CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS= MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting February 20, 1964 10:00 Α.Μ. Council Chamber, City Hall The meeting was called to order with Mayor Palmer presiding. Roll call: Present: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Absent: None 159 Present also: W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager; Doren R. Eskew, City Attorney; Reuben Rountree, Jr., Director of Public Works; Robert A. Miles, Chief of Police Invocation was delivered by CAPTAIN ROBERT E. HALL, Salvation Army. Pursuant to published notice thereof, at 10:00 A.M. o'clock the Mayor announced that bids would be opened for the sale of $2,000,000 City of Austin, General Obligation Bonds. Bids were received and opened as follows: ( ( ( ( ( ( NAME OF BIDDER NOMINAL INTEREST RATE GROSS INTEREST COST PREMIUM OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 1. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Braun, Bosworth & Co., Inc. Wood, Struthers & Co., Inc. July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1974 July 1,1975, thru July 1,1984 July 1,1985, thru July 1,1988 5 2 3/4% 3 % % 3.10% $1,005,574.52 $544.00 $1,005,030.52 3.0771 % 2. PHELPS, FENN & CO. Rauscher, Pierce & Co., Inc. July 1,1970 and Associates July 1,1965, thru July 1,1969 5 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1983 July 1,1984, thru July 1,1988 1,009,127.85 10.00 1,009,117.85 3.0896 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 Mercantile National Bank at July 1,1971, thru July 1,1973 3. FIRST SOUTHWEST COMPANY Dallas Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Ditmar & Company Rotan, Mosle & Company 4. LEHMAN BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES 5. UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK Industrial National Bank July 1,1974, thru July 1,1980 July 1,1981, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1936, thru July 1, 1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1972 July 1,1973, thru July 1,1982 July 1,1983, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1969 July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 % 3 3/4% 3 % 3.10 % 4 % 3 1/4% 3 % 3.10% 3.15% 5 % 2.75 $ 3 % 3.10 % 3.20% 1,018,809.54 152.00 1,018,657.54 3.11882 % 1,019,815.33 100.00 1,019,715.33 3.1221 % 5 % 3.50% 3 % 3.10 % 3.20% 1,020,252.84 1,020,252.84 3.1237 NAME OF BIDDER ( ( ( ( ( NOMINAL INTEREST RATE GROSS INTEREST COST PREMIUM OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 6. CHEMICAL BANK NEW YORK TRUST July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 COMPANY & ASSOCIATES 7. DREXEL & COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES July 1,1971, thru July 1,1982 July 1,1983, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1975 July 1,1976, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 8. CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL July 1,1965, thru July 1,1968 BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO And Associates 5 3 % % 3.10 % 3.20% $1,021,577.83 $ 40.83 $1,021,537.00 3.127639% 4 5/8% 2.80% 3 % 3.10 % 3.20 % 5% 4.50% 3 % 3.10 % 1,022,549.50 1,022,549.50 3.1307 % February 20, 1964 161 July 1,1969 July 1,1970, thru July 1,1980 July 1,1981, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 3.20 % 1,023,274.51 465.40 1,022,809.11 3.13153 % 9. THE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 AND ASSOCIATES 5 % July 1,1971, thru July 1,1982 3 % July 1,1983, thru July 1,1984 3.10% July 1,1985, thru July 1,1986 3.15% July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 3.20% 1,024,525.32 720.00 1,023,805.32 3.134384% 10.GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. AND ASSOCIATES July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 5 July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1982 3 % de de de de de % % July 1,1983, thru July 1,1986 3.10 % July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 3.20% 1,024,877.81 394.00 1,024,483.81 3.13666 NAME OF BIDDER ( ( ( ( ( ( CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES NOMINAL INTEREST RATE GROSS INTEREST COST PREMIUM OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 11. ROWLES, WINSTON & COMPANY, INC. 12. BANKERS TRUST COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES 5 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1972 3 1/2% July 1,1973, thru July 1,1982 3 % July 1,1983, thru July 1,1986 3.10 % July 1,1987, thru July 1, 1988 3.20% $1,025,102.82 $462.00 $1,024,640.82 3.13714% 5 % 4 1/2% % 3 13. THE PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK AND ASSOCIATES 1,025,813.97 256.00 1,025,557.97 3.13991 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1969 July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thur July 1,1988 3.10 % 3.20% July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1984 July 1,1985, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1, 1988 5 % 3 % 3.10 % 3.15% 3.20 % 5 % % 1,027,000.31 1,254.00 1,025,746.31 3.1405 % February 20, 1964 14. EASTMAN DILLON, UNION SECURITIES AND COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES 15. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 3 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 3.10 % July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 3.20% % % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1978 5 July 1,1979, thru July 1,1981 3 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1987 3.20% July 1,1988 de de de de .05% 1,027,067.81 1,000.00 1,026,067.81 3.14151 % 1,026,300.99 207.00 1,026,093.99 3.14159 % 162 NAME OF BIDDER ( ( ( ( ( CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES NOMINAL INTEREST RATE GROSS INTEREST COST PREMIUM OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE 16. C. J. DEVINE & CO. AND ASSOCIATES 17. THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, MANAGER AND ASSOCIATES 18. F. S. SMITHERS & CO. AND ASSOCIATES 19. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO AND ASSOCIATES 20. SMITH BARNEY & CO. INC. AND ASSOCIATES July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 5 % 3 % 3.10 % July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 3.20% $1,027,067.81 $599.99 $1,026,467.82 3.14273589 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 5 % July 1,1971, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1, 1988 3 % 3.10 % 3.20 % 1,027,067.81 20.00 1,027,047.81 3.14451 % 5 % CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS July 1,1965, thru July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1974 July 1,1975, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 2.75% 3 % 3.10% 3.20 % 5 % 3.50% 3 % 3.10 % 3.20 % 5 1,030,517.79 2,080.00 1,028,437.79 3.1487 % 1,028,720.05 36.00 1,028,684.05 3.14951 % % 31/2% 3 % 3.10 % 3.20% 1,028,717.80 1,028,717.80 3.1496 % February 20, 1964 291 NAME OF BIDDER ( ( ( ( ( CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECIEVED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES NOMINAL INTEREST RATE GROSS INTEREST COST PREMIUM OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE 21. KIDDER, PEABODY & COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES 22. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES 23. HALSEY, STUART & CO., INC. AND ASSOCIATES July 1,1965, thru July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1976 July 1,1977, thru July 1,1981 July 1,1982, thru July 1,1985 July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 July 1,1965, thru July 1,1978 July 1,1979 July 1,1980, thru July 1,1983 July 1,1984, thru July 1,1987 July 1,1988 only % 5 2.90% 3 % 3.10 % 3.20% $1,031,162.79$2,400.00 $1,028,762.79 3.1497 % 5 % 3.30% 3.10 % 3.20% 1/20 of 1 1,031,970.98 7.00 1,031,963.98 3.15956 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1968 5 July 1,1969, thru July 1,1970 4 July 1,1971, thru July 1,1979 3 July 1,1980, thru July 1,1983 3.10 % 24. MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND ASSOCIATES 25. JOHNSTON, LEMON & COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 104. % % % July 1,1984, thru July 1,1988 3.20 % 1,032,573.30 420.00 1,032,153.30 3.1601 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1971 July 1,1972, thru July 1,1979 July 1,1980, thru July 1,1984 July 1,1985, thru July 1,1986 July 1,1987, thru July 1,1988 5 % 3 % 3.10 % 3.20% 31/4% 1,044,429.438,201.00 1,036,228.43 3.1726 % July 1,1965, thru July 1,1970 5 % July 1,1971, thru July 1,1978 July 1,1979, thru July 1,1982 July 1,1983, thru July 1,1988 3 % 3.10 % 3.20 % 1,041,917.78 422.78 1,041,495.00 3.18874 % NAME OF BIDDER { ( ( ( ( CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIBED ON $2,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEBRUARY 20, 1964 MATURITY DATES NOMINAL GROSS INTEREST RATE INTEREST PREMIUM COST OFFERED NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE AND ASSOCIATES 4 26. HARRIMAN RIPLEY & CO., INC. July 1,1965, thru July 1,1969 July 1,1970, thru July 1,1980 3 July 1,1981, thru July 1,1988 27. HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK % % 3.25% $1,042,727.01 $262.00 $1,042,465.01 3.191714% July 1,1965, thru July 1,1974 3 1/4% July 1,1975, thru July 1,1978 3 % July 1,1979, thru July 1,1985 3.20% July 1,1986, thru July 1,1988 31/4% 1,044,837.50 1,044,837.50 3.198971% _ CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS February 20, 1964 165 February 20, 1964 166 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MAYOR PALMER thanked the group for submitting the bids. MR. DEXTER JACKSON, Fiscal Agent, stated this bid of 3.0771% was an exceptionally fine bid, and it is further proof the way the City manages its affairs. The difference between the top bid and the second bid is only a little over $2.00 per bond, and that is pretty competitive. MR. WILLARD HOUSER, American National Bank, made a comparison between State and City bond sales, and said the bids the City received today were very excellent. MR. ED CRAVENS, Capital National Bank, said this was a very good bid. MR. HARRY BENGSTON, Austin National Bank noted also this was an excellent bid. The bids were referred to the Director of Finance and the Fiscal Agent for verification. Later in the meeting, the City Manager stated the bids for the General Obligation Bonds had been verified, and the Fiscal Agent, Finance Director and he recommended awarding the sale of the bonds to FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Braun, Bosworth & Company, Inc.; Wood Struthers & Company, Inc.) at the lowest interest rate of 3.0771%. Councilman White offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, First National City Bank; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Braun, Bosworth & Co., Incorporated; Wood, Struthers & Co., Inc. this day submitted to the City Council the following proposal: Honorable Mayor and City Council OFFICIAL BID FORM February 20, 1964 City of Austin Austin, Texas Gentlemen: Reference is made to your "Official Notice of Sale" and "Official Statement", dated January 28, 1964, of $2,000,000 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1964, both of which constitute a part hereof. For your legally issued bonds, as described in said Notice, we will pay you par and accrued interest from date of issue to date of delivery to us, plus a cash premium of $544.00 for bonds maturing and bearing interest as follows: -- -- July 1, 1965, through July 1, 1970 July 1, 1971, through July 1, 1974 July 1, 1975, through July 1, 1984 July 1, 1985, through July 1, 1988 July 1, 19, through July 1, 19_ -- -- - 5 % 23/4% 3 de de de de de % 3.10% Interest cost, in accordance with the above bid is: Gross Interest Cost Less Premium NET INTEREST COST EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE Attached hereto is Cashier's $1,005,574.52 544.00 $1,005,030.52 3.0771% Certified Check of the FIRST NATIONAL CITY Bank, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS== February 20, 1964 147 New York, New York, in the amountof $40,000.00, which represents our Good Faith Deposit and which is submitted in accordance with the terms as set forth in the "Official Notice of Sale" and "Official Statement". We desire that the Paying Agents for this issue be: FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, New York, New York, and AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Austin, Texas. Respectfully submitted, FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK MERRILL LYNCH, PEIRCE, FENNER & SMITH, Inc. BRAUN, BOSWORTH & CO., INCORPORATED WOOD, STRUTHERS & CO., INC. By s/ James A. Smith Authorized Representative ACCEPTANCE CLAUSE The above and foregoing bid is hereby in all things accepted by the City of Austin, Texas, this the 20th day of February, 1964. ATTEST: しい Mayor, City of Austin, Texas City Clerk, City of Austin, Texas APPROVED City Attorney, City of Austin, Texas ******* Return of Good Faith Deposit is hereby acknowledged: By and, WHEREAS, the said bid and proposal of First National City Bank; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Braun, Bosworth & Co., Incorporated; Wood, Struthers & Co., Inc. was the most advantageous bid submitted to the City Council for the purchase of the aforesaid bonds; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That said proposal of First National City Bank; Merrill Lynch, Pièrce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Braun, Bosworth & Co., Incorporated; Wood, Struthers & Co. Inc. to purchase $2,000,000.00 City of Austin, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 1964, as per the City's Notice of Sale and Prospectus dated January 28, 1964, at the price and upon the terms of said proposal be and the same is hereby accepted and First National City Bank; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, inc.; Braan, Bosworth & Co., Incorporated; Wood, Struthers & Co., Inc. be awarded the sale of said bonds; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and directed to sell to First National City Bank; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Braun, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 Bosworth & Co., Incorporated; Wood, Struthers & Co., Inc. the $2,000,000.00 City of Austin, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 1964, as per the City's Notice of Sale and Prospectus dated January 28, 1964, at par and accrued interest from date of delivery, plus a cash premium of $544.00 according to the terms of said bid hereinbefore set out. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None MINUTES PERTAINING TO PASSAGE AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 640220-A AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,000,000 "CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, GENERAL OBLIGATION VARIOUS PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 1964 (No. 244), DATED MARCH 1, 1964 THE STATE OF TEXAS CITY OF AUSTIN COUNTY OF TRAVIS кок> <>X ON THIS, the 20th day of February, 1964, the City Council of the City of Austin, Texas, convened in regular session at the regular meeting place thereof in the City Hall with the following members present, to-wit: LESTER E. PALMER TRAVIS LARUE MRS. EMMA LONG LOUIS SHANKS BEN WHITE MAYOR COUNCILMAN COUNCILWOMAN COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN and with the following absent: constituting a quorum; at which time the following among other business was transacted, to-wit: The Mayor submitted and introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of $2,000,000 "CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, GENERAL OBLIGATION VARIOUS PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 1964 (No. 244)", for the City Council's consideration, the caption of said ordinance being as follows: "AN ORDINANCE by the City Council of the City of Austin, Texas, authorizing the issuance of $2,000,000 "CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, GENERAL OBLIGATION VARIOUS PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 1964 (No. 244)', dated March 1, 1964, for the purpose of providing funds for permanent public improvements, to-wit: $100,000 for constructing, improving and repairing Hospital Buildings of the City of Austin, and for acquiring necessary lands and equipment therefor; $200,000 for acquiring lands for rights-of-way for streets and boulevards in connection with the State Highway System in the City of Austin; and $1,700,000 for constructing and improving streets, including bridges and drainage incidental thereto in and for said City and for acquiring necessary lands therefor; prescribing the form of the bonds and the form of the interest coupons; levying a continuing February 20, 1964 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS direct annual ad valorem tax on all taxable property within the limits of said City to pay the interest on said bonds and to create a sinking fund for the redemption thereof; and providing for the assessment and col- lection of such taxes; enacting provisions incident and relating to the purpose and subject of this ordinance; and declaring an emergency." The ordinance was read and Councilwoman Long moved that the rule be suspended which requires that no ordinance shall become effective until the expira- tion of ten days following the date of its final passage, and that such ordinance be finally passed and adopted at this meeting, and that for the reasons recited therein, said ordinance be passed as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the citizens of Austin as permitted by the City Charter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks and carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Palmer, Councilmen LaRue, Shanks and White and Councilwoman Long. NOES: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilwoman Long moved that the rules be further suspended and that the ordinance be passed as an emergency measure to its third reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks and carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Palmer, Councilmen LaRue, Shanks and White, and Councilwoman Long. NOES: None. The ordinance was read the third time and Councilwoman Long moved that the The motion was seconded by ordinance be finally passed as an emergency measure. Councilman Shanks and carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Palmer, Councilmen LaRue, Shanks and White, and Councilwoman adopted. Long. NOES: None The Mayor then announced that the ordinance had been finally passed and MINUTES APPROVED, this the 20th day of February, 1964. s/ Lester E. Palmer Mayor, City of Austin, Texas ATTEST: s/ Elsie Woosley City Clerk, City of Austin, Texas = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 170 The Mayor announced that Bids would be received and opened on equipment for Holly Street Power Station No. 3, Contract 119, Structural Steel, and Contract 123, Combustion Controls and Accessories. lowing: BIDDER Bids for Contract No. 119 - Structural Steel, were received from the folHOLLY STREET POWER STATION UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. 119 - STRUCTURAL STEEL BID BOND ITEM I STRUCTURAL STEEL & MISC.ITEMS LUMP SUM AUSTIN BROTHERS $75,000 $362,097 ITEM III LUMP SUM DEDUCT FROM ITEM I FOR STACK ITEM IV UNIT PRICE PER POUND OF STRUCTU- RAL STEEL ITEM II LUMP SUM DEDUCT FROM ITEM I FOR BOILER STEEL $204,496 $7,550 $0.135 STEEL BETHLEHEM STEEL $75,000 $490,000 $266,000 $8,000 $0.168 COMPANY CAPITOL STEEL $75,000 $351,475 $205,300 $7,500 $0.128 & IRON CO.* GENERAL STEEL $75,000 $388,940 $228,831 $5,773 $0.1491 COMPANY * MOSHER STEEL $75,000 $351,402 $209,395 $6,704 $0.140 COMPANY * U. S. STEEL $75,000 $442,312 $264,978 $6,750 $0.162 CORPORATION (1) ITEM V ITEM VI ESCA- UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE LATION PER LINEAR PER SQUARE DRAWINGS IN CAL.DAYS FOOT OF HAND RAIL FOOT OF GRATING $ 3.00 $ 1.50 Firm 56-84 $11.85 $ 1.45 Firm Later $ 3.40 $ 1.50 Firm 75 $ 2.85 $ 1.26 Firm 90 $ 4.00 $ 1.42 Firm 80 $ 3.31 $ 1.68 Firm 60 *Stated in acord with specification (1) Representative acknowledge addenda and bid not in exact accord. =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 ١٦ Bids for Contract No. 123 - Combustion Controls were received from the following: HOLLY STREET POWER STATION UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. 123 COMBUSTION CONTROLS BIDDER BID BOND ITEM I ITEM II COMPLETE CONTROL SPARE PARTS SYSTEM FOR ITEM I ITEM III PER DIEM RATE ESCA- LATION DRAWINGS IN CAL. DAYS LUMP SUM BAILEY METER CO. $40,000 $171,730.86 $1,505 $ 95.00 Firm 50 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY $40,000 $140,067.00 $1,838 $108.00 Firm 30 HAGAN * CONTROLS CORPORATION $40,000 $141,198.00 $3,423 $ 80.00 Firm 42 REPUBLIC FLOW METERS COMPANY $40,000 $144,850.00 $2,800 $100.00 Firm 30 *Not in exact accord The bids were referred to the Consulting Engineers for analyses. Later in the meeting the City Manager submitted the report from the Consulting Engineers, BROWN & ROOT, INC., as follows: "February 20, 1964 File: S-494-FCB "Mr. W. T. Williams, Jr. City manager City of Austin P. 0. Box 1160 Austin, Texas 78764 "Dear Mr. Williams: "Subject: Structural Steel, Contract No. 119 Holly Street Power Station, Unit No. 3 "Brown & Root, Inc. has examined the bids, opened by you at 10:00 A.M., February 20, 1964, in open Council Meeting, for the Holly Street Power Station, Unit No. 3, Structural Steel, Contract No. 119. "Bids were submitted as follows: Austin Brothers Steel Company Bethlehem Steel Corporation $362,097.00 $490,000.00 Capitol Steel & Iron Company General Steel Company $351,475.00 $388,940.00 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 Mosher Steel Company U. S. Steel Corporation $351,402.00 $442,312.00 172 "Specifications were sent to the following prospective bidders but no proposals were received: Adamo Iron Works, San Antonio, Texas Tips Iron & Steel Works, Austin, Texas "All prices were firm. All of the above bids meet the specifications. "On the basis of the best and lowest price and satisfactory delivery, it is recommended that a contract for the Structural Steel be awarded to Mosher Steel Company for the total lump sum of $351,402.00 APPROVED: s/ D. C. Kinney D. C. Kinney Director Electric Utility City of Austin" "Yours very truly, BROWN & ROOT, INC. s/ D. V. Boyd D. V. Boyd Project Engineer The City Manager stated the Director of Electric Utilities recommended this award, and that he concurred also in the award. Councilman LaRue moved that the Council accept the bid as recommended by the Director of Utilities and the City Manager, and award the bid for Contract 119, Structural Steel, for Holly Street Power Plant No. 3, to MOSHER STEEL COMPANY, for the total jump sum of $351,402.00. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager submitted the report of BROWN & ROOT, INC., Consulting Engineers, on bids received for Contract No. 123, as follows: "February 20, 1964 File:N-496-MGG "Mr. W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager City of Austin P. 0. Box 1160 Austin, Texas 78764 "Subject: Contract No. 123, Combustion Controls, Holly Street Power Station, Unit No. 3 Our Job Number E-192 "Dear Mr. Williams: "Brown & Root, Inc., has examined the bids, opened by you at 10:00 A.M., February 20, 1964, in open Council Meeting, for the Holly Street Power Station, Unit No. 3, Combustion Controls, Contract No. 123. February 20, 1964 173 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- "Bids were submitted as follows: Bailey Meter Company General Electric Company Hagan Controls Corporation Republic Flow Meters Company $171,730.86 $140,067.00 $141,198.00 $144,850.00 "All prices were firm. Exceptions were taken by several bidders, but out examination revealed that all of the proposals are acceptable on the basis of engineering design. "On the basis of the best and lowest price and satisfactory delivery, it is recommended that a contract for the Combustion Controls be awarded to the General Electric Company for the total lump sum of $140,067.00. APPROVED: s/ D. C. Kinney D. C. Kinney, Director Electric Utility" "Yours very truly, BROWN & ROOT, INC. s/ D. V. Boyd D. V. Boyd Project Engineer Councilman Shanks moved that the Council accept the recommendation of BROWN & ROOT, Consulting Engineers, the Director of Electric Utilities, and the City Manager, and award the contract for Combustion Controls to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Contract No. 123) in the amount of $140,067.00. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None - The City Manager stated at an earlier date, the Council received bids on Contract 102 Steam Generator, for the Holly Street Power Station. Included in that bid were some of the same items included in the bids for structural steel received today, and this was the reason for the "take-out" provisions. In connection with this BROWN & ROOT, INC., Consultants, pointed out the Structural Steel, Contract 119, awarded to MOSHER STEEL COMPANY includes the Boiler and Deaerator Support Steel and Platforms and the Boiler Stack, and their price deductions for the Boiler Steel is $209,395.00 and for the Stack is $6,704.00. The A. M. LOCKETT & COMPANY, LTD, Contract 102, provided for a deduction for the equivalent Boiler and Deaerator Support Steel and Platforms of $259,655; and for the Stack deduction $10,892. A savings of $54,556.00 to the City would result by leaving the Boiler structure and stack in the Structural Steel Contract and omitting same from the Steam Generator Contract. BROWN & ROOT, INC., as well as the Director of Electric Utilities and the City Manager recommended that the options to the Steam Generator Contract 102 be taken, and Change Orders be issued to A. M. LOCKETT & COMPANY, LTD., for omitting Items IV and V of the original proposal for a total lump sum deduction of $270,547.00. Councilman Shanks moved that the Change Order be authorized as recommended. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 174 The City Manager submitted the following: "Memorandum: "February 10, 1964 To: Mr. O. G. Brush, Purchasing Agent From: Beverly S. Sheffield, Director, Parks and Recreation Subject: Toro seven unit Hydraulic Golf Master mower or approved equal as asked for on Req. #1026-30315. "The low bid by Watson Distributing Co. of $4,990.00 is for a Worthington Model F tractor with fairway mower. The only other bid by Goldthwaites of Texas is for the Toro seven unit hydraulic Golf Master mower called for in the bid specifications at a price of $5,760.00 which is $770.00 difference in the tractor mowers. "The Worthington tractor mower does not meet all the specifications as it is a front wheel drive with the rear wheels used for steering. The Toro Golf Master is rear wheel drive with front wheel steering. The rear wheel drive gives better traction and control when mowing steep slopes which cause the Worthington to have a tendency of lifting the rear wheels off of the ground. "The Parks and Recreation Department now has one of the Toro Golf Master mowers in use at the Williams Golf Course where it has given excellent service for six months. The Worthington tractor mower was demonstrated several weeks ago on the Williams Golf Course with the same men operating both the Toro Golf Master and Worthington tractor mower. It was the opinion of George Hannon, golf pro; Edwin Kizer, greens-keeper; and Joe Prowse, Jr., Assistant Superintendent of Parks, that the Toro Golf Master gives a superior performance over the Worthington tractor mower. "It is also felt that by having two tractor mowers of the same manufacture that a smaller supply of parts would be needed and that mower units would be interchangeable so that one complete tractor-mower could be kept in operation at all times. "The high bid of Goldthwaites on the Toro Golf Master tractor mower is requested to be accepted over the low bid on the Worthington Model F tractor with fairway mowers." "February 14, 1964 "TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council SUBJECT: Hydraulic Golfmaster Mower, Seven Unit Parks and Recreation Department "Bids were received in the office of the Purchasing Agent at 2:00 P.M. February 4, 1964 for a hydraulic golfmaster mower seven unit. The City asked for a Toro Unit but included a complete set of specifications and gave the bidders an opportunity to bid an approved equal. "The mower unit will be used at Municipal Golf Course. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 175 "The following quotations were received: 1. Watson Distributing Co. bidding Worthington Model F - - - $4,990.00 2. Goldthwaite's of Texas bidding Toro as per specifications-$5,760.00 3. Jim Eagle Sales Co. - 4. Catto & Putty 5. John C. Ross Hardware - - No Bid No Bid - - No response "The Worthington Model Fas bid by Watson Distributing Company does not meet specifications. "RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Goldthwaite's of Texas bid of $5,760.00 for a Toro Hydraulic Golfmaster Mower Seven Unit be accepted. This is the same price paid for this unit in May 1963. "W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager" After discussion, Councilman White offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, bids were received by the City of Austin on February 4, 1964, for a hydraulic golfmaster mower seven unit, for use by the Parks and Recreation Department; and, - WHEREAS, the bid of Goldthwaite's of Texas, in the sum of $5,760.00, was the lowest and best bid therefor, and the acceptance of such bid has been recommended by the Purchasing Agent of the City of Austin, and by the City Manager; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the bid of Goldtimaite's of Texas, in the sum of $5,760.00, be and the same is hereby accepted, and that W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a contract, on behalf of the City, with Goldthwaite's of Texas. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager submitted the following: "Date: February 19, 1964 "To: W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager Subject: Construction of a Reinforced Concrete Culvert on Oak Springs Drive at Tannehill Branch "Following is a tabulation of bids received at 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, February 18, 1964, for the construction of a Reinforced Concrete Culvert on Oak Springs Drive at Tannehill Branch, known as Contract Number 64-D-4. February 20, 1964 176 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS "Ed H. Page $14,000.42 Norman L. Larson $14,158.20 Texas Bridge Co., Inc. $15,561.92 Southwest Highway Const. Co. $15,876.47 Maufrais Brothers, Inc. $20,411.91 Pat Canion Excav. Со. $21,613.99 J. C. Evans Const. Co., Inc. $26,968.91 $18,237.00 City's Estimate "I recommend that Ed H. Page with his low bid of $14,000.42 be awarded the contract for this project. S. Reuben Rountree, Jr. Director of Public Works s/ S. Reuben Rountree, Jr." After discussion, Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, bids were received by the City of Austin on February 18, 1964, for the construction of a reinforced concrete culvert on Oak Springs Drive at Tannehill Branch, known as Contract Number 64-D-4; and, WHEREAS, the bid of Ed H. Page, in the sum of $14,000.42, was the lowest and best bid therefor, and the acceptance of such bid has been recommended by the Director of Public Works of the City of Austin, and by the City Manager; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the bid of Ed H. Page, in the sum of $14,000.42, be and the same is hereby accepted, and that W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a contract, on behalf of the City, with Ed H. Page. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager submitted the following: "TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council "February 18, 1964 SUBJECT: Bids for Police Uniforms - Ties, Caps, Shirts and Trousers "Subject bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. February 17, 1964 in the office of the Purchasing Agent. "The City Council rejected all bids received on November 18, 1963 and directed that new bids be taken using revised quantities. The original bids were advertised in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks and sent to all known February 20, 1964 199 =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS bidders in this area. "The bids are as follows: Winter Ties Caps Shirts Summer Shirts 300 ea. 200 ea. 300 ea. 300 ea. Trousers 200 ea. Jorace Mens Wear Net Total $187.20 $770.00 No Bid No Bid $2,833.75 Joseph's Man's Shop Net Total 207.00 920.00 1470.00 1260.00 3,480.00 Lorey's Custom Tailoring Net Total 186.90 738.00 1266.00 1.014.00 2,890.00 Joseph's Man's Shop Total Bid Net $7,337.00 Jorace Men's Wear - Bid incomplete - Did not bid on shirts Lorey's total bid - based on all or none Net $6,094.90 Lowest total bid by splitting Low bid by Lorey's Ties Net $6,520.95 Winter Summer Caps Shirts Shirts Trousers Νον. 1962 $.69 1% $3.62 1% $4.05 1% $3.51 1% $15.35 1% Nov. 1963 .67 3.61 3.92 3.47 14.45 Subject bid .623 3.69 4.22 3.38 14.45 "Lorey's Custom Tailoring Service total bid is lower than combination of other bids. The Chief of Police advises that Lorey's Custom Tailoring Service is acceptable and that the ties, caps, shirts and trousers meet specifications. It is therefore recommended that the bid of this firm be accepted for all items. "W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager" After discussion, Councilman White offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, bids were received by the City of Austin on February 17, 1964, for the furnishing of Police Uniforms - ties, caps, shirts and trousers; and, WHEREAS, the bid of Lorey's Custom Tailoring Service, in the sum of $6,094.90, was the lowest and best bid therefor, and the acceptance of such bid has been recommended by the Chief of Police of the City of Austin, and by the City Manager; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the bid of Lorey's Custom Tailoring Service, in the sum of $6,094.90, be and the same is hereby accepted, and that W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a contract with Lorey's Custom Tailoring Service. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None ( ) CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 17 The City Manager submitted the following: "February 19, 1964 "TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council SUBJECT: Bids for Motor Pick-Up Street Sweeper Sanitation Division "Bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. February 18, 1964 in the office of the Purchasing Agent for one Motor Pick-Up Sweeper, 4.5 C.Y. minimum capacity with one 1948 Model Wayne Sweeper to be traded in on the new equipment. Invitations to bid were sent to all possible vendors. "These bids are as follows: Jim Dulaney Mach. Co. Dulaney Service Company John C. Mayfield Co. Municipal Supply Company Make Wayne Elgin No Bid No Bid Model 2-770-4½ Custom 475 Hopper Capacity 4.5 c.y. 4.6 c.y. Bid Price $13,232.00 $13,450.50 less Trade-in 3,848.00 4,177.50 Total $ 9,384.00 Net $ 9,273.00 Less 2% Cash Discount, if allowed 185.46 $ 9,384.00 $ 9,087.54 "RECOMMENDATION: Both of the above bids meet specifications; therefore it is recommended the order be awarded to Dulaney Service Company on the Elgin Custom 475 for $9,087.54. "W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager" Councilman White offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, bids were received by the City of Austin on February 18, 1964, for one Motor Pick-Up Street Sweeper, for use by the Sanitation Division of the City of Austin; and, WHEREAS, the bid of Dulaney Service Company, in the sum of $9,087.54, and trade-in, was the lowest and best bid therefor, and the acceptance of such bid has been recommended by the Purchasing Agent of the City of Austin, and by the City Manager; Now, Therefore, _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the bid of Dulaney Service Company, in the sum of $9,087.54, and trade-in, be and the same is hereby accepted, and that W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a contract, on behalf of the City, with Dulaney Service Company. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Council had before it the recommendation of the Urban Renewal Commission which set out boundaries for studies and surveys to develop plans for a General Neighborhood Plan, within which boundaries was the Glen Oaks Project as revised. The City Manager distributed copies of the recommendation and discussed the sketch, pointing out boundaries of the Renewal Program Area and also the boundaries of the Glen Oaks Project which has been enlarged. MR. WAYNE GOLDEN, Executive Director of the Urban Renewal, stated this delineation covers almost all of the area of flooding. The principal area of concern is the Glen Oaks Project. He said this area would contain most of the problems relating to Boggy Creek; and a solution in that area may provide the solution for the flooding. Boundaries for the area are, the Glen Oaks Project, roughly all East 7th Street, Northwestern Avenue and Chestnut, East 12th Street; and Hargrave, Neal Street, Webberville Road, and Tillery Street. The City Manager reviewed the original Glen Oaks Project, stating since it included practically nothing but land that had flooded in the past and since the plan for the area called for a flood control which would take care of 25 year frequency of floods, and which would pro- vide for a series of retard dams, leaving practically the whole Glen Oaks area within a basin which would be used for ponding to prevent flooding down stream, the Urban Renewal disapproved the project because so much of the land would become a flood control rather than a restoration to usefulness. Their suggestion was that only a 50 year flood frequency be considered and recommended: (1) To cut a diversion channel from the creek to the river in the vicinity of Pleasant Valley Road (2) To widen the creek from the area which floods to the point it enters the river, or (3) A combination of the two--widening the creek and constructing a spillway channel to the river. The City Manager said it is now the time to start studies for determining the most feasible and economic approach. He stated the Urban Renewal people pointed out Federal participation could be gained on work done outside of the project; for instance credit would be realized on the channel from the project to the river, if the area which is benefited is in the project. The area which will benefit is practically the whole area called the General Renewal Neighborhood Plan. He pointed out this area which is bounded on the east by Airport Boulevard Tillery, Goodwin, Springdale Road; on the South by East 7th Street; and on the West by Northwestern Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, and on the North by East 12th Street. If a channel were cut from the creek to the river, all of that property would benefit. The purpose of the G.N.R.P. is to treat the problem area in the G.N.R.P. and obtain credits available from whatever work that is done whether it extends to the east beyond the project or to the river from the project. The _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXASニーニ February 20, 1964 120 G.N.R.P. as just described would capture full credit for what work is done in the improvement of the creek, but it is too large an area to work in on project. If the area is in the project so that the G.N.R.P. constitutes 80% or more of the area benefited, full credit is obtained. MR.GOLDEN stated the Urban Renewal Agency needs to file for the study which is the G.N.R.P. and at the same time file for the Glen Oaks Project. Mayor Palmer said the recommendation was that the boundaries shown on the map be approved, and that the Urban Renewal Agency be authorized to file an application for study and survey and development of the plans. Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES OF GLEN OAKS URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT TEX. R-70 AND APPROVING UNDERTAKING OF SURVEYS AND PLANS FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AND FILING OF AN APPLICATION WHEREAS, under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, (herein referred to as "Title I"), the Housing and Home Finance Administrator is authorized to extend financial assistance to local public agencies in the elimination and prevention of the spread of their slums and urban blight through the planning and undertaking of urban renewal projects; and, WHEREAS, heretofore, the City Council of the City of Austin, Texas, and the Board of Commissioners of the Urban Renewal. Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, duly passed and adopted resolutions wherein a certain area within the City of Austin designated as Glen Oaks Urban Renewal Project, therein particularly described, was proposed as an Urban Renewal Area; and wherein the Housing and Home Finance Administrator was requested to reserve for an Urban Renewal Project in such proposed Urban Renewal Area federal capital grant funds in an amount sufficient to enable the City of Austin to finance the undertaking of the project; and wherein the filing of an application by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, for an advance of funds from the United States of America for surveys and plans for such Urban Renewal Project in such area was approved; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to such resolution, application for such funds was made, and subsequently approved and granted, and a contract for planning advance for surveys and plans for such Urban Renewal Project by and between the United States of America acting by and through the Housing and Home Finance Administrator, and the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, was made and executed; and, WHEREAS, the preliminary planning and surveys that have been subsequently made indicate the desirability and advisability of making certain boundary changes in said above mentioned Urban Renewal Area as hereinafter set forth; and, WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the public interest that the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, make surveys and prepare plans, presently estimated to cost approximately $177,000.00, including the amounts heretofore advanced under the above mentioned contract, in order to undertake and carry out an Urban Renewal Project of the character contemplated by Section 110(c) of Title I, in that area proposed as an Urban Renewal Area, situated in the City =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 18: of Austin, County of Travis, and State of Texas, which is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: 1. That the boundaries of said Glen Oaks Urban Renewal Area in the City of Austin, Texas, as originally set out and designated be, and they are hereby, changed and expanded so as to encompass that area set out in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the proposed Urban Renewal Area described above is a slum, blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating area appropriate for an Urban Renewal Project and that the undertaking by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, of surveys and plans for an Urban Renewal Project of the character contemplated by Section 110 (c) of Title I in the proposed Urban Renewal Area is hereby approved. 3. That the financial assistance available under Title I is needed to enable the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, to finance the planning and undertaking of the proposed Project. 4. That it is cognizant of the conditions that are imposed in the undertaking and carrying out of Urban Renewal Projects with federal financial assist- ance under Title I, including those relating to (a) the relocation of site occupants; (b) the provision of local grants in aid; (c) a prohibition of discrimina- tion because of race, color, creed, or national origin with respect to housing, facilities related to residential use, and all public facilities within a Project Area; public facilities proposed as noncash local grants in aid; and employment; and (d) the requirement that the locality present to the Housing and Home Finance Administrator, as a prerequisite to approval of the application described below, a workable program for community improvement, as set forth in Section 101 (c) of Title I, for utilizing appropriate public and private resources to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of slums and urban blight. 5. That it is the sense of this Body (a) that a feasible method for the relocation of families displaced from the Urban Renewal Area, in conformity with Title I, can be prepared, and (b) that the local grants in aid can and will be provided in an amount which will be not less than one-third of the net project cost of the Project and which, together with the federal capital grant, will be generally equal to the difference between gross project costs and the proceeds of value of project land sold, are retained for use in accordance with the Urban Renewal Plan. 6. That the filing of an application by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin, Texas, for an advance of funds from the United States of America to enable it to defray the costs of the surveys and plans for an Urban Renewal Project in the proposed Urban Renewal Area described above is hereby approved. EXHIBIT "A" Glen Oaks Project Boundary That certain area known as the Glen Oaks Urban Renewal Area containing approximately 294 acres and described generally as follows: BEGINNING at point of intersection of the north right of way line of East - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 18: 7th Street with the west right of way line of Northwestern Avenue; THENCE in a northerly direction with the west right of way line of Northwestern Avenue to its intersection with the north right of way line of Rosewood Avenue; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of Rosewood Avenue to its intersection with the west right of way line of Chestnut Ave- nue; THENCE in a northerly direction with the west right of way line of Chestnut Avenue to its intersection with the north right of way line of East 12th Street; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of East 12th Street to its intersection with the prolongation of the east right of way line of Hargrave Street; THENCE in a southerly direction with the prolongation of the east right of way line of Hargrave Street and the east right of way line of Hargrave Street to its intersection with the north right of way line of Neal Street; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of Neal Street to its intersection with the east right of way line of Webberville Road; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Webberville Road to its intersection with the north property line of Outlot 36, Division A of the Government Outlots adjoining the Original City of Austin according to the map on file in the General Land Office of the State of Texas; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north property line of Outlots 36 and 37, Division A of the Government Outlots adjoining the Original City of Austin according to the map on file in the General Land Office of the State of Texas to a point being the northwest corner of the T. S. Torres Subdivision and then continuing in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of Stokes Drive to its intersection with the east right of way line of Tillery Street; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Tillery Street to its intersection with the north right of way line of East 7th Street; THENCE in a westerly direction with the north right of way line of East 7th Street to the place of BEGINNING. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: Councilman White Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN APPROVING UNDERTAKING OF GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD RENEWAL PLAN AND FILING OF APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ADVANCE OF FUNDS CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 185 WHEREAS, under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator is authorized to extend financial assistance to localities in the elimination and prevention of the spread of their slums and urban blight through the planning and undertaking of Urban Renewal projects; and, WHEREAS, under Section 102 (d) of said Title I, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator may make advances of funds for the preparation of general neighborhood renewal plans for Urban Renewal areas of such scope that the Urban Renewal activities therein may have to be carried out in stages over a period of not more than ten years; and, WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the public interest that the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin prepare such a general neighborhood renewal plan, presently estimated to cost $69,000.00, in that certain area, proposed as an Urban Renewal Area, situated in the City of Austin, County of Travis, and State of Texas, and described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: 1. That the proposed Urban Renewal Area described above is an area of such scope that it is estimated that the Urban Renewal activities therein may have to be carried out in stages over a period of not more than ten years. 2. That the undertaking by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin of the preparation of a general neighborhood renewal plan for the proposed Urban Renewal Area described above is hereby approved. 3. That it is cognizant of the intention of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin to undertake an Urban Renewal Project promptly upon completion of the general neighborhood renewal plan and the preparation of an Urban Renewal Plan for such Project, which Project shall embrace at least ten per cent of the proposed Urban Renewal Area and shall be of the character contemplated by Section 110 (c) of Title I. 4. That it is cognizant of the conditions that are imposed in the undertaking and carrying out of Urban Renewal projects with Federal financial assistance under Title I, including those relating to (a) a feasible method of relocation; (b) the provision of necessary local grants in aid; and (c) the prohibition of discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin with respect to housing, facilities related to residential use, and all public facilities within a Project Area; public facilities proposed as noncash local grants in aid; and employment; as well as the requirement of Section 102(d) of Title I that a general neighborhood renewal plan conform to the localities' general plan and workable program for community improvement. 5. That it is the intention of this Body that the general neighborhood renewal plan will be used to the fullest extent feasible as a guide for the provision of public improvements in such area and that the plan will be considered in formulating codes and other regulatory measures affecting property in the area and in undertaking other local governmental activities pertaining to the development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and conservation of the Area. 6. That the filing of an application by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin for the advanee of funds from the United States to enable it to defray the costs of preparing a general neighborhood renewal plan for the proposed Urban Renewal Area described above is hereby approved. EXHIBIT "A" ☑ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS:== February 20, 1964 General Neighborhood Renewal Plan Area Boundary That certain area known as the General Neighborhood Renewal Plan containing approximately 746 acres and described generally as follows: BEGINNING at point of intersection of the north right of way line of East 7th Street with the west right of way line of Northwestern Avenue; THENCE in a northerly direction with the west right of way line of Northwestern Avenue to its intersection with the north right of way line of Rosewood Avenue; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of Rosewood Avenue to its intersection with the west right of way line of Chestnut Avenue; THENCE in a northerly direction with the west right of way line of Chestnut Avenue to its intersection with the north right of way line of East 12th Street; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of East 12th Street to its intersection with the east right of way line of Airport Boulevard; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Airport Boulevard to its intersection with the south right of way line of Oak Springs Drive; THENCE in a westerly direction with the south right of way line of Oak Springs Drive to its intersection with the east right of way line of Tillery Street; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Tillery Street to its intersection with the north right of way line of Goodwin Avenue; THENCE in an easterly direction with the north right of way line of Goodwin Avenue to its intersection with the east right of way line of Airport Boulevard; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Airport Boulevard to its intersection with the east right of way line of Springdale Road; THENCE in a southerly direction with the east right of way line of Springdale Road to its intersection with the north right of way line of East 7th Street; THENCE in a westerly direction with the north right of way line of East 7th Street to the place of BEGINNING. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: Councilman White The Council deferred action on the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Community Renewal Project Contract. February 20, 1964 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS The Council had before it for consideration the application of the City's Refund Contract Policy to properties in newly acquired water districts. Councilman Long stated she would like to see the refund contract policy studied and the three percent interest taken out, as Austin has the most liberal refund contract of any city in the State. She stated she had contacted the Texas Municipal League Office, which is making a study of the refund contract throughout the State, and she had looked into the policies for paving, sanitary sewer and water, and storm sewers in the large cities. Councilman Long expressed amazement over the amount Austin is paying back to the subdividers in comparison to what other cities are paying. Mayor Palmer stated the policy that is before the Council is its application to the territory in the water districts. The City Manager stated an answer is needed so that the developers in one of these areas would know about the type of contract. He recommended that the Council extend the present policy in the City into the Water District territory, even though it was stated that a study might be made. Councilman Long said she hoped the Council would agree to making the study, as Austin is far more liberal in its policy, and no city in the State is paying an interest rate for the use of the subdividers' money. She stated she was ready to vote on the present policy now, but did not want to say that the Council was accepting this as the refund contract policies that will be continued to be used. She said she would like to see the study made and the Council be less liberal in the policy than it is now. Mayor Palmer stated Councilman Long always held out for a public hearing before a major policy change was voted, and that this would be studied and looked into. The Mayor explained the policy to be extended to the newly acquired areas of the Water Districts. Councilman LaRue was concerned over those people located within the geographical area of the water district even though they were not actually within the water district. The City Manager reviewed the Refund Policy with developers of property within the City in that 90% of the cost of development was refunded out of 75% of the water bill with 3% on the unpaid balance, payable over a period not to exceed 25 years. This policy is available to anyone within the City. The District had a policy to provide refund contracts for 100% of the cost of improve- ments, payable out of 50% of the water bill. The District had an obligation to provide its citizens with some form of refund contract. The City Manager proposed that the City recognize the obligation of the District, but not extend the obliga. tion of the District. If the Council wants to extend it, that would be another matter. Councilman Long stated those in the districts would still be paying 2 times the cost of water, and she did not believe developers would be encouraged to develop subdivisions outside the city limits. The City Manager explained why he thought development would be encouraged as when the operations of the system in the water district area gets to the point that the operating costs in the district can be paid off each year and a reasonable return can be made on what has been invested in the system at a lower rate than the 2½ times, the rate can be reduced. Detailed discussion was held on extending water to those who were not within the district, and yet were within the boundaries. Councilman Shanks stated the areas within the district were entitled to a refund contract, and it is now a matter of making the City's refund contract uniform. Councilman LaRue stated he agreed with one exception, and that the difference is that an individual within the confines of the water district might have had with the Water District would be of no concern to the City, as all the money had been paid, and the City tax payers would lose nothing at all. The City Manager stated the City would give refund contracts where the District would have given them anyway, but not anywhere else. The District was prohibited from giving anyone outside its limits a refund contract. Councilman Long inquired about the control the City would have over subdivisions outside the City Limits if it provided the water. The City Manager explained the same control as it now has on the development, - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 122 and explained there would be the water district charge; and if sewer lines were extended, there would be no refund contract for that extension, but the people in the area would pay a monthly sewer charge for the service. Councilman LaRue inquired about the developer in the excluded area of the water district, as to how he would be treated. The City Manager stated he could develop with a refund contract. He pointed out areas within the City of Austin's boundary lines, which had not been annexed, and refund contracts are not given to developers in those areas. After more detailed study and discussion, Councilman LaRue moved that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager to extend the policy now in City that pertains to refund contracts to the acquired water districts. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: Councilman Long Councilman Long voting against the motion as she was not in favor of giving people water unless they came into the City. The Council recessed until 2:30 Ρ.Μ. RECESSED MEETING At 2:30 P.M. the Council resumed its business. 2:30 Ρ.Μ. MR. RICHARD BAKER, representing the Home Builders Association thanked the Council for the extension of time for studying the first four Chapters of the proposed amendments to the Building Code. After various members of the Home Builders Association had studied the changes, they were well satisfied on these first four chapters with the exception of one point, their primary concern being the increase in price from one cent to one and a fourth cent per square foot. Also another point had been raised, in that slab construction is approximately 95% of the construction for residential building; and presently many of the builders, at the time they file for their building permit, and perhaps prior to its issuance were allowed to go ahead and set their forms and allowed to put in the rough-in-plumbing. The only advantage to this was the saving of time. When the building permit is approved and the layout inspection is called, before anything is covered up or any concrete poured, the Inspectors check it; and if it is not right, it is the obligation of the builders to pull it out and put it in right. Mr. Baker stated the Building Official had agreed that this might be reasonable in the present drafting of the Code. This would apply only to concrete slabs and not in the pier-beam house. If it were a pier-beam construction, nothing would be done until such time as the building permit had been obtained and approved by the Building Official. The Building Official stated the Committee may object to this; however, he would have no personal objection if the provision applied only to slab construction, and it would be at the builder's risk if something were wrong and it had to be remedied. Councilman LaRue inquired if this were advocating not following the rules and regulations as laid down, and if so, there were too many chances of slip-ups later on. The Mayor stated the rule should be worded in a positive manner. Councilman Long said the present policy has been worked out and she could not see why it could not be written into the Code. The Building Official stated this could apply for new construction or additions, but not alterations or repairs, and provide that this be for slab construction only. MR. JACK ANDREWARTHA, member of the Building February 20, 1964 187 - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Code Committee and also a member of the Home Builders Association, was in favor of this addition to the proposed building code. The Mayor pointed out the difference between home building and a contractor building for a particular home owner, who in this case would not want to take any additional risk. MR. BAKER suggested that he and the Building Official work this proposal out and come back before the Council. MR. BAKER stated the basic concern of the Association was the increased costs of inspections; and after a study by various committees in the various allied industries--electrical--plumbing and others, they felt that the increase in inspection charges which have resulted over the past 10 years were excessive. He pointed out a fourth of a cent increase was a 25% increase over the basic costs now charged for inspections. A 25% increase is a large amount, particularly in the increases of inspections which had taken place over the past years. Mr. Baker displayed charts prepared from builders, electricians and plumbing contractor's reports, on an actual construction for 1954, for 1959 and 1964, showing a 100% increase in building inspection charges from 1954-1964; in plumbing for one bath houses an 85% increase; in plumbing for two baths, the charge for 1954-1959 was $6.25 and in 1964 was $11.50. Water and sewer tie-in charges have increased 192% between 1959 and 1964. Electrical Inspections is the most difficult area to determine; but his chart showed a 72% increase between 1954 and 1959; and 102% increase from 1954 to 1964. On wall heaters, plumbing inspection charges in 1954 through 1959 were .75; in 1964 the charge is $5.00. He inquired about the relation of the inspection fees to overall increases incurred during this period of time; and if they were unreasonable increases. MR. BAKER discussed the cost of living index of 1954, 1959 and 1963 stating the total overall increase of the cost of living index was 10.3 for the 10 year period. From 1954 to 1959, cost of building inspections, plumbing, and electrical increased 5.2% in relation to cost of living index of 6.3%. In the year 1964 over 1959, the increase has been 50.8% as compared to the overall increase of cost of living index for the same time of four points. Mr. Baker stated the Austin Builders Association was interested in suggesting that certain economies might be invoked and the fees be left as they are. He stated the Builders did not ask the City to subsidize them by allowing them costs actually less than those incurred by the City. MR. BOB CONNELLY inquired if building inspections showed a profit. The Mayor explained profits could not be made on these types of inspections and all that could be charged would be enough to defray the actual expenses. Suggestions for economies in the Inspections Department were made by MR. C. L. REEVES and MR. WAYNE BURNS, to lower the cost rather than increase the price. MR. C. L. REEVES asked if any of the Inspection Departments showed a profit. The Mayor stated none of the inspection departments, food, milk, health, building, or any made a profit. There is an attempt to get each service to pay for itself. The City Manager pointed out two things which contributed to the rising cost of inspections--the rising cost of man power and the growth of the city which involved greater traveling distances and more time involved in inspections. The City Attorney pointed out in 1954 the fees were inadequate, and cited one service for which $40.00 was charged, but for which it took $95.00 to render. Prior to 1954 there was no charge for certain services. The Building Official listed building permit fees charged by eleven cities, for an 1800 square foot house, showing only one City charging less than Austin's fee of $18.00; and one city charging the same. Charges by the other eight cities ran from $27.00 to $49.00. MR. BURNS suggested combining the inspections, and letting the plumbing inspector do the lay out inspection also. It was pointed out they would not be qualified to do both. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 128 MR. BAKER suggested combining all inspections in one Department. The Building Official pointed out all building inspections were under one Department, except the Electrical, and there were 14 people in the Electrical Inspections. There would be a question of housing and renting office space should all inspections be combined. The Mayor suggested considering this particular part of the building code and that at some other time the Council would be happy to meet with the group on any of the other fees. The City Attorney stated the committee which was represented by Mr. Andrewartha, plumbers, electricians, and others, recommended that the building inspection fee be .01 1/4. MR. NASH PHILLIPS stated profits were dwindling and costs were increasing everywhere. He stated if any Department in the City deserved commendation, it was the Building Official's Department, and they had the utmost respect for this Department, but they were concerned over the cost squeeze. MR. REEVES stated on the inspections, the Building Inspector, the Heating and Air Conditioning Inspector, and the Plumbing Inspector make final inspections; then the Electrical In- spector makes his final inspection. MR. REEVES suggested that the Electrical Inspector check the heating and air conditioning. Instead of having four inspectors do one job, it might be possible to have two people do one job. The Mayor stated it would be hard to find one with those qualifications. The Mayor asked if any had been unduly delayed on their inspections. The group answered that they had not. Councilman LaRue stated all were interested in economy, and the builders' attitude was appreciated. The Council is just as interested, and it will continue to be, in efficiency and economies. MR. BAKER asked if the costs of the inspections could be made available to some group where the various inspection costs could be analyzed of one Department as opposed to another. He stated there would be a tremendous difference in the Building Official's Department and the Electrical. They would like to look at each of the individual costs. The Mayor pointed out this was public information and record and could be substantiated; and if there were any suggestions for economizing, all of the Council and City Manager would be happy to look into them. COUNCILMAN WHITE said the whole group said they had all the confidence in the world in Dick Jordan. He says he is not making any money and he needs this increase in the fee to break even. Councilman White suggested that everyone get together on this; and if there is something else in the Electric or some other Department, the Conncil would meet with the group at any time. COUNCILMAN LONG stated the Council recognized the builders' desire to cut corners so that they could give a good product to the people for the least possible money. The City has the same problem. It has to give a good service on the least possible money. As the City grows, the cost per capita goes up. She said as far as investigating this further in this particular code, she did not see that anything could be gained as figures of other cities are available, and Austin knows what it is doing and what its needs are. She did not recommend holding this part of the Code up to investigate any other area. MR. REEVES asked if the Council would permit them to analyze all of the Departments under discussionElectrical, heating and air conditioning and plumbing in comparison to their costs. There might be a need for the .01 1/4 in this Department, but there may be an area of saving in the Electrical Department. COUNCILMAN SHANKS suggested that they go ahead and pass this part of the Code, and the group make its study and make it thoroughly. If they came back and showed where a saving could be _ CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS February 20, 1964 137 made and sold the Council on it, the fee could always be rolled back. In this discussion, the cost of water and sewer taps was brought in. It was explained this was a utility cost and not an inspection cost. The Mayor stated it was necessary to adopt a new building code. The buildTheing code had affected finances, the fire prevention rates, and many phases. Mayor stated the Council was trying to adopt the Code that would raise the standards of building in Austin and everyone was for it. There seems to be only a fee in question. MR. REEVES suggested if it were necessary to go ahead and pass this .01 1/4 fee, they would like to have the right to come back and reopen the question, after they had an opportunity to make an analysis of the various department's costs. COUNCILMAN WHITE suggested passing the Code; then if the group found something worthwhile, the Council would meet with it any time. The Building Official stated they were trying to follow the uniform Building Code; and it would be found down the line the new Code will be more lenient as to allowances, and there will be a savings of money in the long run in the overall picture than the .01 1/4. MR. WAYNE BURNS asked for a 30 day delay on the passage on this particular section of the Code so that they could make their study. MR. L. J. BURKS, Millers Blue Print, expressed his interest in leaving the fee as it was, as the home builders were his customers, as well as the City. The Building Official stated the Committee would like to see these four chapters passed. As the other Chapters are worked on, he would supply the builders with copies, work with them so far as obtaining any information from his Department. He recommended that these four chapters be passed now. Councilman Long noted if money were to be saved by the new Code, it should be passed more quickly. MR. NASH PHILLIPS asked if they could get the cooperation for all the other Departments concerning this information as they had been promised from Mr. Jordan. Councilman Long stated it was public record. The Mayor asked if this were agreeable to the City Manager and the rest of the Council, and each indicated it was. MR. BAKER stated they were opposed to the .01 1/4 charge, and requested that the first four Chapters be adopted, and that Section 303(b) be passed but be reduced to one cent, and that they be given a reasonable amount of time to study with Mr. Jordan his records and his department, and a reasonable amount of time agreed upon between Mr. Jordan, the Committee and the Home Builders; and when that time comes, if they were not ready to present their case, the Council automatically could raise the fee to .01 1/4 cent. He stated they all agreed that the Code needed up-dating, and that they were not trying to obstruct its adoption. The Mayor thanked Mr. Baker and stated all that was trying to be done was to get the exact costs out of the inspection. He said someone had stated the Builders wanted to stand on their own and did not want the general public to subsidize them. The Mayor stated the Council would make some kind of decision. Later in the meeting the Building Code was discussed with reference to including portions of the House Moving Code. Provisions were taken out of the House Moving Code and added in the Building Code. Mayor Palmer brought up the following ordinance for its second reading: - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 193 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING, REMOVAL, DEMO- LITION, CONVERSION, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE, HEIGHT, AREA, LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREFOR; DECLARING AND ESTABLISHING FIRE DISTRICTS; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH," WHICH ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON APRIL 30, 1931, AND IS OF RECORD IN BOOK "I", PAGES 387-544 OF THE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 4 OF SAID ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR A BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND BOARD OF APPEALS; DEFINING THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND MEANS OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PERSONNEL OF EACH; REGULATING CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, USE AND REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS; DECLARING NUISANCES, PRESCRIBING FEES, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND DEFINING TERMS. The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer asked that a complete copy of the Ordinance that is to be finally passed be sent to the members of the Council. The Mayor discussed establishing a time limit from the time the building permit is issued and work commenced until a building is finished as sometimes jobs were abandoned. It was suggested that an 18 months period would not be objectionable. The City Attorney stated on house moving, it had been suggested 120 days; and on new house constrution 18 months. MR. DOUGLAS BLACHLY introduced a group - MRS. W. H. MILBURN, MRS. STARNES, MR. JESSE FOX, MR. NED BARTON, MR. KEITH HENLEY, MR. JOE GLOVER, MRS. CECIL CABINESS, MR. HERBERT MENDIATA, MR. E. W. SHUMAN, MR. ELMO COOK, MR. JOE ROGERS, and MR. WILLARD MOORE, gardners in Austin. He stated they wanted an Assistant County Agent in Austin and Travis County trained particularly in ornamental horticulture to help with the gardening. MR. YOUNG, A. & M. College, made a pro- posal that the Texas Extension Service would underwrite one-half of the cost of an Assistant County Agent for Austin and Travis County if the County would provide one fourth and the city the other fourth. The Commissioners court had said informally they would underwrite their one-fourth. Mr. Blachly asked that the City cooperate in this undertaking in increasing the over all beauty of Austin. He pointed out the many advantages of this service. He stated the Parks and Recreation Board had expressed its approval. The Director of Recreation reported that the Board specifically felt that since there had been employed a Superintendent of Parks that there would be men who could handle the City's work. He said this person could not furnish individual consultation to people in their own _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 191 personal yards. He stated the Park Superintendent would help in educational matters, but he would not be able to give individual attention. The Parks and Recreation Board stated they would not like to see these funds come from the Parks and Recreation Budget. MR. ELMO COOK discussed the program and a proposed organization in the program to supply information and solve the problems. It would be strictly an educational program. He stated 95% of the County Agent's time of calls and visits were from people within the City. He recommended this service. The City Manager expressed concern as from where the local share of the money would come. Even though 95% of the inquiries are made from people in Austin, about that percentage of the taxes of the county come from Austin approximately 85%. He pointed out it would be 25% from the citizens of Austin plus 85% of what the County pays. Councilman Long stated it was a fine service to the people of Austin. For the $3,000 it would spend, she believed the people would get far more out of the program than the $3,000. Councilman LaRue inquired if this would not more or less be a pilot project. He suggested it could be tried for a year; and it would not disrupt anything if it were discontinued. MR. GLOVER, A. & M. College explained their program. MR. JOE ROGERS, President of Travis County Pecan Growers Association, spoke in favor of this program. Councilman Shanks stated out of the $6,000 that is to be paid between the County and the City, $5,550 comes out of Austin and $450 comes from the rural area. MRS. CECIL CABINESS, MRS. STARNES, MR. KEITH HENLEY, Vocational Agriculture Teacher, favored the program as it affected education and projects of the children and youth. MR. WILLARD MOORE, MR. E. W. SHUMAN and others endorsed this program with City participation. The Mayor stated the Council would discuss this with the City Manager and see if there were ways and means for financing this other than taking it out of Parks and Recreation. He suggested in the meantime, Mr. Cook discuss the matter with the Commissioners Court. The Council had before it for consideration the establishment of off-street parking requirements at 405 West 7th Street. DR. LeMOND appeared in his own behalf. The request for seven spaces was not recommended by the Building Official. After discussion, Councilman Long moved that the application for the seven offstreet parking spaces be denied. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White Noes: Councilman Shanks, Mayor Palmer • The Council had before it for consideration the house moving ordinance. Mr. Ed Fuller represented the house movers, stating they objected to the $35.00 deposit unless it was for police escorts--they did not want to pay for any other personnel unless it was from the Police Department. This item was discussed at length. Mr. Fuller was in agreement with Sections E, F, G, H, I, and J. In Section K, he suggested in the sentence "The Building cannot be moved across any street or public place unless accompanied by uniformed police escort ." that it be changed to read "unless accompanied by uniformed police escort, as directed by the Police Department". This would enable escort through a particular intersection but the escort would not be required from midnight until 5:00 A.M. The City Attorney stated this provision could be changed by adding "as required by the Chief of Police". Mr. Fuller pointed out in Part 2, there might be a waiting period necessary as some of this insurance could not be purchased over night. It was decided that the ordinance become effective as of March 10, 1964. Mayor ) February 20, 1964 10% = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Palmer introduced the following ordinance as corrected: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 29.9; 29.10 AND 29.11 OF CHAPTER 29 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1954 PERTAINING TO MOVING OF HOUSES AND BUILDINGS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Shanks moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Shanks moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Shanks moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Councilman Long made the statement if this did not work out she hoped the Council would be glad to work with it. Councilman White moved that the Minutes of the Meeting of February 6, 1964, be approved. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Manager submitted the recommendation of the Town Lake Study Committee regarding the request for change of location of LAHALA RESTAURANT, by Mr. Rogan Giles. The recommendation was that the change of location be approved with the provision that the landowner not place any additional fill in the creek bordering the east side of the property and that fill currently in the lake beyond the agreed boundary line be removed; also that no parking be permitted within forty-five feet of the lake front and that this area be left as a green belt for planting and beautification. It was further suggested that the area on the creek also be a green belt forty-five feet wide if the plat layout permitted or if agreed on by the committee upon submission of an alternate plan. MR. ROGAN GILES stated he did not want to have any misunderstanding, nor to set a precedent in relation to fill of the creek. He was agreeable in everything including the 45' green belt on the lake, but they were not sure yet, in rearranging the plans, _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 123 about leaving 45' for a green belt on the creek. He stated after the Architect rearranged the plans, they would resubmit them. They would have some green on the creek, but he did not know if it would be 45'. The City Manager stated if it could not be worked out the Committee asked to have another look at the plans. Councilman LaRue moved that the recommendation of the Town Lake Committee and City Manager be accepted. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor asked if the Council had read the proposed policy for the Town The City Manager called attention to the last part of the policy and reLake. commended that the Committee do as much definite planning as possible, and then the Recreation Department and others could execute those plans. Councilman Long said one member stated they had discharged their duties, and they felt the committee should be discharged. The Council discussed briefly the matter. The Mayor asked that the Council read the policy, and that the City Manager had a recommendation with regard to the last paragraph. The City Manager submitted an invitation to the Council from the Real Estate Board to its luncheon on February 25th, at which time MR. JOHN WINDSOR will speak on "What the Realtors Can Do for the City." The City Manager submitted a Memorandum from the Director of Recreation in connection with the Food and Drink Concession at Rosewood Center, recommending MR. GEORGE NICHOLS, the present operator, be continued as the operator. His proposal is to pay 10% of the gross receipts. Councilman LaRue moved that the recom- mendation be accepted. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager submitted a letter from MR. MIKE BUTLER expressing appreciation for the City's naming the tract the "Butler Civic Center". The Parks and Recreation Board, recommended that the tract be known as "Butler Civic Area". The Director of Recreation recommended that it be called "Butler Civic Center". The City Manager suggested that the Council designate this to the area purchased from the Butler family. Councilman LaRue moved that the Council accept the recommendation of the Recreation Director and that the tract be called "BUTLER CIVIC CENTER". The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager stated that the Director of Recreation was planning the official opening of the MORRIS WILLIAMS GOLF COURSE, Saturday, April 18, 1964, at 10:00 A.M. A ceremony will be held, and it was important that the Council and _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- February 20, 1964 Administration be present at this occasion. Councilman LaRue moved that the Council accept the recommendation of Mr. Sheffield on the opening of MORRIS WILLIAMS GOLF COURSE on APRIL 18th and that he be empowered to set up appropriate ceremonies for the occasion. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager read a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Board as follows: "The Parks and Recreation Board at its regular meeting February 3, 1964, voted to recommend to the City Council that the city-owned land north of 29th to 31st Street, as shown on the attached map, be added to the Goodall H. Wooten Park which was named in honor of the late Dr. Goodall H. Wooten by the City Council September 9, 1948. The Goodall H. Wooten Park lies along Shoal Creek between 24th Street and 29th Street and includes the 1.9 acres of land on the east side of Lamar Boulevard in the neighborhood of San Gabriel Street and West 26th Street. The Board suggests that this area be marked with the proper signs to let the people of Austin know whom the park honors. "The Board also recommends to the City Council that the Shoal Creek park area north of Pease Park to the 24th Street bridge be known as Pease Park and that proper signs be placed on this park." The City Manager stated if these areas were included there might be difficulty over future changes that have to be made in the streets--particularly in the 29th Street where a grade separation would take in most of the land they are talking about; and possibly at 19th and 24th Streets, where there is a possibility, if the City grows and the traffic situation becomes more acute, there will be some grade separations on Lamar. The Council considered the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Board, and Councilman Shanks moved that the recommendation be rejected. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: Councilman Long Not in Council Room when the Roll was called: Councilman White Councilman Long made the following statement concerning her vote: "I think this ought to be thought of in the way of a green belt and an area that we want to use for the citizens not necessarily for parks, but to keep it there for the posterity of the people of Austin--not thinking of it in the way of a roadway." The City Manager stated the property was purchased for Boulevard and Park purposes and to the extent boulevards were needed it was intended they be placed =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 there. Councilman Long asked if it could still be used for the hike and bike trail. The Director of Recreation inquired about the marking of the parks. Councilman Long moved that the signs be put on the park area that are now dedicated for park areas. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager called attention to the letter from MR. FRANKLIN DENIUS, dated February 13th, concerning the Gas Arbitration and the increase in the gas rate. The City Manager called attention to the Progress Reports on the Electric Utilities and on the Water and Sewer Contract Projects. The City Manager stated he would like to discuss the matter of policy in regard to water connections outside the city limits. He listed some requirements as follows: 1. That the city require any new customers in the area in the Water District who connect with the water system be operating or building a structure that conforms to the Master Plan. If it is in- consistent with the Master Plan, the requirement would be then that they come before the Council and get the Master Plan changed. 2. The Districts were prohibited from serving a customer in a subdivision which had not been approved in accordance to law and the City's subdivision ordinance. This rule would be continued. 3. Because of the fact there are cross connections which could be very dangerous to the public health if the water system were connected with a well and pump in the rural section and if for some reason there would be a reduction of pressure in the system and the well water began flowing into the system, it would be well to require before any water connections are made in these areas that a plumbing inspection be made by the Building Official. 4. If the Council wanted to continue the policy adopted in 1951, the practice of not making any connections outside the city and outside the district for residential use would be continued. Within the district the connections would be made because those people were entitled to that service, and the City had assumed that obligation. No connections would be made for a residential customer outside the City limits unless he were in a water district. The Mayor suggested leaving this as it is. Councilman Long discussed the refund contract policy. Councilman Long moved that the City Manager be instructed to have a study made in connection with the refund contract policies of the city and have them compared with other Cities and to bring in a recommendation, such recommendation, she hoped would =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 11 tighten the policy. The motion lost for lack of a second. Councilman Long moved that the City Manager be instructed to have a study made of the City's refund contract policies and compare those policies with other cities and bring in a recommendation. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager discussed a land purchase on South 1st Street. The City Attorney stated he had a signed contract for $11,800 for the tract which was 116' x 197' and a 27' x 90' strip. Councilman Long moved to purchase this property (from Mrs. Forrester) for $11,800 as recommended by the City Manager through the City Attorney. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager stated the Kelly McAdams property at 29th and Lamar, Lots 13 and 14, was now vacant except for the garage apartment. Ultimately the City will need it in order to get the grade separation on 29th Street. He stated the Council had discussed a road crossing over the railroad, and bringing it in from Westover Road, into the University area. After discussion, Councilman LaRue moved that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate for this property. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager stated there was some property in the Glen Oaks project on the south side of Rosewood very close to the creek, and the owner Mr. Ruiz wants to sell it. If the City acquires it now, its expenditure would be a part of the cost of the project. He listed the value. After discussion, Councilman Long moved that the City Manager be instructed to negotiate for this property on Rosewood Avenue in the Glen Oaks Project, Lots 25 and 26. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager stated the Building Official had called his attention to the fact in one of the four chapters of the Building Code that was passed to the second reading, there is a provision for the appointment of an Appeal Board, which shall be appointed by the City Council. It was suggested that the Council have in mind some names of people to appoint to this Board upon the adoption of this part of the Code. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 1 Councilman Shanks offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Austin has found that public necessity requires a drainageway across a 2.13 acre tract of land out of Lot 18 of Theodore Low Heights belonging to Jesse A. Phillips and wife, Shirley Phillips, in order to provide for the safe and proper drainage of the public streets in the area located within the City of Austin; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that public necessity requires the acquisition of a 30 foot drainageway across the hereinafter described tract of land to provide for the drainage of public streets and roadways; and, WHEREAS, the City of Austin has negotiated with the owners of said tract of land and has been unable to agree with such owners as to the fair cash market value of a 30 foot wide drainage easement across such land; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and directed to file or cause to be filed against the owners, a suit in eminent domain to acquire a 30 foot wide drainage easement across that certain tract of land containing 2.13 acres out of Lot 18, Theodore Low Heights, in the City of Austin, Texas, as conveyed by that certain warranty deed from Joe T. Lanham, executor, to Jesse A. Phillips, and wife, Shirley Phillips, dated October 17, 1963, and recorded in Volume 2681, page 62, Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks Noes: None Present but not voting: Mayor Palmer Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 631003-C SO AS TO CORRECT THE DESCRIPTION OF TRACT 1 AND TRACT 2, AS THE SAME ARE, BECAUSE OF A CLERICAL MISTAKE, ERRONEOUSLY DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDINANCE NO. 631003-C, SO THAT SUCH DESCRIPTIONS SHALL HEREAFTER READ AS FOLLOWS: A. TRACT 1: LOCALLY KNOWN AS THE REAR OF 7300-7312 INTERREGIONAL HIGHWAY. AN INTERIOR TRACT OF LAND OUT OF LOT 3, TEX-CON ADDITION HAVING DIMENSIONS OF 100 FEET BY 200 FEET AND CONTAINING AN AREA OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET; B. TRACT 2: LOCALLY KNOWN AS 7212-7324 INTERREGIONAL HIGHWAY AND 406-608 E. ST. JOHN'S AVENUE. ONE LOT FRONTING APPROXIMATELY 656 FEET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTER- REGIONAL HIGHWAY BEGINNING AT A POINT 140 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ST. JOHN'S AVENUE, AND FRONTING APPROXIMATELY 637 FEET ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ST. JOHN'S AVENUE BEGINNING AT A POINT 300 FEET WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERREGIONAL HIGHWAY. SAME BEING LOT 3, TEX-CON ADDITION; SAVE AND EXCEPT THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS TRACT 1; ORDERING A _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 CHANGE IN THE USE AND HEIGHT AND AREA MAPS SO AS TO RECORD THE CORRECTION HEREBY ORDERED; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10 OF ORDINANCE NO. 600721-C SO AS TO RESET THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING THEREIN PRESCRIBED CONCERNING THE PAVING OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SCENIC DRIVE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Palmer noted a letter from the Travis Audubon Society commending the Town Lake Committee for zoning the lake for quiet use and prohibiting the use of motor powered craft on Town Lake. Mayor Palmer read a letter from MR. HOMER GARRISON, JR., Director Texas Department of Public Safety, as follows: "We note that the Austin City Council has accepted proposals made by your local Civil Defense Director, Colonel W. A. Kengla. "You are to be commended for your foresight and long-range planning in the field of Civil Defense, and certainly Colonel Kengla is to be congratulated for his untiring efforts in the development of this complete and efficient plan. "This is an outstanding example of updating, modernizing and continuous improvement of survival plans at the local level. Only through this channel can the public be adequately prepared for natural or man-made disaster. "It is people like you, your Council, and Colonel Kengla who simplify procedures at the state level and make our duties a pleasure. May we extend our further cooperation and assistance in the advancement of Civil Defense projects." Mayor Palmer read a letter of commendation from the Plant Engineer, Austin State School, Mr. Ward P. Lambert, as follows: "Last Saturday morning about 7:00 A.M. some hot grease was overturned in one of our kitchen range ovens and caught fire. Fortunately one of our employees was able to extinguish it before the fire caused any damage. However that employee had reported the fire as she had been instructed, and the City of Austin Fire Department responded to our alarm with the usual promptness. "We express again to the City of Austin Fire Department our thanks for assisting us in protecting the lives of the students at Austin State School, and protecting State of Texas property against damage from fire. Our thanks are given also to Assistant Chief Davis and his men, and we commend them for their expeditious response and their willingness to assist." CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS=== February 20, 1964 20 The City Manager inquired in connection with the Town Lake, if the Recreation Director should not proceed and do some planning in the parks and recreations areas that are obvious, and in the picnic area. The City Manager stated MR. ED BLUESTEIN, State Highway Department, was anxious to proceed with the contract to acquire right of way for the Bastrop Highway from Bergstrom Field Interchange to Onion Creek, as it is planned to widen the right of way and have a divided highway. The City needs to make a contract to buy its part in the city limits, and the County has already executed a contract to buy the property on out. The City Manager stated in connection with this, the Bergstrom Field officials have been concerned in getting their children across that high speed thoroughfare to the Popham School, and they have exhausted every means they had to get something done about it and have been unsuccessful so far. The City Manager stated Mayor Palmer and he met with Mr. Bluestein and asked him if in exchange for the right of way that comes off of Bergstrom Field would they put in this interchange. He said they could not, but it might work out some way; that the Highway Department had put in some pedestrian overpasses where other people pay for them. The City Manager stated he had received a letter stating that MR. GREER, the Highway Engineer, had authorized Mr. Bluestein to include this pedestrian overpass on the highway and that the State would defray half the cost if the City and County paid the other half. The City can get for its part of the right of way the amount of money to pay that part. He explained the status of the title to the land, stating this would not be a case where the City would be adverse to letting the funds that might be paid by the County and the State for this right of way to go into this particular use. By this process, they can be given the protection they need, and would be good relations with the military. It was estimated by Mr. Bluestein the cost of this structure would be around $40,000. The Highway Department will participate a half in the structure. Councilman Shanks offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: SECTION 1. That the certain agreement dated February 20, 1964 between the State of Texas and the City of Austin for the procurement of the right-of-way within the city limits of the City of Austin for the proposed widening of State Highway 71 from Bergstrom Interchange to Onion Creek, be and the same is hereby approved and W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City and to transmit the same to the State of Texas for appropriate action. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White Councilman LaRue moved that the City Manager be authorized to notify the Highway Department that the City would participate in the manner outlined by him. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in the Council Room when the roll was called: Councilman White The City Manager reported that the following zoning applications had been referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and had been set for public hearing at 11:00 A.M. on March 26, 1964: MONROE TERRILL By Joe Perrone AMERICAN FOUNDERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. By S. J. Maxwell PHILLIP CRAWFORD By Rollie H. Lawrence M. K. HAGE, JR., By Hub Bechtol CROSS COUNTRY INN OF AUSTIN, By Moton H. Crockett, Jr. J. O. McCOY By Don Buss LOUIS GAGE and RICHARD L. HOUGH By Robert C. Sneed CAL MARSHALL By John B. Selman FRANK C. BARRON SHOAL CREST BAPTIST CHURCH By Robert Sneed 817-823 East 7th Street 610-618 Brushy Street 6931-7011 Ν. Interre- gional Highway 1406 Fort View Road Tract 1 807-809 (805) East 32nd Tract 2 815-817 (813) East 32nd Rear of 6209-6213 U.S. Highway 290 703-705 West 32nd Street 2103-2205 Anderson Lane Tract 1 1701-1807 Overhill Drive 4511 East 19th Street 1800-1814 Springdale Road Tract 2 Rear of 1805 Overhill Drive 1400 North Loop Boulevard 5300-5302 Woodrow From "C" Commercial. 2nd Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "C" Commercial 6th Height & Area To "C" Commercial 5th Height & Area From "C" Commercial To "C-1" Commercial From "A" Residence To "0" Office From "C" Commercial 6th Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 6th Height & Area From "BB" Residence 1st Height & Area To "BB" Residence 2nd Height & Area From "A" Residence and "B" Residence To "GR" General Retail From "IR" Local Retail To "C-1" Commercial From "A" Residence To "O" Office 1304-1313 West 34th Street From "A" Residence 3401-3405 Alamo To "C" Commercial CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- February 20, 1964 HOWELL FINCH ANDREW and JOSEPHINE VISCARDI By Robert C. Sneed MRS. W. L. LUNDBERG By P. E. Worsham C. N. MARSH and HERMAN F. HALL By Sam R. Perry EDDIE SIMMONS CORA BELL BRIGGS and CLIFFORD BRIGGS By R. L. Wormley ALMETA YETT By Robert Peen Fowler E. M. ROBINSON By Robert C. Sneed MARGARET L. MOORE and THOMAS J. MOORE By Phil Mockford ERNEST ELAM and P. FRANK LAKE By Vincent Nelson 1606 (1610) South Congress From "C-1" Commercial Avenue 1200-1204 West Lynn 1600-1604 West 12th St. 2110-2204 Tillery Street 300 East Riverside Drive 1205 Baylor Street 1001-1003 East 10th St. 907-911 San Marcos St. 504-506 West 33rd Street 505-507 West 34th Street 3301-3307 Guadalupe 2113-2115 Goodrich Ave. 3104-3106 Speedway 313-317 East 18th Street 1706-1710 Trinity Street 2nd Height & Area To "C-2" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "C" Commercial To "C-2" Commercial From "A" Residence To "B" Residence From "D" Industrial To "C-2" Commercial From "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area To "C" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "A" Residence 1st Height & Area To "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area From "A" Residence 2nd Height & Area To "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area From "A" Residence To "C" Commercial From "A" Residence 1st Height & Area To "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area From "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area To "C" Commercial 2nd Height & Area Mayor Palmer noted letters from DR. JOHN T. KING and from MR. R. L. WORMLEY, expressing appreciation for their appointments to the Advisory Board at Brackenridge Hospital, and to the Urban Renewal Board of Commissioners respectively. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS February 20, 1964 There being no further business Councilman Shanks moved that the Council adjourn. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Not in Council Room when roll was called: Councilman White The Council adjourned at 8:00 P.M., subject to the call of the Mayor. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED しい ریدن تا 2 Mayor