with appropriate corrections, a list of questions that had been posed at the first public hearing held on January 10 and the answers to those questions, and other information on the project. Mayor Farmer advised that he would like the record to reflect that due to his absence during a part of the meeting held on January 10, he has obtained a copy of the tapes of that meeting and has had an opportunity to review those tapes and all materials that were presented at that time and discussed the happenings of the evening with the City Manager and other city staff and he is prepared to 3 continue in his role in this particular process. Mayor Farmer advised that the procedures of this meeting would be that he will turn the meeting back over to Don Crowder, the City Attorney, who will continue with the management of the hearing of testimony and evidence concerning the assessment process. Mayor Farmer advised that Mr. Crowder at the point when all evidence has been presented will turn the meeting back over to him. The Mayor advised that he will then ask the city staff to respond to questions that did arise at the meeting on January 10, they will read those questions and provide answers to the questions and will at that time entertain any other questions that members of the audience might have. Mayor Farmer advised that he will then turn the meeting focus to the Council to consider any evidence that has been presented on individual parcels for the Council's consideration in the adjustment process. Mayor Farmer advised that after that there will be an opportunity for the Council to discuss the total issues, pose any questions that they have, and ultimately then consider adopting the ordinance to execute the assessment, which was set out as the purpose of the meeting. Mayor Farmer asked if there were any questions on the meeting procedures of members of the audience. There were none. Mayor Farmer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F. M. 2170 �n (McDermott Drive) from U. S. 75 to Allen Drive, McDermott Drive from Allen Drive to a Paint 360 Feet East of the East Right -of -Way Line of Dogwood Drive, Dogwood Drive from Main Street to McDermott Drive, and Main Street ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1999 Page 3 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F. M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) from Dogwood to State Highway 5 Within the City Limits of the City of Allen, As to the Amount to be Assessed Against Each Abutting Property and Owner Thereof, and to All Persons Interested in Said Matter, and As to the Benefits to Said Property by Reason of the Improvements or Any Other Matter or Thing in Connection Therewith on the Above Subject Streets." Mayor Farmer turned the meeting over to Don Crowder, City Attorney. Mr. Crowder advised that he would review again the ground rules and make an opening statement on the purpose of this meeting. He advised that the city had no new evidence to present and thus there would be no more evidence on enhanced values or market values or that sort at this particular meeting. He pointed out to the audience that this was their opportunity as citizens to present evidence that counters any evidence that was presented by the city or its staff or its experts at the previous meeting on January 10. Mr. Crowder went on to explain that the City Council is most interested in hearing your opinion and conclusions of a subjective nature, of a competent nature that would deal with the elements and on the matter of value. He advised that for people to go before the Council and talk about life being unfair or that some City Council in years past put the screws to the citizens would not carry any weight. He advised that the City Council heard a great deal of that at the last meeting and they are not unsympathetic or he advised he didn't think this meeting would be conducted tonight. He advised what is relevant is the citizens' opinions and conclusions and any experts or materials of a documentary nature that would bear upon the issue of enhanced value. He advised that would be what would sway or not sway the Council's opinion in connection with any potential vote on this issue. Mr. Crowder addressed an issue that was presented to him today and Mr. Crowder quoted the following: Mr. Crowder: "I received a call from an attorney in Corpus Christi that one of the folks present had generated and asked to be made and that attorney told me that there was a line of cases long standing from the Texas Supreme Court and various Appellant Courts that indicated that the formula -- as I understood what she said -- was that the formula that was being used tonight had been abrogated and laws struck down by the courts. I did a little research before I came over here, couldn't find any cases to support that view and the cases that you presented to me tonight that I just read don't support that view. What it does support is this. There is a (unintelligible word) or tribal issue that could arise between people of different minds as to what enhanced value is. For instance if the City Council should ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 4 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F. M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr. Crowder: vote contrary to your believes tonight, then collectively and individually you have an opportunity and a right, if you will, to go into court and say the City Council is wrong. The values that they took were not the values that actually exist and people of differing minds can differ on the same set of facts. In other words, it is like any other law suit. If two people disagree, then you have a right to go into district court and present your evidence and if the city is still of the same mind they would present their evidence as to value. But, let me assure you that based on the cases you gave me, the formula that the City Council is using is well accepted in Texas law. The testimony that was received at the prior hearing, while it might be rebutted and might be struck down by an appellant court, is the commonly used method of determining enhanced value and so that issue -- I think -- that your attorney stated has been struck down is not entirely correct. Certainly you have a right to disagree with the evidence that was presented at the prior 1 hearing. Certainly nobody on this Council and nobody in this room is going to disagree or obstruct your right of free speech to come before a governing body and petition for a grievance. But, at the same time I would encourage you to be to the point and present your best evidence and give it your best shot, so the Council can make a proper determination of all of the issues before them tonight. We will follow the same format, if you will, that we followed last time. We will go row, by row. Take your time, relax, present all of the evidence you have and we will stay here as long as it takes." At this time, Mr. Crowder asked that all individuals that were going to provide testimony or present any evidence to stand and receive the oath to be administered by the City Secretary. Mr. R. B. Whisenant asked the following question: "My lawyer put out -- and I did a little bit of reading last week and if I didn't read it wrong, if you don't stand up and complain in this hearing, then your rights are lost and gone forever." Mr. Crowder: "No, that is not right. You have an absolutely -- the cases that I presented tonight speak to that point. You have a right to petition for review -- what in affect is an administrative review -- not a trial de novo -- not a whole new trial -- but you have a right to petition for review in a district court to determine whether or not there is evidence of a substantive ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 5 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Impmvements to F. M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr. Crowder: nature that would uphold the opinion of the Council either way. No, you don't loose your right to petition the courts to redress grievances." At this time Mr. Crowder asked everyone that was going to testify or present evidence to stand and raise their right hands. The City Secretary, Marty Hendrix, administered the following oath: "Each of you do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you shall present in this proceeding shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God." Public Testimony: R. B. Wbisenant, 2120 Onetta, Irving, Texas Mr. Wlusenant: "I'm R. B. Whisenant. I live in Irving, Texas, at 2121 Onetta and I'm a property owner in Allen and I speak for myself, my mother, Gladys Whisenant, and Margaret Rankin, who is my mother-in-law. At this time I would like to give the secretary three requests for appeals to our enhancement judgments as set forth in Exhibit "A". Like I said I am not a lawyer and I pulled that 1105a and read it and read the amendments and some of it was upsetting and some of it was -- it seemed to be kind of in our favor. There is a lot of -- as you know -- there is a lot of changes to that since it was written in 1927 and there is also several cases. And the one that I was most interested in was the one about enhancement, because that is my basis of contention, that our property is not being enhanced to the degree that they say it is. And the cases that I read says that this can't be on speculation. I mean we can't say that five years from now my property will be worth twice what it is now - - that's not allowed. In some cases especially in residential property there may not be any enhancement. It may actually go down a bit, which I'm sure would be the case in my mother- in-law's place. Mine and my mother's there is a possibility, but gentlemen it is speculation. I think that the amount set by the appraiser or whoever set the enhancement is arbitrary -- it is based on speculation and we are given no facts to support it. As I said at the last meeting, when I questioned my tax assessment, they have always given me facts and figures. They told me where this place down the street sold for so much a square foot within 2,000 feet (unintelligible wording) and generally they were right, but they had facts -- they did not ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 7 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F. M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr. Whisenant: everybody's assessment by 25$. They have to be decided on an individual property -- abutting property owner's condition. Mr. Crowder: "You mean if it goes into court?" Mr. Whisenant: "However... Whether I can settle it with the Council in a meeting or whether -- as I'm saying as I read this -- and I could be wrong -- it can't be -- it can't be settled in mass. They can't just say "we are going to give all of you'aU a 25$ reduction. It has to be determined on the facts and the facts pertaining to each parcel of property." Mr. Crowder: "I think you are right." Mr. Wbisenant: "Okay -- I agree with that, so I would encourage everybody here that they get their stuff together, because what I do or don't do is not going to effect your case one iota. Is that ® correct?" Mr. Crowder: "You're right." Mr. Whisenant: "One more thing I would like to say just as a statement. (Unintelligible wording) it was my mother that had property condemned for this highway and at that time there was no mention of any kind of an assessment. Had there been we would have been a little bit harder to deal with, because in that case we took the city's and the state's figures and we settled for that exact amount, without contesting it or giving them any trouble what so ever. And you know if I could have added $10,000 on to that -- sure I'd be glad to pay it back for the street, but I couldn't and I didn't. I didn't know it. That's about all I've got. W. D. Nelson, 301 South Cedar Mr. Nelson: "My name is W. D. Nelson. I have property at 301 S. Cedar. I'm concerned that after what I heard during the last week's meeting there is not any evidence that we can show you to change some of your minds about assessing individual property owners 25% of the cost of the Main Street thoroughfare even if we can disprove enhancement values to our properties. Nevertheless, I implore you to give my comments careful consideration. The additional week given to us was not sufficient enough time to adequately research sales of property like ours to show that a thoroughfare does not always enhance ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 6 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item 11) Mr Whisenant. have somebody speculating saying that they were going to build a Safeway over there in five years and your property will be worth $200,000. As I read the cases that have been judged on this thing, that doesn't count unless (unintelligible word) really valid testimony from an appraiser or anybody else. That is about all I have to say I have requested a hearing, but I'm not in a position to present any solid evidence because Ithink to do that I've got to get an expert. I'm going to have to hire me an appraiser as I think everybody else will because what's my testimony worth, what's my opinion worth, not much." Mr Crowder, "Let me respond to that if I can right there because you just hit the nail right on the head at least in part on the basis on what the Council -- I assume is going to consider The people that were offered at the previous hearing were offered as expert witnesses People that had had experience in determining !I, values and things of that sort. They presented credentials. ® Now it is up to the Council -- just like a jury in any kind of case -- to determine and weigh those credentials If they don't feel those people have the credentials to give the opinions and if it is just speculation in their opinion, then they don't have to give any weight to that testimony or those opinions Just like you can if they didn't feel your testimony rose to a certain level -- they might give it a lesser weight than they would say an expert's opinion. So, that's really what the entire matter is all about. It is just the credible evidence and testimony of the various folks expert and none, as to what these values are. And, again, it will be up to the Council to determine what weight to give everybody's testimony and opinion. And that's really basically what it is If you go into court, that's exactly what's going to happen again. These cases that I was presented tonight state that very fact that the district court would at that time weigh whether there was any substantial evidence before the Council upon on which they could have rendered the decision that they rendered. If they find that there was substantial evidence, then they can uphold the decision of the Council. I'm assuming that they voted for the special enhancement. If they didn't, then presumably they wouldn't strike it down, and that's basically the legal standard that would be applied if you went into court. Mr Whisenant. "Let me ask you one more question. Again, as I read Vernon's Statutes and amendments, these cases have to be decided on an individual basis. They cannot be decided in mass. In other words the Council couldn't vote and say that we will cut ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 8 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Nelson. "the value of property like ours The point has been made by the city that changes being made adjacent to our home can no longer be viewed as affecting a residential area since it has been designated the Central Business District. But I see no evidence of commercial ventures hungry to gobble up this property and I personally don't expect to ever see that happen. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so and certainly shouldn't be used for appraisal assumptions. Instead, I propose that we consider the negative impact of this thoroughfare to our home. No benefits conferred by the improvement proposed assessments would exceed any enhanced value resulting from improvements. Property is currently used exclusively for residential purposes Street access is good prior to construction. Existing road is in reasonably good repair and adequate for the purpose for which it was intended. The thoroughfare will actually be a detriment to the quiet enjoyment of our property There are numerous cases where the Supreme Court of Texas has sided with landowners that their property has not been enhanced simply because a thoroughfare now abuts their property Examples include the City of Houston versus Troy Blackburn July 4, 1965, the City of Abilene versus Bill C. Haynes November 9 1983 I also feel that assessing each landowner equally without regard to any enhancement to each individual is wrong On May 12, 1984, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the City of Houston Ordinance No. 77180 is void because the city was arbitrary in assessing the dollar amount for front foot that each property owner must pay The assessments at $60 73 were made uniformly and without regard for any special benefits inferred to the properties. Since the assessments for paving improve- ment were made on a basis other than for benefits inferred it is unconstitutional and void, and I quote the State Supreme Court. On a personal note, I took a look at Resolution No. 609- 5-85 and a copy of the ballot that I used to vote on the 22nd day of June, 1985 No where in either of these documents did it ever mention there would be an assessment of 25$ of construction costs to adjacent property owners As a second generation Allenite, I'm sorry that I have not paid enough attention to the enter workings of our city government. Had I known four years ago that my parents and people like the Carrolls Fords, Hefners and the Chumbleys, long time residents would go through this hardship, I assure you I would have not voted yes to Proposition 4. I do not believe that a majority of the people who voted you into office and voted "yes" for these proposals would want you to impose a hardship and grief to these people on fixed incomes who can least afford ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 9 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Nelson. it. The phrase "a few must suffer for the benefit for all' will not cut it in this case. Under state statutes this City Council is authorized to enforce into costs of paying improvements according to the front foot plan. Unless you determine that application of the rule would in a particular case or cases result in injustices or inequities, the state statute mandates that the governing body shall adjust such apportionment so as to produce as substantial equity of benefits received and burdens imposed. I hope that our city government after a review of each case determines that abdication of the front foot rule does indeed impose an injustice and inequity Thank you." Leon Chumbley 104 and 106 McDermott Mr Chumbley- "Leon Chumbley In the event that there is a cut at the crest of the hill at 104 and 106 East McDermott the property might be left higher than the street. Could be, but it would be hurt. I don't know I have not been able to determine what will happen if there even will be a cut there. I don't know -- it is at the crest of the hill and if you cut that crest off to the level of the street out it could leave 104 and 106 up on a bluff or a little higher hill. It could actually hurt it. Now as I understand the city attorney this thing is left open for negotiation at a later date in case something like that happens that is unforeseen to me the property owner Is that correct?" Mr Crowder, "Bill, are you going to speak to that issue on information that you receive as to any possible later inequities? If you are not, I'll speak to it now " Mr Petty- "I can't speak to that -- I can speak to the engineering I can't to further consideration -- what I will address is the engineering I have discussed this item with Mr Chumbley (unintelligible wording) from an engineering standpoint. What we have agreed to do on that at the preconstruction conference is to have the engineer meet on site and look at the elevation with Mr Chumbley (unintelligible wording) engineering standpoint (unintelligible wording) If we are talking about being able to make adjustments to the plan as long as they don't interfere overall with the design, yes, we have that capability If we are talking legal standpoint, about further consideration then I think that falls under Mr Crowder's jurisdiction. ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 10 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Crowder, "I don't want you to leave here and I don't want you to even sit down believing that the City Council has a great deal of control over negotiating a particular parcel or a particular assessment with any individual owner at a later date. I would tell you as a practical matter forget the legalities, as a practical matter it almost certainly won't happen and the burden of proof that will be on you basically would be almost overwhelming If there is a discrepancy in the legal description or if there is a discrep- ancy in who owns the property if there is a property owner that has been designated as wrong there is certainly a right to go back and clear that other one without any penalty to either party But, I say that once the Council determines the special enhanced value that your property has received in their opinion, if in fact that is their decision, then that's pretty well going to be set in stone and it is going to be almost impossible to overrule that and you may if you wait beyond a certain period of time, you may very well wave your right to go into court. (unintelligible wording) some cases have indicated that there have been long delays in the appeals process the court has upheld the right to go back (unintelligible wording) assessment. But I wouldn't encourage you in any respect and I don't want you depending upon anything that you might foresee happening tonight that you are going to be able to go back and renegotiate this two weeks or two years from now or any time in between." Mr Chumbley• "I won't know until somebody shows me how much of a cut is made at the top of that hill and how much higher my property is going to be than the street. You can leave that property virtually worthless. Make it very difficult to get into and worthless as far as any future development, business development. Might be good for what we are using it for presently But, you can't tell me how much cut is going to be and I can't tell you how much damage you are going to do to the property See you have put me in kind of a hard fix." Mr Crowder, "I understand your position, I just don't have an answer for it " Mr Chumbley• "I don't either but you are fixing to anchor me in concrete and make me immovable but I don't have the information." Mr Crowder- "The only thing I can tell you is this, without researching the question I would assume that if there was a significant drastic change in the nature of your property as a result of some construction formula used by the city that even if this took A A I ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 11 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Crowder- place during the construction phase some period of time from now you have a right to go back in at that time and challenge the question of whether or not your property has been enhanced to the degree voted on. There are some cases that would support you. But, I'm just telling you that as a practical matter it might be a burden that would be forever (un- intelligible wording) to muster (unintelligible wording) Mr Chumbley, "Well, I don't know whether you are going to enhance this property as much as you say it is going to be enhanced. I don't know I hope you do. But, according to what information I can get you don't have the information." Mr Crowder- "That's up to the city's determination. Because whether or not they received sufficient information upon which to make a decision and whether or not that information carries any weight." Mr Chumbley, "And the decision hasn't been made up to this point, as I understand." Mr Petty, "Mr Crowder I'd like to address Mr Chumbley We have reviewed the plans here and the evaluation at that location with the engineer and the cut in the street at that location appears to be less than 12" at that corner " Roland Strain, 300 S. Butler Mr Strain. "Of course last time I issued a plea that this would not happen, but I guess that is a thing of the past. So the only question I need to ask now is the fact -- we understand a lien is already been placed on the properties and I might ask this to the attorney Will we get a copy of these liens that have already been placed against these properties? And if so what amount will be shown on the lien?" Mr Crowder, "I don't think it is a matter of course that they will go out to you. Certainly if you want a copy you can get one " Mr Strain. "So in talking with one of your local realtors this week he said that would have to be resolved before your property could be sold or transferred." Mr Crowder, "There is no question about that." I ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 12 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Strain. "At this time we have no record of what the lien is. Of course what my other question was -- I'm not sure I even checked the legality of -- issuing a lien prior to the charges being placed against the property I would wonder if this would apply in court. Would this carry any weight in court? Since the lien has already been issued against the property and you don't know what the charges are yet. I don't know how you can place a lien against a property when you don't know what. " Mr Crowder- "Let me tell you that it won't make any difference at all as on the question of enhancement value or not enhancement of value. Potentially I guess if you have a sale pending or something of that sort -- you know that you might raise an issue of slander of title or something It won't have any affect on the issue before the Council tonight. And it won't make any difference in court in my opinion. It won't make any difference on enhanced value." Mayor Farmer- "Mr Crowder can we get for the tape a statement of name and property in question?" Mr Crowder, "I'm sorry You want to tell them what. Mr Strain. "I'm Roland Strain representing my mother at 300 S. Butler Of course, as I mentioned to you the other day the other thing is my own personal feeling in regard to -- which Mayor Farmer knows that I retired from the school business. One reason I got out of the school business was I reached a point where mandates, authorities were telling you what to do everyday taking our money telling us how to spend it. You and the Council have the same thing with the citizens of Allen. Ijust think there should be a time and place just for that to cease. You take rebellion -- or they win the battle here but the war is not over I think the time has come -- the State of Texas and the United States -- if we don't take a stand and let the people who have the pencil know -- that's it. Thirty eight years in the school business (unintelligible wording) and I think you will agree with that. Got the mandates week after week - - no money to spend -- but yet you will put in the program like you are doing to us here. You are building a street up off the service right of 150' -- I guess I get one lane of the service right. Your mandating how I spend my money and I think the time has come that the cities, schools, and patrons must speak up and take a stand. Because that street will not help the majority of people you are assessing there (unintelligible warding) They will not use that street. You say it is going I A ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 13 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Strain. to enhance -- I talked to a local realtor this week and he could not -- after he went over the entire enhancement -- he just didn't see how it was figured. Of course at the time you'all were figuring on the cost per footage over -- there had not been a sale in 18 months. He didn't know where the figure came from, because I know enough about real estate that you get the dollar figure from sales, local sales in the same area. So he guessed the value was based on some four or five years previous There's no record of sales at that day and time that (unintelligible word) could have been assessed at that amount of money So, I am of course an outsider and I'm not sure that I am an outsider I spent an hour up here the other night after the meeting I'd be at all of your meetings. I turn to the patrons of Allen and if you don't get involved it's going to continue to happen in all our little towns. Of course it has gotten to the point where they spend the dollar -- they don't ask you how to spend it, they just tell you, you are going to pay it. The time has come -- 38 years in the public school business, I have learned this. I got tired of one of the patrons saying don't need another dollar because the state says we are going to do this. If you don't take a stand -- it will always continue. Thank you." Glenda Ford, property owner Mrs. Ford. "The only thing I have to say I'm Glenda Ford, I think this is still immature. I think it should have been postponed until there is more money appropriated and I'm not in full agreement with this too. I think really the way the road is planned, if I understand it correctly it will not -- it will be a detriment down there where you try to exit back onto Main Street. I think it is just immature." Mr Whisenant: "I would like to ask a question. What was the date of the actual assessment or has these amounts been assessed by the Council?" Mr Crowder* "Actually you are asking at what point in the process does an assessment begin?" Mr Whisenant. "No. I am asking when did the City Council consider and pass if they did, these assessments that we were given on Exhibit 'A" " A ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 14 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Crowder* "My understanding is that the assessment process doesn't begin until the improvements are ordered by ordinance at the action of the Council so they haven't actually begun." Mr Whisenant. (unintelligible wording) City Secretary Marty Hendrix: "We adopted an ordinance to proceed with the assessment and a notice of enactment was filed." Mr Whisenant. "Well, if you have done that to me -- according to what I read here -- you have violated the law It says that you should have this meeting prior to the assessment. That the opportunity for interested owners to be heard prior to determination of benefits and amounts to be assessed against their property is a constitutional necessity and not a matter of legislative grace City of Houston versus Ford." Mr Crowder, "I'm familiar with that case and the process that we are going through right now is exactly what is discussed in that case." Mr Whisenant "If the assessment has already been levied against us?" Mr Crowder, "The assessment process has begun so that the assessment can be levied. That's the whole purpose of this process that we have gone through in the last couple of meetings." Mr Whisenant: "Well, but you have already filed against us in court, have you not -- in the county courthouse. " Mr Crowder- "A lien has been filed." Mr Whisenant: "If that's not an assessment, what is?" Mr Crowder- "You haven't been assessed any amount at this point." Mr Petty "The procedure as required by state law have been followed in the process. The City Council adopted an ordinance ordering the improvements. The next process on that is the adoption of an ordinance approving the plans and specifications and the engineer's role and the placing of a notice of enactment in the Collin County deed records which did indeed place an assessment lien against the property however this process is when the amount of that lien is established, with the adoption of this ordinance." I ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 15 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Conatruction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Crowder, "Mr Mayor and Council the city has no further evidence to present and I turn the meeting back over to you." At this time Mayor Farmer advised that the city staff had prepared a response to several questions that did come up at the meeting on January 10, 1989 or otherwise associated with this question and he asked the City Manager to identify those questions and to provide a response Using the color -coded landscape plan of Main (McDermott) Street Phase II and III, Mr McCarty explained the layout of the roadway explained what existed there now and what was to be constructed. Mr McCarty then reviewed a list of questions that had been posed at the meeting held on January 10, 1989 and provided the answers to those questions Mayor Farmer opened up the meeting to other questions from the audience. Mr Strain. "Will there be curb side parking on McDermott?" Mr McCarty, "No. The city has adopted a policy that says on no thorough- fares will we allow curbside parking and this is designated as a thoroughfare Mr Whisenant. "What are the access restrictions as far as driveways, etc." Mr McCarty, "The city has adopted design criteria that do offer curb cuts to property owners, but based upon spacing requirements. We would have to look at your particular piece of property and the cross streets in order to be able to determine where those might be. I think frankly it would be more beneficial to look at the actual final use of the property and some commercial arrange- ment to determine where best to put those curb cuts The curb cuts will be allowed." Mr Whisenant. "I ask that now because my mother's property now is cut off from the street as I said last week the city was suppose to pave us an alley but they lacked about 30 feet getting far enough for access, which is bad. I was told at that time -- if I didn't misunderstand -- I believe it was you and I'm not sure who else -- that there wouldn't be a driveway into that property any more after this street was constructed." Mr McCarty, "If there is no driveway there now -- under its present use " Mr Whisenant. 'There was." P ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 16 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Conatruction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr McCarty- "I understand that we did create an alley situation to allow access behind to the back of the property --- Our under- standing was that it went all the way to the property line. If that is not the case then " Mr Whisenant. "I don't think anybody would perceive that an alleyway is proper access to the home Mr McCarty- "I think it was based on a temporary situation. I understood it was an agreement between you, the property owner and the city If we haven't lived up to it, then you need to show us what we need to do to finish it and that's what we will do." Unidentified Man. " I have one thing about the Central Business District -- in that some of these homes are homesteads and by being homesteads there are grandfather clauses associated with that and they can remain residents for the next one hundred years. If I choose to sell that property as a residence that person can use it as a residence and it does not have to be a business. And, I think you should look at some of these not as a central business district, it doesn't mean that it's ever going to be a business. It can stay a residence because we have been grandfathered." Mr Petty- "I think I can address that. You are actually right. Whatever the use of that property was and the structure that was there on the date the zoning was changed protected that use from now on. As a matter of fact you -- if it was used as a residence at that time -- you can continue to use it as a residence from now on and you are never under an obligation to give up your use and the only time the city enforcement code would apply was if the use itself changes " Mayor Farmer- "It has not to do with ownership?" Mr Petty- "It has nothing to do with ownership whatsoever -- just the use of the property Even if you change hands 10 times " Mrs. Ford. "Are the property owners -- will we have to build our driveways -- will the driveways be provided when the road is built?" Mr Petty- "Yes, what will occur -- where there is an existing driveway is that a curb cut will be taken and the paving itself will extend I ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 17 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Imprrov nts to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mr Petty- into the back side of the sidewalk so that it will be paved to the back side of the sidewalk and from there on it will be your personal driveway " Unidentified Woman. "What about that -- on down there between Dogwood at the end of Young does that street go straight down there where that old one is -- between Cedar and Dogwood -- at the end of Young Drive -- is that street going straight down that hole where it is now or is it going to kind of ?" Mr McCarty* "It actually will parallel the cemetery " Unidentified Woman. "Okay what will happen to my property and that -- it is at the end of Young Drive -- between Cedar and Dogwood." Mr Petty* "Are you saying what will happen to the front of your property and this?" Unidentified Woman. "Between my property and the road?" Mayor Farmer, "How far are you off of this -- McDermott -- ma'am?" Unidentified Woman. "I am on McDermott." Mr Petty, "Currently we have in that location taken right-of-way off the north side to extend it. The existing right-of-way line has always been at your front property line and it will not change. Your property line will not change and our right-of-way line will not change on that side. Behind the back of the curb, there will be a landscaped area and a five foot sidewalk within that area but it will not infringe past your property line." Unidentified Woman. "Landscaped area?" Mr Petty, "Between the sidewalk and the back of the curb grass." Mayor Farmer, 'Is that a five foot sidewalk?" Mr Petty, "That is a five foot sidewalk." P ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 18 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mayor Farmer, "So between her property and the new road " Mr Chumbley- "Let me clarify this for Ms. Young She wants to know what will happen between the edge of her property and the sidewalk - - there's going to be an area in there apparently -- she feels." Mr Petty- "That area out by the sidewalk will have the appearance of being part of your front yard and you will be able to maintain it just as you have." Mr Strain. 'Did you research back to the initial meeting on the questionianswer session the night we had -- when this was introduced in 1983?" Mr McCarty, "Yes we did." Mr Strain. "Did you find any questions and answers recorded?" Mr McCarty, "I found a couple of things on that. This is a compilation of all of the minutes of the Main Street Committee and the special meeting held by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Main Street Committee After reviewing this entire book, I can only find three references to anything regarding assessments. One of those had to do with a question that was asked by Mr Chumbley and at a public hearing held by the citizens committee and the question was asked whether or not there would be an assessment. The minutes do not provide an answer and we did not tape that meeting so we could not go back and determine it. There is also another reference to the terminology of assessment and street construction in the August 16 1983 Main Street Study Committee Meeting minutes and if I can read that for you, "Discussion was held on the cost of the thoroughfare and the cost of the grade separation. Mr McCarty stated that the county has pledged $1 3 million for the project, the rest of the money would need to come from the state, local bond funds and assessments" There is only one other reference that I have been able to find to that issue and that was in the actual Main Street Study itself and I cited that last week which there is a reference on one of the pages and I will be happy to show you that says that the contemplated funding formula for the project was 25% state, 25$ county 25% city and 25% other In other words, it was not designated. The point is there has been for some time a multiple funding formula contemplated." 11 7 I ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 19 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Air Strain. "The question is there but the answer is not. What happened to the answer?" Mr McCarty "The answer -- if I might be able to is contained in the city's assessment policy that was adopted in 1984." Mr Strain. "It appears to me that in 1983 a verbal commitment from your officials " Councilman Womack. 'It was a Citizen's Committee " Mr McCarty "It was a citizens' committee that was acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council." Mr Strain "The person that made the comment was not a citizen he was on the Council." Mr McCarty "I am unable to substantiate that, because there is no reference in any of the Council minutes where that question came up or that response was given." Mr Strain. "You said that the question was asked." Mr McCarty, "The question was asked of the citizens' committee -- not the City Council. The City Council subsequently adopted a paving assessment policy regarding the Main Street project in December of 1984 " Councilman Womack. 'Did the city furnish staff support to capture the minutes of the citizens' committee? Who kept those minutes?" City Secretary Marty Hendrix: "I did." At this time, Mayor Farmer moved on to the next process in the meeting, that being discussion by the Council on the assessment. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson asked about the letters that had been presented by Mr Whisenant and what was contained in that information. Mayor Farmer reviewed the letters and advised that they were all patterned in the same manner and identified the properties that the letters pertained to and he then read the contents of one of the letters into the record (See Attachments No. 1 2, and 3) ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 20 Reconvene: Public Rearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Councilman Womack pointed out at this time that Mr Whisenant had referenced the enhancement in all of the letters, and Mr Womack wanted to point out that the cost being assessed on those properties was less than the enhance- ments. Mayor Farmer then reviewed each of the lots as to enhancement figures and assessment costs that Mr Whisenant had referenced in his letters Mr Whisenant: "Well am I not correct that the amount that I will be actually assessed is the lesser amount of the two. And I really -- I've got no appeal for the linear foot rule -- that's pretty well set down by law You have a perfect right to assess that, but the enhancement is the only thing we can contest -- as I understand this whole procedure " Mayor Farmer asked for further questions or clarifications Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. "The only question I have is of Bill, and Bill, I don't know whether you can answer this one or not -- it has to do with property number 34. Mrs. Rankin's property That assessment value then -- basically what those figures mean is that the enhancement of that piece of property would be less than the construction cost." Mr Petty* "That is correct, again we cannot assess a piece of property more than it would gain in value in the enhancement. The enhancement was estimated on that property would be less than the construction cost in the amount of $4,000. So in this case it is reduced to the enhancement value rather than the front foot cost. What happens to the difference between those two figures is that the City of Allen pays for it." Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. "That was my question -- the difference between those two figures " Mayor Farmer asked if there were other specific questions on certain lots Mayor Farmer brought up again the question Mr Chumbley has on his property regarding the cut in the roadway Mr Petty responded by stating that they had reviewed the elevation at that location and they find that it should not be affected more than one foot and Mr Petty stated Mr Chumbley advised that he felt that a it would not adversely affect his property Mayor Farmer asked Mr Chumbley if that was his understanding and Mr Chumbley agreed. I F ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 21 Reconvene: Public Hearing on Construction Improvements to F M. 2170 (McDermott Drive) (continued) (Agenda Item II) Mayor Farmer asked again if anyone had any thing else they wished to address Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. "I have a question that was not raised tonight, but -- in going through my previous notes -- Bill, at the last meeting we had a question that was brought up on property number 13 that had to do with the amount of front footage -- Mr Stain's property " Mr Petty, "When I gave my testimony at last week's hearing, I prefaced that and put it into the record that where we might find a discrepancies through the project during construction and prior to the collection -- the number of feet -- anybody that can bring us substantiating evidence reflecting that they got less or more frontage -- that we will administratively adjust that on cost per front foot times the actual frontage that they have We are aware of approximately three properties where that kind of evidence has been brought to us and will probably reduce the frontage by as much as five feet on these pieces of properties That will be handled administratively " Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. "Those types of adjustments -- even if this ordinance is adopted -- those types of adjustments fit in with the package." Mr Petty* "That's correct. When the total assessment is collected on those properties it will be adjusted and the assessment amount will be reduced $78 00 and some odd cents per foot if they have less frontage, and the City of Allen will once again pay that difference." With no further questions, Mayor Farmer moved on to the next agenda item. Ordinance No. 897-1-89: An Ordinance of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, Closing a Public Hearing Given to the Real and True Owners of Property Abutting Portions of Certain Streets in the City of Allen; More Particularly Described as F M. 2170 From U S. 75 to Allen Drive, McDermott Drive From Allen Drive to a Point 300 Feet East of the East Right -of -Way line of Dogwood ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 22 ce No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) Drive, Dogwood Drive from Main to McDermott Drive, and Main From Dogwood to State Highway 5, Within the City Limits of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, Said hearing was Given for the Purpose of Levying Assessment for Part of the Cost of Improving a Portion of the Designated Streets, Fixing Charges and Liens Against Abutting Property Thereon by Virtue of the Improvement of Said Streets, Receiving Evidence as to the Special Benefits in Enhanced Value to Accrue to These Properties, and Considering Errors, Invalidities, or Irregularities in Any of the Proceed- ings or Contract; Providing for the Collections of Such Assessments and the Issuance of Assignable Certifi- cates of Assessments as Evidence Thereof; Providing for the Time, Method and Manner of Payment of Assessments and Certificates; Pro- viding an Effective Date of Passage; Amending Prior Ordinances of the City of Allen to Conform Herewith; and Providing a Severability Clause. (Agenda Item No. III) City Manager McCarty advised that after discussions with legal counsel, it had been determined that the City Council does have flexibility in a number of areas He advised that one of those areas is the amount of interest. He stated that the Council can set an interest rate on this assessment between zero and a maximum of eight percent. The state law bas set the maximum interest rate at eight percent presently He also advised that the interest would begin accruing, if not otherwise stated, at the date the Council adopts the ordinance that is contemplated on the agenda at this meeting. He pointed out that the Council can determine when that interest can begin accruing at any time during the term of the assessment payback period. He advised that the third area that the Council has some flexibility in is when they actually begin the payments He advised that state law allows that payments will begin no earlier than 30 days upon the completion and the certification of the completion of the project by the City Council. He pointed out that the Council can make that period longer He advised that finally the Council has flexibility in the number of years that they can set for the repayment. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance has used five years however state law does not require a specific period of time. He advised that ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 23 Ordinance No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) those are the four areas of flexibility that the city staff and legal counsel have determined that the Council has at its discretion. Mayor Farmer pointed out that since there was a variety of uses in the properties abutting McDermott, i.e. homesteads, rental properties, commercial, etc. he requested that Mr Petty address the letter and the fundamental concept behind the state law regarding the issue of standardization of treatment. Mr Petty advised that in discussions with legal counsel, it had been advised that all properties within an assessment project must be treated the same. He stated the terms and conditions of the collection procedures must be specified within the ordinance. He pointed out that differentiation from that by treating any property owner within the project different from anybody else would be viewed as benefits to certain property owners and would constitute a gift of public funds which is unconstitutional. He stated that what that states is that everyone in the project must be treated the same. Councilman Pendleton asked Mr Petty to explain what happens if a piece of property is sold for less than the enhancement value. Mr Petty stated that is a decision that the property owner has to make and there is no remedy by the city at all. Councilman Pendleton said that what he was getting to was that the value is established and whether the property sells for less than the enhancement value then the value has already been stated and that's what it is going to be. Mr Petty reviewed again what the enhancement represented and how it was determined by the appraiser Mr Petty stated again he was not sure what the question was from Councilman Pendleton. He stated again there is no remedy by the City Councilman Pendleton stated that all he was trying to get at was in the event that what the appraiser was saying does not occur or does not happen. At this time, Bruce McCarver the appraiser with Metro Appraisal Service, Inc. spoke before the Council on Mr Pendleton's question. He advised also that there would be no remedy by the city or anyone else. He explained what the appraisal was based on and how it was calculated. He stated that the major point is that the properties are being looked at for their current market value and the market value after the road is through, taking into consideration the change in highest and best use of the property He added that in answer to Mr Pendleton's question, everyone can only assume that what has occurred historically will continue to occur in the future. A 11 ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17, 1989 Page 24 Ordinance No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) Councilman Edstrom asked about the areas of flexibility and if what is determined now will have any affects on what the Council can do in the future and what has been done in the past. Mayor Farmer advised that he would respond to that in a few moments Mayor Farmer asked if there were any other questions or responses. Mr Benoyla. "I just wanted to reference what Mr McCarty read before in lieu of the interest that is being charged on the assessment -- did I understand you to read that the City Council has the prerogative to select zero to eight percent interest on the assessment?" Mr McCarty- "That's correct." Mr Benoyla. "I was just curious as to why the maximum was selected." Mayor Farmer advised that the answer to that question would be part of the summary statements he would be making Mayor Farmer pointed out the complexities involved in this assessment process and explained that in the past the city has been involved in two other street assessments. Those are the Main Street Phase I and Jupiter Road. He pointed out those assessments have been treated the same as this assessment, so there is a high degree of similarity which is important to the community as a whole and important to the Council in terms of consistency for how the Council approaches the whole development effort. He pointed out that this was a very emotional issue and spoke to all of the emotional issues. He pointed out the need to follow the state law in this matter and the unconstitutionality of giving of public funds. Mayor Farmer went on to explain the city's work in the development of the city's comprehensive plan, the bond program, and other city efforts and the work of the citizens in those areas Mayor Farmer asked if there was any other input or questions from the Council. Councilman Wolfe asked for a clarification on the engineer's role and if it was Exhibit "A" or is it Exhibit No. 1 City Secretary Mary Hendrix advised that the engineer's role is Exhibit "A" to the proposed assessment ordinance and City Attorney Don Crowder had labeled it Exhibit No. 1 in the first public hearing as part of the hearing ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 25 Ordinance No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) Mayor Farmer referenced the proposed ordinance and opened the floor for a motion. Councilman Wolfe recommended that the Council precede the adoption of the ordinance with a statement that the first payment instead of being delayed and due within 30 days from the date of acceptance be extended to one year from the date of acceptance and that if paid on an annual basis to be paid in five equal increments from that date or in fact -- if at the option of the property owner that monthly payments be collected or paid if it be the desire of the property owner He stated again, instead of the current 30 day requirement for the first payment to extend that to one year and that no interest will accrue for that one year but at the end of one year, the first payment is due, interest will begin to accrue, payments to be paid in five equal increments if on an annual basis or on a monthly basis if desired by the property owner MOTION A motion was made by Councilman Wolfe to include the proposal that the first payment instead of being delayed and due within 30 days from the date of acceptance be extended to one year from the date of acceptance and that if paid on an annual basis, it is to be paid in five equal increments from that date or if at the option of the property owner that monthly payments be collected or paid, and to adopt Ordinance No. 897-1-89 with the proposal, which officially closes the public hearing and levies assessments in the amounts described in Exhibit "A" against all abutting property owners receiving enhance- ment through the construction of this street project, and including an audio tape recording of this public hearing which will serve as the official transcript of all testimony given at this public hearing The motion was seconded by Glass. Councilman Pendleton asked for a clarification of the interest portion of the motion. Mayor Farmer advised that the interest portion of the motion would say to him that if the total amount of the assessment is paid prior to the one year date from the time of acceptance and certification of the project by the City Council, there is no interest. He pointed out that since Councilman Wolfe did not say anything else about the interest, he would assume that the rate of eight percent would then be applied commencing with the first day of the second year on any unpaid balance and accrued in the same manner Councilman Womack stated that since the City Council is prohibited by law from treating one section different from another he is assuming that the Council A I A ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 26 Ordinance _No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) will probably at some date move or study the movement to amend the two previous assessments, ordinances that have been adopted. He asked if the Council can do that by a simple amendment of the existing ordinances or will it require additional posting, public hearings etc. Mayor Farmer reiterated Mr Womack's statement and question and pointed out that there would be a difference between Main Street Phase I and Jupiter Road assessment, which already exist, and this project. Mr Petty advised that it is his understanding that those ordinances can be amended since neither of those projects have been accepted for completion by the City Council. That is expected to occur within sixty (60) days He stated that at that time the ordinances could go back and amendment the original ordinances changing the payment schedule in accordance with the criteria that has been suggested tonight. Mr Petty stated that he cannot confirm that from a legal standpoint, but he stated that city staff will pursue it with legal counsel. Mr Womack stated that he wanted to point out that if the Council decided to do this then the Council is making a decision to forgo receiving money that would be coming in for street projects and this is not a small item. Mayor Farmer advised that he concurred with Mr Womack's statement and also as it applies to any future projects that has similar characteristics where commercial zoning is involved and where assessments are under the policy at the present time to take place. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson expressed his concern and because of the homesteads in that area and the policy adopted by the city regarding assessments, he stated that he would like to see the period of time before the interest begins to accrue to be extended to the term of the payout as stated in the policy which is five equal payments spaced over a period of basically forty-eight (48) months. He stated that whenever you start that first payment, whether it is thirty (30) days or twelve (12) months basically over the next forty-eight (48) months including five separate payments he would like to see the interest not start to accrue on that until throughout the five payment period. THE MAIN MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson to amend the main motion to include that the interest would not start to accrue on the properties involved in the Main Street Phases I, II, and III until the end of the five payment period as so outlined the assessment policy There being no second to this motion, this motion died. ALLEN CITY COUNCIL CALLED - SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 17 1989 Page 27 Ordinance No. 897-1-89 (cont'd) (Agenda Item No. III) Mayor Farmer reviewed again the main motion. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION The Council voted six (6) in favor of the main motion and one (1) opposed, with Mayor Pro Tem Wilson casting the negative vote The motion carried. Items of Interest to the Council (Agenda Item No. IV) There were no items of interest to be brought forward at this time. Adjourn (Agenda Item No. V) MOTION Upon a motion made by Councilman Womack and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson, the Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed to adjourn the called - special session of the Allen City Council at 8 55 p m. on Tuesday January 17 1989 The motion carried. These minutes approved on the 16th day of February 1989 APPROVED- I"' C Q�tscdt-- e Farmer MAYOR ATTEST Marty Hendrix, C4TY SECRETARY CqC I