The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNo Year J ,11,d t} y+ I~1dC~RA~JDU'~! raF:'dam: October S, 1965 TOe Brooke Holt PROHe City Attorney BUDJrCTs Annoxntion ROULle & Procedure { ROC,el. Axticlee 970a Bpotinn,6 requires that notice be given, j by publication, of ae?,l enntexation procreeedinge prior to their institution. This notice may be in the form of an Ordinance, and must bis published at least once not more than 20 nor leers than 10 days prior to anah hearing. 1 The City Cb%rter ragviren the Ordinanct of Annexation to be f published rat least one time i3po s its introduction to the Council. The prdinanaa may not be acted upon (paseaed) until k at least 30 days after the peeblirattore, It may be made ` effective immediately upoll its paeRal7a. All annemation p).,ooeeedingn mimit bo completed within 90 dayn of then first hearing, which first hearing in our case officially inetit:utos the enneexntion procooding. A four-fifths vote of the Counuil is required to pries the Ordirianesm. My suggestion, in all oases, of annexation, would be to com- loins the original notice of hearing with the ordinance itself (form attached) (cid publish it. between 10 and 20 daye of tho data the Council meets for the hearing, which may bo a opeeoiaal or regular meeting, Aftor tbt hearing is opened, and the Ordinsheo is read, and all are heard, the hearing will be closed « but no vote on the vrdinanao. At the hoxt meeting after the expiration of 30 days from tho date of publication, the Ordinance should bo voted on. This neeating must, hoYwavat, be within 90 days of the hearing. f i i In i 1 .Che ordinance, it passed, will be offootime itmediately, Any quertiona? ! dQdC~t; 1 { coo Cook Reynolds i ! E I r i ! ! Y i i [I ~ ~~-rz u•ru,Irtr,„> § zr~rr ' See, 25.112, Linlltrttlen of n'nlev isupply, The director of ntIvidca shad havo the powor and authol•ity to Iltuit tho rwlouilt of wator uaed by ally per5on when Imell Ihnitat-toil, in the ophilon of the director of uliiities, is rnccos- ' sary to 1114ure adequate wator supply to tho public genovally, (1050 Cocio, Art, 17.141) , Secs 25.013•-°26.73, Reserved. Artich, V. Extenrsionn of Water laud Smvt,r i1 Mos . Sec, 2544, l;t,'ensloiw •--1.esir Ihan ano lutndrod Net, I 1 h4.ipity wil~E oxtond, It l7ntax..ntld ,yvty l' i21~ln yljo 1 4X i Ge,~t~'ii~t~'~~ht'tt~dt~ttd. (100)`f~et tlr'bNiib'i' tg,8b;r~~fi3tli~filn~`<t lot€sl (JAD Coclc, Art• 17.07) ;3aa 25~7F~, Shine-41ove Ill tin Otto !11111(1 red ft"Ot. Whol'a; nn oxloi,nioa of ivator er sewer ttta1118 in-excass of alto hj(fitll~Gi1 (100) falr6 H'xleguirad io rtar.}'Willi ltidl liltia) )oil f ~ ~tht) a~Yfxoi~,ahall 1~tty,tlto-ttittltP eoRf: of Knllitil`i?'~tenslan ~~ay,~lticl t- ono 1>p~)dl'eci :(lfib) feat, aubict to tho t'Alniiiademont'rrovi riiM bf's6406tt 25-77,' (90 0,C16(10Art, ~ 7.0'r+) See, 2570, Same--ltcyulredlose•ve.m',bdl%,Wons, (A) suhrlivklors Atill pay 1110 entiro cast of wntor and sower mnitt extenslons rcquired to servo It. subdlvirdol• (b) Whoro tha extollydmis to tench a subdivisiotl arc laict ' j / hl strecG t9ghtr+-of nmy or In dodimtell ar'oas directly aceca- j kihle to rtat'vicri Ihw$, ills Hubdividor shall bo entltled to voirn•• \ bnrNelnent, ill acebrdr IN tVllh the proVlalons of scotion 261'17, (1969 Collo, Art, 1707) Soc. 26.77, ltelmbtu, muenl of exlennioit costa, ' (a); Apy; owner of prpperty wito bCnt'H'tile cost aP;~VatoV pr seA i tiiltln exto4lbntl fit oxcess>of ono Immlem ('l.O6) fcof f~l r1K pkovidect.lil;' a tiott 7..G`- 6, or any subdividov who benrfi tho cost of main extensions to n subdivIslon, ns 1)1 oviclod In sect.lon 26.76, shat! p~.ent.ttlael to rcimbut'Aomont WOO entire pt;o rfttr,rast It id t 'ifta'(i0 ari provldecl In section 25-70 ~t,ct,. rte, a 4185 I 1 e F r tI i u.., • DENTON W)W-l l!i-4fi fat +eflelt t18of, typo' oetende fe aeti,icn ,hIke fvolli 8ua1ltuajy; t ~(?4 1 c1 bfi>lvo G itty~1 1 'j, IV ,dfa O. fr'liYf giie)r i3itRior~g tit~o Aol},d'y tl#a 1l y>, (b) After the nxphvrtiorr ()f five (5) venrn from the date of wetter or sewer main Oxiension, 41H nforv.said, no 1'ut~ihm reltrt}iursemeut n1mil be made, (n) Thn proviHiomr of iltig 8ortion 8111111 not apply to rnnGr OXIA11181onH ConRtraUt(1d by UK! City of i)enton, 01, tutdol, its nn- tlwzity, from any mnfu co1]8tructcd under the -I 111H of thiH ~ tu~ticle• , (d) ltehnbursonmat pnynrenls 811101 bo tirade to tho pcr8on who paid the cast, of the nudu, fuid ao other pereorr, shall be 1 eutit}ed to payment under ibe ter niq of tlfiti (lr'tielo, (O) The reitnhur8rrnettt nfoteesld shall bd pr.yable on or nfter Octobo2. 1 of each yow. Al. tips funds flurlalr Oho pre- ceding year (f) Thou shall bo it 1nrtXimnat of five (G) yen's trs llf(+ porlod of elildbllity whorein the orighlill 1118itdlcr bf th'i tltldn8 n)uy request 1-ohn1mvsornout of pro rain paym(ml,4 uaclor this aectioat• Tho poriod of oligibility Hhrtll belthi ns of the (Into of final inspection fund acceptance of tern extelislott,I by the city. (Ord, No, 04.913, 1, 0.28.04) 28.78, 111.0 PhlIt 4+fitt ahargen for tapping 111011}a, (n)I.yvr,vt pvxtun Rp)alvu)g fu; n. tlf Of,-ally , e-•` 1 1yOt'r; Or A(Tibr M~ W r01 , ll;, iAW hOW Odh ti itetttS tut`~t~r titbit i3k;r H= of : tiR;xvclalu ahRll; p}ti~ foH iR)~glt flvllogb' ot`fha'x+lltiSi~l I~i4teH , . 0) Qne.hplf O/a) rho arltlalmat, of,(tawilu;.aot,gxt,7adin Srt Sllr~ldo dlh to"or t~gh4 f ; ' : i)IUf+, por fi'bia11"''tgit ¢ft1)~[lbfy or.trnot t?f )iati3d• to ^~f,;t rirhair cof;l3bfr(tta ~ IiiRy bb` ftiiitrto:` (2) Onu~hlti4 (~/2) iltc actlutl coat of;,n tntfln, Jlot oa4Qpdiu In till~3slo dtNn~ptEr~~ n -:(io) tieltcfat ~~er°:frontr ~ou~ `q~ f t.~e ~bt,bxEt~n ~#a.~~,~nci.t'b'~v~t~~h ~altitni~y+'k~yV 2'dc"sii~, I #tibtSa3ie rS•layv~s~, I#iddb; t14101" NO, 9 984 t • l 3 i z~•rtf U1111 L11,111 VS The above front; foot. aatcs shall apply to irroporty frolli,ittg c on It stwect in In'eaa plattcol role Oho 1181110 I'VVt,Mt;•ulitw lots .or trafcl5 of l;uad, With It depil, net to execud one hmilrod will fifth, (7Ii6) fecl, Whove Iok ar tra(.0, linvo (,f-cater dopth than one liliadre(t mill fifty (160) fool. from Oho front street )file fold are occupied, or are to be occuhipd exclusively aR dwell., Ing places, thou Ohw additiotad depth Oiall not bo ntlsexsefl; If Elio Itioperty Is latar aiubclivi dad, 11equb9rly an oxiensioti of { ttiaiun to 8crvc, saint, then the. Oerfna: oil thls article nltall 1 E I bovGwi. Oil lots or trael4 of land whio)) extend l.lwowgit from Otto shoot to nnotllor m Ith fronijige en both nt.reets, mil tl'hero k the difitairru bctwcea the strcut linos Is t-wo htatdrOd and kixty (260) feel oa' Hours, O WD file pra roUii charges l,orulrt provided for 011111 be paid oil botll fo otitngu;t tvGell ?t counection is noONA to the let or ltncO, Whore lilts awtnwk of )arid lore irrei;uialr in slzo rn, ahupo, then pro recta choorgcw shall No based upon equivalent ructnnt;ulat lots or tracts uningotw front, font rot. each one hundred and fifty (160) square feet I of liven, or the pro P,tia citargcs provided hermit on ivcrntre fi'oulatKc of awch trnel5, whichever Is 110 !caner aUttoutat, The below rnton 411all apply to property throllgll ',vllela, under propow casemeftt, mild tutor or' solver ntnin has L cell con . 4ruetud tvhicl propwty does not front. on it street or other public right-of-wt uoni,tinhti" such tnailt t ( (1) Aortal cost of cotf;+Oructing a main, not exceodini in Itudde ditmtetor eight (8) hnciic:!, pow feat through thu lot or tract oi' hand to which twftlcr connecdoml finny be made, (2) Actual cost of cousirwUnt; It main, oat oxec"Ming In inf)hle dituno+tet' ten (10) ineile!' )ter Not tbroutkh lho lot of ).vast of IIUad to which t,n»iitu"y sewer conncetlons may be made, (b) The ubovo cliu'ges shit)) ❑ot itppiv 1o Iota withttt It sltbdiviAon to which the developer thereof ham at hin ox- pongo h!alnlled the math being lopped, i (c) The chatgori provided by this nccllola shall bo In addl• tion to Oho uauail iappiutr cllarr;ea and m,y other chartreb pro•- vidcd by the mvdinilm'" of Hill vily. j (d) The Intent nad pw'pose, of t}tia section is to pro>vidr i ow equilabhe charge floe trratcf, Imll sanittu'y sewer connecUolin I Nnrr, Evil. t~ , b8ii k ~ I f i § Ohms IMINTON MWE $ 7.6•! 0 Its it propordon.tl.o distribliflun of the coM of tivrilrt' And Muni- (any sower o'nin extensions to serve prolv'rty within tin) i114sdietion of the elty (111 It front foot 1)119k. In case propccty oi, it tract of land Is so situntwi or ahM;M that the front foot rnlo crentes all inequitablu bwAI-S us between It, and Other trad,lI-of )arid, then, in that event, Iha elE.y nnnoo-lIter shall detorniino tho propur Wrgo In iweord AM Ulu Intent and porpo:ul of tills section, No pot von shall nedilhvo any voeted right UaBer the terat:4 fold provisions of tills socllon (Gros", j Roforenco-__-Art3cio 13.00 In Appendix A) (1061) Guclei Art. 17.07; Ord. No, 0583, § I, G-M-64; Ord. NO, 07-05, § J, f 2.14-i1'!) AluOnohnenl uote -Ord, No, 04-05, A 1, udapted I'eh, 11, 1007, whGude 1 i 2545 to read us herein set Onl; ho norly the We of the nail, fov watrr eonoectious Isis 001; exceeding, h inches" mid tho afar. of th0 I main for saaAery sewor couucett011 was "not came( lg 0 tachva". Secs. 26.T,1.-._.1 i£1R. RetiCrvnfL [ `F Article All, Vjlvato 17tllity Franchior. I agHlotionrr^ t-~ Sev, 264;9. Frfutu}llse requh-eft for twe of publl(i pi-opcriy. ) It alpill ho uniitlvful for nny peanut or ivy public or private institution to construct, phew, hulld, lay or nutintuin any p1pe, l polo, wh'o, conduit, cable or Other device for tho purpmie of coaduetlair electricity, water or tins along, upon, lieross, aI)O%'o or underneath any aLrept, alley, flhoroughfara, llil;hwily or othor public prapcri.y of the etty, +vltliouj~ first olrtainhtfr it frnhchigo front tlie. City for Ivhntcver parpoeo or pttrf)bgeg such pipe, polo, wire, conduit, cable or other device is to bo used; and ally snrh franchiso shill be for it sot (1111;; and pur- )o5o and in aecordnneo will) the (11110er taut ordininleog of the clay, (1060 Codc, Art. 1.700) Sev. 25.00, olivradon wilhottl fratlchlso plohlbited, It Hball bo unlawful for luny poI'non or fluty public or privata lndRution to sell, dirs(i1bute, offor for silo, nr provide any water, olocta'ie, mower, Iris or telopltouo a, any roulouuliention r ICroau reference-19lcen'lcal code Rollorully. Ch, 0. hum No b i i!$Ci 1 r+' t a .",i':C'!':f.01"1 :LU;7 ltil'1'LP;,S'ICrJ'J 0}~' CI'.PY 3,Ti1a:T~f. SiY II ~ithU vote of Coitttcl3. Cite C.Uy hal. potaor to as'ttlar and cxtenrl i.t6 boundary by Or•dfomnco, 3tialudirrtr t~nnexin(; ad•1ac rat tervll or.y, vi-fth Or t-r:ttho ut; the consent of the l.nh.at~l.tantf; of thc: torr:i_tory annc xod. Aftez intrvduot,ion of such Ordirla lloo to the CouncJ.l , it fsho.l.:t bo publ,ished _in fu'1.1. one time. Amen(}mc,nt,; ti,aly latter be irir.orpo),ated i,s;to it by 11/5Wm vote of Cotnlol-[, a.nd pubIlealt:Jon . of t.ilc:r tzntr.nd11!entit3 Trio ordfimnco Ohal:( not be f inal.:ly ucted upon until Lit f loasst thirty (30) daryl arter the pu}0JC,a.ti.on, of thr Urdi.nrtnoc, E and alftex pub:11 sitt:ion cr any 1mondwelib thereto. i..e. , 3~ dFly i i from :I.fr rs t ~lrnot Jrnent; , l..F A.ny . ti Uhrni .lrfart;hc 30 clay prr•1ad, fire wnnrxatJan if, oomp:Letod ats or 6:ite of final. patma1w. Thin chrlxtcr provlslon is tho Gaty'r3 Rralit of power to £lhi',ex, anti i.F tsttbjccE only to th(,, 11mi.tatloim provided J.n 114.3. Art.; 9'(0ti) w) 'tM0I1dad :Ln 1963 f To -tive ~ui;ust, 1063) and ton Act, lioyin as the ?un:LnJlml Annc:x< ASiI,I:fCI}'ilL Atli-WXA'.iS014 ACT "il"U TON`, J. and 2 Wime thr-I avtlcle (9'~(Ia) and dr.f`Lno certain berm-) r SUTTON 3 3~~t~lbLirthrfs rho extrutcrritol%U11 ;Jurisdiction Of., n11. oitie5 by popul.lition (Detit•on lift, ? miles), bn6 per.. mAtts a tpportiionttlent of s"alle betwoon cit:tes wll.,wo an ovov:Lap UY.itlt:x . I ,m:1j,:["0m II Provides for, tho exterlf"ion of subdl v.tts9.or; haLYlsl.rlt;ionr3 tr!_L•is:trl tYtc e'<tr~tserri.tnr.lrt:L tirctt. f 51T,C'PTO}J 5 Pcrriil is l: Lt (r creation of an l.rldu;ttrJ.tl1 d:Ls tri ct vr1 thin 4 they cxt;vatcrrrJtoz,lal firma, pr1wuv11.y f'or contract purpow',,bi and aftrreemc'nts to rofrat n from carlnexir- ailmo for a porl'od or t fill, not to es:Coed yoavo. 1 I -10 1 E; a , ;L:C`1`:COId (i liequarou a publ:lc hcartnf FtL a t:iiuc, not riiore tl'~~1is 20 uop lcs;,; th,'Ill to daye pi'lop t() :Lri.;titutiJ.(M 1h.1 "I sl~i uu=an Liiat; t ho of mmoxaUC)n ))r(Jcc o(iAnv . y t I Lutc t,ltc introduce cots of tho vmwxatloli ardlt ante 11,, prot,a°idlntr, pril~rr to As, puOleat.ton, .lho atnicxallon must~bn complote~l w:l.tlllu ninct,y (90) day- of t•hc date the Coim(dl lnstltutes the amioxatloEl pr_occcdJ_nt"5> or i:t talll. be tau a.-anc( vol(l. 1`h l5 5isc+f ton was, t.iEion(le( offectave M-4y 1'(, :1,965 to require notice by ~(e I J PiUd mall to rai..l.roIld compsna.rra swvving the c_l t.Y ta.ti Iron„ Rl t,y,! s tax vo.la wherry the right of uay thoruof J s itisludc~l :i.n(;fiu terrJ-tovy to be Mnexed. NO other charq;e: was made, SECTION Idid.ts the aiilount of .1 awl a C1I;y may annex (i.,e. vrlth11) extmtervi.torlul. ,furl^dict;Aon, wid 10;0 por yetir" with i (ibrtalll oxcoptlonfs: 1 Land Ovinod by City, County, State or USA. 1,41110 requeotinfr annexation. AcrtumOut;Jon to 304 of circii) MOTION it -111aecc 1.1.1dtcltaorm ore the, creation of po.lltlcin:t Hubdiv:L91or15 withJ.n tho ext'ratcrri.tori,al. ,)urisdi.etaon j of a Clty, J.tic:LudLrcf; editor and mo-wo,r cl:lrtr:tetts, 31OUOR 9 W Stitablisher the form and contont of a petltfolr for annexation, and for the peti.tlail for water and sevter sorvaces prior to foi-mi.ng a wator or sower dlslract, fSJ.Vnplc t,l~3t of SECYTON :10 D; the. distinlacxtation provJ. ion, The it Js thtib a (':l(y thtia,.l vilt'h:l.El throe: (:3) yeas;) from + j tinnax.lnf:; ally tr.rritory pr'ov clc;, or caue3e to bo provJ.dOd that t!irr,:li:ory with govonwerlLrt:l and prol-wiec-ary t4or- v.locs In a incanner substant1411..1v o(Jutval.cnt to the f3tanoavd Lind tsx,ope of Uoso rorvices furnifAicd 1.11 Other Euomg of such City which have charcictcviatics of topography) pattern;; of farad uti'l izata on, and popttlaU oll denpity t,.Lnialai, to that of tho particular anon annvxeda The section taco on to provide the pro- oedure for dJ r3at'nlextti;:Loil eholti(I such st4iniitird not be Met Othin the 3 year-pg:rJ.od, The petltarm for such mane be t31gi-io(I by a iisajor:Lty of the qualiflod votors l xaid'dinl, wLth:lrt tho partlctalax, annoxecl area, tend Ovill 1 a0% or move of Such annexod area, It :k further provided that, such (1113 milloxat]. oil Is not to any area wfA ch w,W l.awfUll.y ailnc:xed within tho City fit the ti.mts of U1Pr vat, or Fiale, of any genor-al obIleaticn bonds; If bhe prooeod13 thorefrolsi 114ivo been oxpeukd foi, capital, improvements to ilovvc such i l7tuyt:lcuL<ii annexed t,ro;i, so .ion(; t1t3 any such bond:; am oil t;.,3 tan I I I 4 I I I ' j: dk SAP+1s'h} (~tINt.YA!C I OR PFitt IEDUlil 7 , A. Tw ttal t,cque,~tt bV Ftaff ~,tibinl.Ltcd c}1z"eet:ay to till rling, and Von I nt;, L'ola,nl ,on on. I3, Petition (outes1cl rc;qucr~t) made darcctl,V to Cityd = Oourici.,l, than ref orred by Counela_ to Planning W) Zoning Comm} sf,txon far } t i; rccomm(:rtdt t:i.on, but no ACTION TAKEN by CotatielP, other th'1,r ' ugh r'efr,rr(il. I'T A, Property in c}ucstlon rsv:lewod by 1111rmint; ~tllc, Foning no public hearing required (unIcss pcrrnsnent xorting is Involved. Sete VI below,), and no t we :C:tnlLts ar'c' appl.1cabl.e unless f,et by CouncJ.l.. 13, Wit},in reasonable radio, Planning and Connni;Eiion shbmItfs the matter to the Counci l: al ont; vii th i t re- commencl,ution, It-, is placed on rtf;cenrlrr by City 11,11IRSer, III A. At the tneeti.nt; next f'ollowitr(! At,) tlppear"anoe oil the 3 Buys in advttnoe, the Agenda, ano proper posting Vol, Cowie .l s brierod on the matt('r of, the nnnoxatJon, in renoral terms; and rccillostod to riot on the rc oolmtanda- F, tions of the 113.annln@; and 'honJ.n~; Commi.fsr3lon, Plarmor and Mantrgcr. Then, If they do dosirc by sa.trrpl0 Iwr.;}-• ority vote of thofse present (aw wnlns a nuorwn), the I Councti,l. will, order R public hoarJnt;`on the Z11kce6tion of - fannor.J.ng the tract before thorn, or, any oolvt:}on of It but no zrclot_tiona] Land, 11, The r,ubl.10 hearing will he hold bofovo anythan(; olso oar) bo don(e, Other than 5cr)dlllg the mirror buck to alter st;udV, cabl.l.nf; j '1tr l ~ llann.lrtC, and lon or t C., the que,tion, C, Vo tilne E)ohudulo dl.etatef; vtllcrn the}.rr public hc<(r:tn' should be hold EXC):I'T thrLt it; cannot- be: rsoa,ror than ("]'even (31) days from this moetirlt; ror the r'earton rstatcd bolow, 1'V. ' A, Notioe or the public hearing shall bo publirhe i ill the liecord-•Chroni.cl.e ("Ind letltcrs sent to ra:tlroad conlpani.e:s as rcgtit.rcd in ]c]Gy atnendlgcnt to Art, 970tt} NO'J' mOPi}s THAN ttlchty (20) dayu• nor TVAN ton Q-0) days prior tb the haartrig,, 'f`Irls hcavlvlgr may lie ar, a VOGular 01. opodial ca.ilod meeting. If' regular, it ohould ttppc,ar on that mectJnp posted ai cnda, in tuldition to tie af'ore;saJd published notloo, 11, No action may be taken at, the public hcar:ing, and "Emnexw .Litton proccedinga" may not be Instituted before ton (10) dayrr after thl,,4 hearing; but MUST 4F br,for.o twenty (20) dayo Cxpl.ro, 'i'ho extortion, of cour,sso, Ja Co r, ruse; the j atvrox~tt.ion, r c1,t-)i .2 vn 111 fl)" 0V E,pe'.t l. V, A. At thlo subsecie.lent ineet:tnf,, g ' hold not, more than 20 nor let,s thtln 10 days from the heari.rl(_;, the Cout'rcil way I.W,1M:'PU11`P; ANP31 XA'1':CON PHO(;SHDTNOS in the following Inttnner; (a) Order the City Attorney to draw art Orclim.nce annex-- ing tthe land i.n (jk COL tiort, and publish it as tsoon aft L'A01s OPIh , 010or the ord.ln,zncc CIS then introduced' by the ~I City Attorney to be sv Ilub'I:iShc:d, PhtF 1s prr.- ferrahle, acs the :Lof;aT_ depat~tn;ent: tr.ll.l, havi? the o`rd;lntzncc , Ei. The ordinarrbv ttfttr~f be p.rlalrshod in full., ab least one time, and no final action Carr be t~rkci? before the expart,tiorl of 3O day:: from the fir, "t date of pub.l:La& ti.on. After the 30 day I>er:Lod, the ordinanco will auto.. m&ti.cal.ly br placed on the agewla ~tnd dome. back before the Countll fors t1.na..l. actic,rt, if rrc, amendments have been madc, to it . C. It Must be pM';t;(!d bc,forf 90 days expire from the M81111+ 'J.'11'.t'lUI 'Ol' I)110Cl3ltiD114U's (i,e, ordori-n the o),dinance pttbla.shed, or drinm) or he I!,01 and void, 't'his :1.s t-lily the ordinance should bo rowdy, ;211d :tntrodtreed, at the mooting follow1rit the hear.Ing (aftor 10, but before 20 days froin hearing) 1) . After such pw;sap;c and approval, tho arinex<ctlon i.s, { f brought: to oempletion. l V1 SPECTAL, NOTH ON ZON:l:NC,. i Ordinance No, 69•-O] , ours ZONTNU ORDTNANCI,, prowl (Ion that f all toz.r.1 to-ry heroarter annexed 01,111. bo Lenrpm-11,11y c.latissa.f:led as "A" Agricultural Dtiltr,Act until, pcrmanonC zoning is cs(;nh.1.'ish•- ed by the Council b a , Y pr oc,cdure wlr;l.air uoltifoi m.r to that; ostablarlh- ed for the adOpti.ori of or•:LLr,:tntll on:Lnt rc gtr7.<tt:Lonst 'i'hiti rnoariv that: if land is to bo brought: Into the City Toned other than "A" Agricultural) t-ho foll.owi np; procedure must be i followed: A. Obtain a si,t.cif_lc rooorrimondatlon from 11.1anning and Zoning regardijig" t 1-6 zoning; 13. 1.'vior to any such recommendation, the 1'.Tanni.ng and l4ning must hold a public hoar:ln{;, 1.TThe uf'ua3. 19 clay not-ico is requirod, but the 200r wr:tttten notion need only be sent, r to those withih tho txtvt;a.n1! G;Lty ldllnlts, or rri.th:i.n tho, f 1 avow proposed to be annexed, And w1t}:i.n 2001 of the, land to be oncd other than "A". 1i` Atalra,lly , If all. the land ' r Within t! c trrc.~r proposed t~0 be aunc:x ec Ili n for tho porillwwrit zoning cl-tt;si.ficationthc1L au ,p}~u POrkre a C3 n treed not bo gam tt letter uotJ fY~ in r ' pos C, Chem of thr, c+han;fe k 17ey requested, Tho G;ubai.<, hoar, -nf't before I'llmni.ng and Ioynlnv; should not concc,rn the lrrat,tcr of ANNXXA'iTTON only i the matter of %ONCNO IT the Jared is sub-,Gquentty annoxod, The; notice rox this; ~ietiri.nCr shotCld be c;a.iefula.y WOMOd, and should no,t ihvolvc the City Colmc:ll., k PAMe TWO C' The rtot:Lce of tllc pttb:L.l.o lacaran duct on, bcforc the b on th; a}inexation tbrt the laud 4aul~ci. C, 0110(j] (I 2LZt~ C1J.,F;ARr+Y pxopo„e d {;o be cmilex ed ft, to than t ' e other +d'hi 1 n0t1Ce ~a bt%@ttE the "'lining distr.1Ct ,',_,ltteatrd, be ~ carc <t5 PI-110-1 110,d W j d as t➢a:L:Led, :311 otIId aaso fta.tly phra.;c~d so a;; not to be' _s].eadang; I)' The annexation oa u:1.l~anbe t'ti,] 1 refaect the rectuestod ron:Lnt; c7.tt'3, [ 1'i c~ata.or! at i tr . a and the Uourcl.l hits tho o[~tion~~of l~c~t,t:inp; it ~t~tan d~,tloi a1, attxwc tl:e c)asc 11aat:EOn clown to .1ny 1011 ch :t-, more ?'estTi , 1.t+c' w i :1:} ) , a1.1 ft e Way to "A" Al;ri.et}](tlraa.. flte orttl.n'- enec . be publ.l..:,hed to A'efa.c+ab i;l,e rnna.nl into T.t of the City counca.:t , Vil SPECIAL 14011T ON A191sN1)I}1?,N't"3, 7'hc r>lt-- - hgct r117naxat:1 cn ordlnanco uia;1 be atucnded by tho Coutae91 (11/5 ths vote, of a.1,.1, MOMbera) at; ctny tlmc a.Ctca,, ptll>:1:[0t1t.[011l and beforo fi.nal,ua:iSttGe, but each s~tlch amen+.Itrx:nt r'ctlu:l.zea pu6~ F 1:1-cation ion An fut1) and Gxtr; nd;c the thirty (;30 ) dray poiiaod from the _t duce of Such publ__Lentlora, Carc DIUst bc: taken 11e11c,, to avoid the expi.rati,on of 111noty (90) days frorn n,taf;ut::[o I n of pt ocecda,ne;s 1 (i ,o', .9.ntko.duct:,9ort o1' 0r:tE;:Lr1a1 ardinarlca fo1.J,oj~jarF, the pllb'Laa hey r9.rlfs) . 1 i t a= _ II l . { PAGE '!'}iljl?.1"s d f ~ (t to .r ~ a ✓ r' • • ,n r I t r ~ U! L! r.• I v rv k ~G34 U fl t( ti` I'Sti a "IN I k , h tG) ' r { { it i l r ~ r IIS ks J 0 is 1 ~ I r s t j~ C! ° 4) ' [I f t j (J~ w t 1 ' r t II ; fl a, ~ , I Ya ~'(1 r e:;, ' f' 4 ) ~ S ! ~ ~ r _.I»,....... a f v ........e_ 1 t t l 1. t`: Y d l , `_ti y I/ t i p+:y... R~~3ifa'S'SS T !{rya t . . I' ~ ~ _,1 tr r err !{7/r^✓. il° 41 :,d I~y' i ~ .r t a fJ 1-4 1 ' Q ` .4 'll tr4 i v } ,I i ! I'i' ~ tJ I f V P 1 p1 xn ~ l ~r I ~.ua •,~,.a... r4 rtM y'~u-♦ l ..a.,.,f sv .,..1ra,` i• E4 '~t ,4, "l' Y1• P r ' L ~tl,ls51 1 tq' . y11' j cfy d tg . V I ~ t 1 q , Qi JlG i I 7f ~ts a l'.., r~5 f•'P ...Le lel t y t •t 1 s 6 .t v~n t !1• tii 1"k } l 1 f t 1 /t}.a.~~Ib( J 4.45 J fl:,~ el i 1 9q , a b ~ t Crrory ) P ( I,e ..pp~er~.{{«y++r n ...rn•.J !Q .Y /.'1'/iii ~ ~r~, tit'/41 p 9jJj ri )~1~ Ilk kl 11 r nw Ara.z. 71 e. 1:N ~ tt ~y , it 1 r;~ `i 6tH f6 it 10 it! 'p~,~itli I •d It ~ U9 Fl. V/ q ~1 L1 (Y~~ ] Ir t 7 V ,k ecsa ~J 11 f" e w / \9 4 i (f t i` 1 t r~ 4 !I(! r r5 .r. . ~l.tt 1 e f s r {1 WATER $ STXR IN VANG1 EMITS 2]. Manholes 8" Sanitary Sewer Line 7500' 10" Sanitary Sewer Lino 3700' a E 8" Sanitary Sower Force Maln ----5000 z 42 Valves 8" Cast Iron Water Pipes 37001 to I-35 6" Cast Iron Water Pipe 120000. f 11 Firo hydrants i l S?Y J ' ' RT 1I f,, M1lY ~T'i e .h l\:I.3ikti.~ t~ ~S(} L[}SRtLJ€ M~~ t~~~S~Irltrcric>x rtr:;r ] <7rfr~•7 AN) 7 t.'li rC+1 a' E1t1;1 ~,l f'i I7, ] (7T111{i It Ilf t,r1l~]~ )I I]~~ I l 1 I ~`I I.'I ` I ~i.. ...1~c1S:1 c'i 0( 1. ~t•lllldl(!: 12rilU'lt lct ' . rl1 IC ]7A (.:(flt tall)(` .It.L'• ]Id5 .,.1 .IOt-5 fill(] 16 The' ]I(d1(7f%t r , a~c,al1Cl7[` t0 1-It;t 5eTl"ft ]~1171C]} 1St,.L(' JS 1.OC:(!tC(1 at III(, Jl1tC) 9CC11~011~(1~( 111! ?ElEr ill~ r ' /a l i I 'C ataIjoil I'll ,I b) aoquiard tit: 12tlrlc•.1l Unt:es to t.l,fitls,fc~~• ~ ( ar)tler-:Ylrn to the ,I, . ~~nd Ill S, City e\iFt..il)p syst:cm. lltlrnr Totill or..t:alltutod ost' for Sf , - tltitnr) `MIcr l'Oc•ilii:ies as l,ort:JOI) rt: 1,(10 1i)Iou1 feet: l7cr coatal.u•r• (4600 1Jjj(0 fort: fat $.S.2'1 ]aC.T f(7Uf). , 000. c] Nisi cost t6 pa'-tP('rty ow+lr.l.". alt Itlllx.]I $1{1,8 ?5.04, RG c)),,iazs '.I ,.740 onch. Totfl.l ost.iwak' j rust 4 : Of p0t:.it11(l 1tSltC2 J cit) 1 l portiof(lot 100 1inoti.i foa I)CY customer (4000 liller71 feet fit. $S.16 ] Not cost Yo pl-opol'1~., ot+alo ) l5 _u tt:ut(:) listotc'S is ,~+'la 4f} 0 Ot?, 40 acucrs 5195 cwh. { '1'otf:] Gist )mater) cost'' por c!lst.onloa' for } 1 CHr,}.lata~s9.s,i,1;i5 each. ~Itltit,lr' .5et+tia grid xr(:,tb.tu water water lifutcli rst(lt;es ras~clellts wfJ.l by a'rgil.irecl to deciictlt:r u7 Ut:il.it) cascnlc:ntc; and roet. x" t:hc cat: , MOW, uu c scary UI recfior of Cununu!)1 ty Uitvel afancnt J ;I f~ f e• I)t, i 41 ' l 1~1JiLt1:~(YI7:S Beginning at a pol.rnt in 1h0 existlnl;)rest city 1imi.ts lino, lama being in tho rest right-of-tvay Lino of Lhc CWT Colorado and SanLn R ka:ihoed at a point,iut.ersoctod oy an owstward p ojoct.lon of the south line of the R. I ~ Mii.tlock Survey, Abstract. 1103; '1111~NO'south 89° 091` wost, pissing at 170.foet, more or loss, tl)e point j I of intci`soct:i.on of the said south .line: or rho R. I'R)itlock Survey with the tonter.li~no of Murshctll. bad, continuing on tho same b0E)rang with the said South S lido, of tlho Whitlock Stnrvey, same being tho north litre of the 11':1.1Broll Bryan Survey, Abstract J118, it t.ot.al dist,tnco of ?.612,8 foot to thr nortln:,.M corner i , of Itttnc'.h listatos Subdivis.i.ou fot• a corner; j '1111 NCIi south 0° 42' 30" east, with the, west line of 1110 so id kernel) hstat:es Subdivision a distance of 2885 feet, 11101.0 or loss, to n point in tile north night-of-wiy lane of Stato, Highway 24 for it corner; 9111iN(11 south 88° SO, cast, with th0 north right°or tiaciy 1:1110 of State Highway 24, a dis ctncc of 78 feet to a point of offset ill said right-of-way 11110 for cori)or; '11IFNCf1 south trlt.h said offset a distance, of l(1 feet to a point for a corner; 11111NICE south 88° So' oast., with the north right-of-way 1.1110 of said Stato llighwny 24 a distan)co of 23M30 feet, more or loss, to a point in tho cast 11.110 of Marshall Road for a corurr; '1111iNCI ill a northerly (llrection with the said oast: right.•of-way 11.110 of n j pu!>l.ic:, road known as Marsha).J Read, a distance of 2S0 foot: to a point for a corner; ~'1IMM IS south 89° 49' 30" oast, parallel to sad 300 foot. north of the coirtolThIe of Stat'o 11 f;hwcay 24, a distanco of 1765 feet, mor0 or less, to a l)oint in the east: line of the f, C,R•R. Survey, Abstract. 141, for it corner; j S eT?di.rk bl•L.~Jh'k '110"'NCE ill a northerly diresctic»r with tho soul vast, Milo of tho 1f J3,1;. F C,R,lt, Sin'voy distance of M03 :foot: to ti point in the wost right-of-way lino of tho GX, F, S, F, Railroad for a corner; 11Uihi I, In a nordi,,ostorly direction with the said volt right-af-wrly l irre of t:ho G, C, F, S, Y, Ra .l raid a distallc, of 3000 foot, iitoro or loss, to the place of boginning, attd conUd nimt, 254,5 acres of land, morn or loss. i ~ f G i i i r- Tr IK KV.~a}ra i• 1 71 'it, )scf;inniliJ; Eil: a pr.rint :i.i1 the t::±~:;iins; 1, st c':i_ty 31110ts J.inc, E;ruuc+ lrc?int i-11 ill(! west 1':1 ttht.of-mly liuc, of the. C'.l1f Colo)',Ido tired 1~;Il,t.l1 Nc ltll? AWd aL EI pr~i:nt intcrsc.,:t.od by all cosi:1 <ard l„ojc,ct or, of the '.;oun, ii3te or ov it, 1111it,1t~C•}; ,tsurvey,,Qli~trac.t. 14(is; 1'lll~At;t; sautlt fib" O0' rrc~t, pas;n( 1.70 fco(, more or 3esw, the pol.ut. If s.i1fo1 t,tloct S!f1•vcy t; i11i the ' thn t1,ti1-d" out~.h l_IUC of tlur It. hn Sc,I,Ll,ut,Sdd4<<~t c<f3i>icz;l. ux. .UfeM311she11•1toAsl, cont11111i1,g on tllc, stud:, lx.arlnt, 1,t1i tl,c srri.cl ~ •1;i no, inf. i'lio'Whitlo61( StIll' cy, s~111ic held( t1w ttortl) lane of tho 111 .1 i"im llryk,m r cl Surve), , l\l,stJiadtt 148, a tdt'trl di..St<ince of 2.61 .fi fea t!i 1:11c, l)ovflnwM1 col of. It11nu 1 1 ~atrt c5 4ululi G'1ril,nn fot Ei' co> nt: r i a y l~„ q J }y'1111t~(~.3F;Qll~(ll{(1~:~1~1 jJtln3fCd;~~t7, SJJtII 1,1101VG',9i 1:1110: or. the Steed 12A1)CIII',Sf;lliC;9 (t north ,fi11bdIv.t.,J.oil'i1 diyttlnwo bf. 2805 ~fecct, Iilwic" 03. to EI lxtiitf. in thc• n r. 1 w-',ght., wily J1ac of .gtnto 11ighw.ty 24 for a Coj:ncr;' + `11.1LIGIi souiil 88' 10 cv,t, wl11) laic, 11o) 01 t,.it;ht°of 1vrq' 1311l" of State lli.,h1a<ly 14, a di.sLaltc'c: of~78 feet to it poem. (if o,ffaot zit slli.d tight-of 1rEly '111LNO, south w11:11 sake oM.'a it distaltc.o of 10 feet to a poi.ni' for ; II , '11111N(31 sou l1 88' 10' cast, with the north ril;ht.• of-way 1311e of sold State; Ilia;}wiry 2M at di.staElco of 2:577,;SU foct., more or loss, to t1 point in (ho east. 11)ir of I ''hill) head for n corlloa ; '1lIl1NC}.'s ill 1torCherly dlroCt.iolrwith Ibc raid cast rJght,of-wny .limn of a '1)111)1 LC ~trotul blown !+s Aturshal Road, a di stallrc. of 21:0 feet. to a po111t for a cC>n1cr; rJe'll\G7; south 6, , 49' 30" o:1st~ l ~arllllel to tend '300 foci (to1101,111 of tho ~ 9 oontorliuw of Stttto JlighMay 24, a distance of 1701: feet, 111orc nr Hess, to it 1,0i1t1 j 1n the cast. line of tae 14,1;1i, r, C,1Lk, Survcly, ,lltstrar.t: 141., for a mrncr; { . }~}~}~yyy~~~111 art?Y [[[~5"' er Y'-~ 1, q 'I11?aA'('19 iii a I)or(hcr.ty clirecHoil w, 1-1) i iJ x: said ~ +st.` Aim! o_f t~h~ if,U~)S, G:lt,lt. Swi~~oy tiJ~is;iairn:c o,f ;i;S[1,f fact i~o hp.ini- its the I;li>si: right-of ways 1i110 of Ov (I, F, S.P. ktt i. rood for il c•onw).; ill a n,~zthi caiorl.y ri;rcci:.ion vW1 tho said roost i.i.ghi: of 7uiy Jaucs' 01' tho C, S.F. It%d-h-Ood a (4,;ttmcx; of ;4000 foci., wore. or Less, to thr, plnb of hogaill ling , and cmtnlldlz„ 254,!; ocras of t<arnl, more or Suss, 1 j E 1 s, I I f r f I 1 f "rfJt't33 1} I' b?KJ ' ~f + ` f 4L N N i-' N 1-' p op, I) N CCj v v v v u v u )I C: O O (D I O V) O -4 VI N O ko P)-4 ON :U O \o Co (I\ VI J' W N H w 1i w 01, h3 ~1 000"0 VI0 C)UOOO C) 0000000 O ry' N v Im U OOOOUO OCDO h'PI cI N ei 00 0060 b 0 O 00 U 0 C 4, ro O p Iy N V N ...1 ..a u ..L .-I O C~ 'f~ .Cis V WNN~CO V VtWm ~ O00V VI W•--~0 CV ON Is IU GP'' N' 1 1 r r . r 1 1 d r r• r r , 1 1.1~ l/1 -..I h --1 N q W W CO .t -ti W O C7 ON C' U) N to V A `J b to 07 ~ U' 4, W CO (i) UI CO O W N C7 to i W f\) O lD CO -J Oi Ui to Q a UJ . % S th U ) . Oj ~ U, ~ f5 , , I-> ,ter ff In r~ it J. F II I' 1 c h I f- F- ff• 79 S> t`3. Iv j U' VI t~ W CO N N ON W kC \JI 1' 1-O - 1 VI N U \fi P~ ON VI W N C) » .0% 7!' tt to P r r • 1 k1 C 1 11 1 r r U' 1 1 N O N co O N \n ) h N W O ON IV \O to 4- ON co to Ir, M N N C) x1 1 ch Ij I-1 )-t 10 _a W vI NO W ON 6 Ij. Co VI O\ Cn 0 J= VI O`\ W 0 I ) l) i N F4 Ij 1 _ i I 1 1 r.,. n r, rti r I-. r•. rti n r~ (/i l7 b C 1 I J t-' W G) N N IU 1_,. f..r la ~.J. 0 I_r 1•~ Ou•1r-• jp ~j O rt t~ . Vt fi' N U W -J 4' O\ N C6 VI W W ••-1 VI 11 \D O -J 6\ 0 r r r r • r r r 1 I r L 1 • 1 1 1 r ¢f) 1i S v J~ ~ U) U\ 1-' (7\ NO W J=• to VI -1 Co N O 0 VI W O h' kO 1-' Vt EJ N I~ t.y !npd U ,1 k-1 1- - VI VI Vi U VI O Pl O CD N CD J: tD J-' CD ON O COP hF~,. 1C~~7 )r-j ID CJ f 3 IS I-1j n r. r. r•, r~ Vi . .C1. 1'] 4 rti r. r. C 1~ C7 'n W VI N. W W IJ N N }.3 N V7 V1 1•] )•I 7 F r.• m w \O VI a o v, (.V o -A •~1 C>ti b' W N U Oj (7\ Y P Ii. v I-7 ~ , • r r 1 I r • 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 r 1 {JI I" pt M' b3 l`'-J' 10 O -1 O N N O W lh O\ Y• I-' tD )(IN I N O N VI •-J x li I.j ti w 'ti l.r• Pr fd 4, W NO ND J. ~O N to !t1 O\U J' CA V7 C7 VI O V ON U h'VI c .✓v.✓wv~.,w wwv..., fD L N C VI J:' ld W N N N 1-3 1-1 W 4a I.a I~ I_, I F' Jz' ON Ul NO VI ' VU "-1 Vl U) CA Ov VI U) iV O C/7 Ov to WON UJ U) i 1 1 r r I• 1 r 1 1 r 1 1 1 r r 1 r. o NO tr NO N J~ Jr 0 IV VI NO, \O rx, O\ W I--' b7 h' °d V? N W I,' , i NO No N.0 J:•'Io to to ONO 41 CO \rl O VI CJ VI iv CT C) J' V1 lA ~f ,E: w ..,✓lJ`✓II IJ wwa V1~ w t VIJr'Wkt, !V N to I-'IJI-'1_' _ N.W U\N Cu I>'G CA Ot VI W U030\VI U) NO U, U\W r 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 r r 1 • 1• r 1••,•• {A I'r 1}.. C2 VL U W VI W'O\ W H W W U\ Cn P W ON CO h-J to ON 7 VI VI In C) 110 N V1 C) Vl 0 VI 'JI O lri C. VI CJ Vi 0 vI C) 1}r fi f,) tf 1 r-.r-, i-~r+.`ti rte.'. r. i•. rr r. ice, r.,~,-. 1 ~ VI J. W W C,) N r) pi I., I.., I.., I., I-, i•. I N VI ^t UJ O \.h 1 NO •1 VI ~U ) VI 1 ' 1J O (n Cf~ W / r r 1 1 . 1 • I r r 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 I 1 y, i] CU A~ ' -J N --1 l[7 IJ -A N 4 O) Ci3 b N J.- O\ P) (.1) N N N t0 " O V)-CI VIOL) 0 0 0 U 0 b OO U IJ C, G C)UO f i -771 1i t 'i t, r ,I 1~~ I~ ,1.} .f: E I '.I' rl f Iltl .,1111 it I 1 t 4!I I 11' , t {`~Itl 1 I ~ ~ f.l ' I ~V IV Ir ~ILI ~I I I;4{rr}~ 1 1' 11 II, rj.y[4 ` 1 t€ 1. ~f'I il+ [1.111 1 IU I I~ i 1,f •f/ 11 f. II 1// 1 ~ i , , ~ l ' I 1 I ii 7j - t L S t fI I { € rhl If 1111 11 ~ r • I jli 'r.`II y,i 11~.. ~t`1 r! E ~~I ' ai tl lI~ j 1l r.~ ~ ' r r 1 1 k 1 ~k 1 ~ ~tli f ' i{IE t r~ t ~i'i'.-. r I I }I 1111 rl .I I ili i ` I .r- 1tt{{ jj 1 {y }J` ~I (r (I I I I Ilfi F~'!I'.~ { { ~1 1~ 11;, , , ,J 11{ _'..,I I ~ i 111 I ' I A + i .J I I`'~ 3 j""TAR 1 I r 1 ,1 Ir II { ' ' ,I f { { I i 17 /G, a # E i1trl tl kjJi t~ i! I ' 7r 1 t I (t N 11,} 1 ~I It~i{{ qt. ti i 1 " ,t~} ~I I } Ir j t I t, I kIl f i I I'I i t ~I~ t ji , s l 1~ al~ ;iH J ' t i i .I r fr 111 Ij 3!, { ' }ii I~{I :i r { la la ii~ Il. hl t~ 'I 1 I I{ r f 1 fa 1 1} 1 r k rt, t t{ i ll 7 i 1 r..~ jS] 7{ I I,. : 11 l+ 3 I I {IT! ! ( 11 I /f r',1 I EL1,1 1 E ;~k~ 111, s Iir.yE1 e 1 1~' d {I I i 4 1{- ~1~ rtl lf" it 4 h 11 ~ }'i ~1 77k ~(t I.a i r I If It iI 1 +Ji ~'ij• }I~il -1~ 1{E~~ ~r t{1 J7 ( Hl' ! JAI 1 + I~:~itl I1r T~{~ tjll I t {1•. j' 1 r~lf~ r 4, I .T kl i, a,i 1t.1 l ri 7 , + t ' 1~~-? it 1 p I 1 ~ I Ik 7 l~'tj li r. I / iSU. S 411~I,~.{ tlrf I zl1 t ~ l t ~ r ~ 1 h t t.rijj tii -L I`i I 11t1~i + 41 h`5,I ; } '1 I'.rE 1~1 Iltr I~ ~11 I:~.1111~~ii ~ t 1 1 ':i 4 ~f+{Ij~ I i:i ~i;~ t i31 ,t 1}l,,,l I 11 Ji. iJ a 1. It t I 11 f'7 I r 1 I 1~ 11{I 1~ i II~~l~i l rl {1 i~'~{~ il~ ,,,~{I>r111 ♦4 -I i ° T TiTI t1 oil ~{T ,i :1 ,r 1 E.kaV. i1 fr Ice", { I Ir rf 't E I_h~ i ~ i .li 1 I t ~ I i ~ r I~! 1 ilr i. l 1 lly ; ! t fr,a I.- 1. ~ 11h ~i if ~7 tr/.. tir ~1} E i 1 I f i~' ~ } ~'klll III ~~,1 I ~I J3~t. V ~ , I ~ ~i I I! ;►ii ~!I ,~~!',r, „1; ,III ,,tklll I{,~ !1;, ~1.~,` , ~irl~ tl l ~fIE fi'~ ; ,1, i{~,,t t,1:1 11 t f ~ I ~F~ ~>~3fl~k ~~k1 ~E ,f I / I: ~~II 1 { I r I ; r „ if 1. i f 19 I ~ , 7~f t -1 It. 1`f I{[ 1 1~/t E"l ~I l1~L.11 11 I .I. ~ I i1. itl~ IrI .rl7 tl h 11~1a1 1 rl~ ii~~ l I li i illi +r 1 rt i I Ii 4, 14 f , rf ~ { ~ It li 1'1~11i l) I~i_~~'1~ ~•~/'!i~p~il '_j, ;I } I~~ I ~ #,'L?i({ ' E:' I ilr~ kji+ ,lr.f3 ~ rlji~ ~l~t ICI°t~~ri t ~.~,3~'1 ' f4 l lh~-1 I { '~41 jl ~k~ 1.lIl r l ~i { r l t1 Ik' 1 l i~'~1--+I~iI r, k_ r L ~fl; I 1-~., b~~. f. r h l'I~ 4 {11 I;la Is 1. r goo F 14t } 1~ { S.i 't r 1 I41t i ' I I 'F'YI 15 { I I 1j 3 - { } J I 1 1 "r ri ' goo H Y 1 i I ♦ .I't € 1! 1i,l~ P ~S~f ,I.k II fr:,'.j rk~l 11~i 1i k1 rE,I I ,Irt l t ~ ~ i i i I I I' I tJ j I t ``4 j~~ ii~~ 1 f I . 1 ~ t I•_Ii 4 ~I ~'1 ~ ; ~ ~ ` I,I IJ ` _ - , i 1 y I '11i t, J I it rte l ' tr II IIII i gyp f1i I ; I"{i ~II~ /~lil r 1 r ~11 {r~ 1~1 'tll .r~l I 1 -r l' 'li 1. I I I`.:1 111 4 + {I ' ~r{I i ~1] ,aa; ' 1h TIII i t 1 U ilk `(r( 1 rl`} i ~44t~11t irt:. 1 tla! i!~ li 1.' II rll i li fV ,i, f I f i',i n LI,~ 1 1 IJ'{ JI I~: 11( ,li t I it J'I' i , (~1. r• H ~IJ it 1''I~1lfj~rrl~{, 11 I •I I ~ i~ I ~~1 tr{ fff ~I~ n~ ~i I llt} l 1 ~I IA 41 ~ 1'R IT1{+ f ~t 11 L~[ 11, llj rl.. i ~~i ) 1 f 11 tt 1 1 1•r I I II tL C} ~ ' I(~ C'~ I rl: II r IIV~{ F i I'!I l~ f r{.rrtI rl 1 1~ 1f~ I i i , , p r r` IIf., tf rll I i ,II ' r Ilr t f_ I.{ i 77{{}l 1(111 ,t. J I 11111 1 I{ 1 I~ V. 'I t j r l , rr li 111 'I i~ _ ~~~DDD d I 1 law: d A IC1r f 1.1 al t f ..I1 it 1i t1 1{ I• {1 ` i' a ~~rt`j;~~ 1 , 1' tl~ll► 1 t I I k I ' - I. ' I I t S kl 1` ~ f r c t i ~ LI ~ ,r 4 I i_ 1 - it -k I :17 i I E {1.r 1 tr I , tl ' i1. r, ~ , i + 1 11iF I I I~ , jti{7 11 r 1 4 rill 1 t Y 1 l~~ll t~ll rl ' ' IL~~ 1I ! I' I,J~II Iltiy; 'I 1~I ( t I I I~ ~ ' I I 11 } r ~ 1 II [r~' ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~Ir ~ 1 { ~ ' f I ~t i i+ E l I t '.1 ' I, 114 i ~ t p: l I Ikl t I 1 ! ' ' I l I i. I r i i ' r ' U, .I , 1 , i t 1 11~ I I! i t f Li ' I .1. J ,I,I 3 I I j 1 li- 1 j r;.: 1. 1 , I ' I- l r 'I I { r U 4 I li' 3 "I ~ ~ f 1 1 1. 1 1 I GA O 1 S ' L~Ga/rar'!!!-1111 i C f+bVE 7l $a'/s vs' C rsl' r l: j f i '1. tq 411 : , I : b$ , j i I I ' I1, u 1,uora I I ) f . ~x OQ ~ I rIi ! II li.`l I~ ' ~ ~ ! ' ~ ~C r ~ i -,111 ~ I 1 , '1 1 1 ~I r 1 I IY~; I I ~ I I i t tl 11 1 r if2 ,Ir ' [ i ' r ]I i,ri_ ~ f € ( ry II I. / / IIO I' , , r r 1 I i I I II I. ' 1 fIFr'`- r I L ' r jIt lt3'1- tip, C I ~rl '.,ir``Ir 1 i 1 1 I I. 1.. I4.~ [ , {f 1~ ( r I( r -IR~t7~1. ,t 1_~ J1, r II.: 1 ,,.I I'j 1 r!~ Il ~l I[If IE 1! y )i r I, 11 j i, I, j I f I , r ll~ J ( -i 1{r }1: ll ,II rr",r I 1 T~'~ 'I . I' I I~rp j{ J{ ~tr, 1 ~~I ~:~l 21 ~li}IIl.il 4.~ aty l I ' t`: ! 'll"~I ~jJ. J.-L '~f ~.Ilw I~f I i tlj.l t-( / ,1-i Il l il ~1,~` { 11: t i €t r 1 ,~(I i E .~1 r IrL. i~/ ( H «~.F.[.I-, 1, I Ilr:~fr ' i i, :I t.~.l ' { t*y. I~ 1 ilkl ) [1'+i, ii 1111# r (111_}I rl rl {,.i ~i } { 1 .I ' y , E t ~l J l l I r/ { I I, t k l f r~ t t Y t r t~ f I}{ i F] I{ E~ V ,t I { , I I i I J ,Ic ) I + ~ 1. ~yr r~ li~ ~r I 1 +I ~ r 1 ij;- 4 1 l~ !"EJi~ 'lll t-"~ 'tll~ Irr. ' lr ' I i f' j I' it .~I'IJ }iir Iy i, ( J I rl I I ~ i~ pt I , ,t , t ! t 4 f' I ,1 ,J 17(( Y c' 2 I7 ,1 I Iftl ~ I{ r I I 1 1 1 1 ' ~ rrr F 17 !I II-t f~li ' ' I 1f I~ r 11 E ~ i t 1~.. , I'1 I~_:_ I{'I ' ~ I + t y.~-, 1 tl I'j~~' /t~do } rr. ~ 1' - l~ ~ L ~.,1; t ~ ~ l J ft +I` r 'J ,3w il,r 11j. , {I ili ~1( I i ~ I +i is {1 II' it r I + l::' , I 1. I~~ t:I ~1~~ ' I: t 1 I Fri rM lift-. ? F ~ffi ~~ti Fk l 3-!il I t•~It t' , ,~~f ` II I~j +II li'+: '~I~1 I r...t tr j(.,_ I , 3 t.i .JI` II (J,II r 1 Ili E 1 rl 1 [ r 1 3 Ir- r' II I I ~I ) ! I ( li f 14 ~ II-!,~ 7 j 2,~ rt 1(I Nt~' ' j,~~ r 1 I, (tU}I,l~ ! }4 [h } `y i i{ t , rti, I f' ^4 t is f ii'' 3'I r){: I I it t'{ J I III k k r J , - ' I LL ]]III I ~}111 ~ ~ ( Irl~ti 11 It I f I fE },I I tl , } t j 1 1 j t ,.i , I( 14 lil I14 t ! it 1 l /G ca { ai-:~I~ ii..E ~1 t 1 .11 r 1 Ill ,I~, ':II 4 W i{r+ } I. 1 , Irl t + 1 I {'C!: 1~1~ - 1~4 IJl J ty ' ¢~fS`~ r. r 1 I' ! ~!(_~II~ i11 l,,I }-:ly 1! I I~1_ I1 SL ~ 3~ ~ t L y2l E I ~'-N ~ I ES ~ I I II tl~ V ~f l , , t r ; ~ 2 i 1 1 p i f I IC rl f t l 1 7 jj J I { J J{{ , r I~}{ J , , I7 { :f} ! f,' 1jll~l ~-,I { 7,.. 1~ i ((l t~ Chtr jiri 1~'~~ ' j~ 1 Fill t i' f. ! tt, { Lei I t i E I lily .UJ~I J1 I L 11 '1f i F IlI, I2 2~, i ~I'I' ~~13 t-tt1ff).r~t fl,a • 1 ~ 1 .I~'t~ € ii ILII III ..y t'.0 'it t Y f 99 ! !?idb' ~ ~ ~ ~ i EEi ~ ~'_:}r I ])~~k..~7~J ,It I,' 1~~1 1~1,._ ~~7I + r.~i + I E'j I r41.'~ 1•~},. t , 1 •1 - ~.1' h r~4 / L.ii1_". `t.' ,I ri t 4~ ''-tf ~E'. f,7 it } 1 1. 1j} LI -~~l l I r j.il i r~'i F 1 f°•r~l 14 ~ t ~ 1 t ~ ~ r rG{,- ~ I l I (1 I I ~ € 11 I! ixlca . Iii ,l„~~I E Ir .3 l l 11;x/ I ,r „1+ ,I jt jr ~ I f l,f tj€ ,I>+ )I{{ II~" I I r~1. r I -4- i {{II 1 ` :r ~ + L.~.Ek yr/./. ( 1 :a I, 111 r , ,_t {r i. ! f{ E l€ i~~ 11 i{~.;~{• ~ ~ t I:: l~ .l.r If I it l~ 111 illi f i 11 1I - T fi I (If q ft~ , 1 I i -i: }f'i ~11 . rr'r~Ilti 1 I I L :I I ~l : ~ I ~l ~,~tt ` ( IJ~I y !~I( it { ~ i t 1 l ` t ~ ~I 1~ t'1 I rl 1F f Iil1I f~3t ~+i 11 i i i II I j_' ~ I+ F 11 ~1 t ~ = I.' I ) t E h I l~ r i..:~ ~ J . L I G 1 1 t { , f_~Frt lI' f,` llii'{I iy {r j f ljfl j i!"I 111 !i`j f 1~ I l' nl ~tS C' i ~1~• r , I. , 11 } I , i C , Ir y + `~lf•~I~- i :.,.r~~sf l -.~j.~*i ~i~,: ~i ,t~iII.I.~~jl lll~ 1 1~ 9 r 1 r, I}} - fl I ~ ~ i. 113 Ili tl~~3l~ I If IJ} 1'{ 11l} r It lfI t I.l 'j't("'I 'I I~ IEi jI 1. I Iit 4111 f1 : ~t , j r1;+€ l ,I Ili i{il:! ~It, l' r.' .li t 1 T. l ( I~II~' ~i l_il E' FI fE 1 l } ~ t i I } { > i Ltt >1 I , r I~ Itt Yj r I Iil r 11 la rlrr " 1.. I 3' I I I t Ir' F ` rp _Y IT, }tfr it ~~F#~ ~r I ...il:_~ IjI._{{. 1. t i~♦ I,. !1.'.I I/ ✓ .1 ( ~.lr,l: ..E It j r I..{ LI ly t't 7;1 r + . 11 t. ( I } rlr y f• . ..c 11 f'~ II I' ' r f. :II) ~r t, I ~ 11 '~'~I I I' ?:j,I t 11 1.~ 11 I EE ~~I I~l ~rl f ✓j I ~ Lt ',rlr I i' i I I r' I~ J , r I l , ~ ` ~t{_ I ~ r.{ I.t.l.. P >i ~1~ Ili! ,F ~ / f „ -':,I~ I 4 I klll :,I E~ I _.j+ j'{ f ~i ,rl r, 1, 11 I f l Ilfff - t r F' ( ft i (1 1 rjlj II l r r t f ` r flt 1 1 rl'I j II i! 1 e~1 I~ r II- 1 , l E , t_ rl .a ) II , II 11 II j{_I:I ~1 ,I -r , : :rt' I rl f, ~~T k I t l,'tr} t I 1 , l. 1 1 j I I 1 I { 1 ,I I ; N tt I~t~ 1I i I'I1{li, 11 rr t I ~ J 1 J. i r1~ E..~~~ { r .I, ~l~~ I L11 I~ ~1 , l I}I I L , , 1 , I I fil { f I 1 lil :{11. t.. E1:'11' .f I f 'J11 I- rr~J r t t r i It lr1- j1 r €(1 ~ l~E it~l II I Lrr wt, li (dA f I I I l j ,Il, I ~I +I c! c of u I I,l. ~ f I ~1.~F1 {'r iII,I " {~l ~ f{~ 11; + r{ ~JJ ~l 7 11 t S ~ ~ 11 t 111 III I ~ - f}III ~ ' I ' I .1 l t ~ ~ ~ { I l Jrr I~(4I rl'r' + f E- 1 If I, I~ t,l I I ,1 II ( i I { I,'IEII~ ,Iji„ ~-4 4 !j rlylr~IJj ~1 I: I I ' 1~ ' { I 1 fljl f., 1. I r,~1~11 il] I +1 t( +I j,_ I' F.! it r E rr I` I !I ) ' i 1' I ~I I l } ;i t EI E ~(i3E~n ~ 1 III I~,' t ~ 1, , t~t}}r , `3f I It ~ ~I { I ,riri ill 1111. ~JI I t' ~ I' Il ,{-.1 Jj 1 E~IJ~r~t{~,'l El 1'€1 ~h~ t,l ~I 111 71~~. III jl I 1 t lll~E)~,1 I (I~i~-I I E illt I '~I t I ,i I~ IS , ,fr j JI 1l~ IIiI}lll rr~l II'il , ~1J i'i, , I I,I I,i~ IIY. C It''~J I l t(:rlJ ' ,L` , It, ~ 1 ~y,i, l ~,r ,)l i i ~1 iI i i)~- t i L,..r EI l I'! ~Il ft h tt I{ll 1 II}~ ' I. i'-!1 1 I II !~-:!11 'I ( t~ 1 l II 441 q .J: r t '..L I :I ' i'p,:n tfo. iiV3-.::U :;yuarov W lilu 4, did SIIICArt 1'rIV d YAF~II 00.1 11171YQtt C, MA04, ~Sf' /tt! L~o4c.9,ftd it fl rt-{I,--}•r ,'7TM Ilt 7 I '''j rte' TIT' I'tF : f-V 1 ' I i E ~ I I 1 ~ ' f{{ i I tf 1 ~ I 1 p! 17 tI(,.}~' ~ 1' t.. f~ 1 ' ( ` I 3 { ! I - '!h~ .If r: ,SLI:' rt 14,. 11 rT~(t' Il ~II] f :yl' L''3 II ~ , ~ F 1 1 ,t1 L -I , `]J I. I I`li 1 r r Ih r' ti I 3 I 11, i I+ ,1 r, I ff f , I I J.± t, i ;'T 1y 1 j: ~13I .j-; I~j~ i n r'~~7r Irl} ~I ~ i~l l _I i .,._-[~7 1i~J ~ I ,,'t r u~~~~ 'I 1'ij ,`j~., Irr. rj 7 i1f Il r r 3~..1 iL';~~._I Y j:r ~ ; _I;- '~-.~,.i' +,•jr 1. r, ~r } ~-1 ,.~EI'.p1 1 ~ 1 V , , : `1•I , { f 3i,f ,3 Er3 `3 { . 1 i T1 I itr E A I .IfEI'3 ! E ,rl t r 3 1~J' ~Z + yl 1,, 1. f `f~ ` I..I- : y i:i • 1 _ i t I„ , rl _ r`." I Ll 6\ i I t 7 ,r, tjl , ~V.:. ~ ..1 ,r {~1 r Er (Ii II:.: 3'.ij :[L r~t Ii.F l ~:i-,! I 11,1 .j i t.3 ~..:_.:h ii~l~' _i!~ ' Ir ! :.l 1~.,;:.~ r f Ir f f rZrY rti, "l ;ir L ~..i - ~ •.'''A . ' V 111111 1 ~ ! r~ ~ ( { ! r,r If , ' ~',3 rlr/. i l ..I.t { ~I7.? 3 ` , .Cry- S „ 1 { t :.pl it , ~.{..!-i '1^ . Y~~ 7-::•lt l ! ! f- H-~- I_ n ~,r I I.. . t 11{1 k~.,7 •n t ~i ~f f f r Il. y!I 1 .7. ..4~ {I.1F 1 F , F E~`; 3 •!r' f - 3 ii {t fl r, ,t .I :','}1 t _ I !,il ){`i I, l:if l7 f! I', Jc ~l 7?i 1t~ t'.~rl' I!It i11 h .3 f J~i .'J at, i } I i3 rf IIti [~jT71ii3' 1: i 311 !!1 ~N:1 3 , [ .i$~ 4i;.rill~ 3~l 'r} 1 i,{ ~.'IJ 7h 'r Il 3 ! j i 1 i ,j4 I I 1 1i _ r II 3i •1 31;'I I'3h i r - , - ~~:rT t i.. -.T r~ 11 1.. 3'i r'1'l'1'. r.3. .,1 •FL 7:~f..{-'r,. l`1_ ~ ~ L,1'jT,. I~ 1-~,II1.3.:~! l 3t31~333.::~'lrl~ 'f 1~I .1 ~~1 r,' f: "`~Il'i. ,''r} *~rl ~ r I . ~,i}1 1 + , , 1 'ttE Il. rE,r .r ~1, .1~~.~ 1.~ ,.1 r-~~ I E ,1....•,. - - lrt~ ~1 ,-~1, 1 .1~1I)~1 i l1~ . r r-~;1;~ r,,7~,-'--~ - i,,;~ j ~ .~,_~.1p` f 1 ~1►~ ~1J~~ ~ ' I} ~l i~~r ~:rl .f I4I ~ i 1 `.rl ~'I + tr`J - _ 411, 111 `:»Y. { .t..r.; J ja-~;_~I~a l~]{i Jt~ r11t!'N, 'i~!l't 371' ~l}1'f{[-,1t+~-\1c1~ 1fJr~.~11 ,1~13~ f~Ii lfti t({i~~~}r f ~'l~: 1' ~ 7Hi :I~l t .!-.t, lL. I~ .li.'-I .IL I1.- 1, l 1... l C' .^)`1 ,A 1-. 1.I ~.i _~(t I1 ~1 3• ~,t -IiI-' .3 'I' t II '{Ir1 A t'1 1 t.. 1 i-. .4~.,Id~ f•.'~ ~ r, ,r f~ rl 1 yi.l:+- X31: I' yr'~{.~~ ~ ~3..j31( ~~i~l:. ~~3' ♦ _ 1T}~~ -~'3 '11 '.3.. { I, '1 i+':,... !.,.3.1 t, .3 C. L.1, ,:.1 }•J+ ;i... , ``1 }'.I !'l „~~C'--'; a~ ~~~1.~~. .L - t~~.-~;~~j 1. FF.~~;.~11.1~3r 3:3 ~~'r. : 71 ~ 1•r is 1.~ .1. ~ r E 3~ 3 {1 f s f l Lt t f 1, r. .t 3' : ' ' r3 ;l !iJ ! 1 F tit3. i.' 3'"1 , - f'{:,:7 1 t Y}j"t r.. .E,LiI {,}I I , J- ,I:I l: jr r 4... t71: I j ,1 1r ..11I rjl r 1 r~ , - ~ $}1'1 !1 J'3~. 3 3. 4i3 5: k)3 ~ ~ tt.lj 'a1~ +r IlIJ l l ,l. {t 111 17 ; F, I J {;r iE ~r j,!.?,.. F;~ ~ I 111 ~ Ti 1t i.",1 f `...1 1~' ~ f -,r 'll ,fll_i~,' I.l•.. 'I, 1 I1''1,.; It 1,. rJ, 1., , ~{1r 111~ff i f 1~ {i-,I r+ { i~i {l 1 ~ 1. 7111 13f, 1 1 ;'7I ii i. ' r l - 3-3 3 33..{i~ lL' 1 r 1 ('I; 71 ' Z. I, Il i l.. j -.LI jI I 1 -I •.:r ,t'L- I y'-_. i` i. i~li. J. ! r~Jr •'1.3j ~ ,li j~ t t 1F. i, : ,i .1~ ii{ ] rIt 11 .3 , , i1~1,'i I~ ~ ~Il~ 1(:~ ,1 3 f : ] 1• '~`1~3j11 A 1 3 ! i ~ E 1 ~1.`. 3~: -11:.. L 1~1t.,4ll 'V rJ r 1 I~ ~}i' 1 3 r ;3, 13{_. ,i' I. ~l:-1 .111 ~fl, ~l i '~T 1T 1 I I1. i.{ Ill, ytl- y'•~ .i.F JAJI' Ij 1-141 - . F~`I i'ti~l H~1 tl-. f'-r}~t :L3 3-j 3.33 1r.1' } J-lI7 ~:1 . _.1... ..a, t 7rt..`~ .:~1: ' 7. 1- Y fiI 3ti t t ..r r i r,.t j' 1: { I: 1.1 ,1 ,`1 . G~ lip ll'I~" I 3 I:~-, t. i I~ t # i ail w1~5:.:. II ~1;'..l r ~ , ~ E ~t t { I 1 r ln"1: .yll~ ~I~1r, tr:L ~~a .!7 1 1 , r• u..T a, F'i li _1 Cii {r ir'. ,~'i ' 15. `(.:i' C }J'. C T.[:.-' j', .y i r j.. .e, h:{ f„t I`~', 1'. , I. f 1-r { lik I..~ f. ,a. r{{ iI 7 1 ~ ~Tf ' {~1,.U. I tiff F ~ ~ 1 i:tt. l}'l} . # rL,~, 1 t 3 1J iJ I-i1,. 1 } 1..I 1 Y J' 1.1 1 !i Ltj' ~7, r 7 .7~ r-`."1 j i... i•t 1 { - I t ~ lif {,33i~. L1 i~f 1 't:,r{l } : ,I~~~ k{ ?,t• ~31 '~I:1;1I ( ~:J~_~~# r~t~.::r~~ ~~I.1 E rt ~,I1i ~ ~ll ~ 3? ik ~,ll 'r ,I ~~~.t ~ f~J. d'•I' P ~ . a~J f }j } i' 1 T.1', fla.{. 3 44 , a.i1 .i'l3...-' f j ll 1 I E I I i} 1 i - , 1 J..di. I 1 „ - i 1t it r" 4 4:3.1~ t.l ;,il ' , I , Lprrl r., l -'I;T. 3` r .3' 3 1 f.l .1,;;: 1': .t r 3 r,L~ 1~y { ,.I-'.: ~ l:! -1 i~. ' 'r 1 ~ 1r IJ. 3. }7~f 1.11: IIl i ~~l ~„'y-1-~t~l ~ ~ ~ 1, \ C rr rl 3_~., ~~yy 1 , t JJ, 1 9:Lt i . I1 , 3 r'~ ~ ' 33f 'f I 1 ~:r i.-~♦ 1 .G. ..1 ,I{'' . -1...:i ~l ' .~L } ..I ~!~L .u.l: L .1~ 11: 14'~ 3'i7 I, I_'- SIE,'},rl ±~~r i1 f' 3 ,i {1 1 , ~ I z1 lil,.i 3~1i ~E'~'{{T 1{'3..!i.~) 3j13 'r'~ 111 13 i:4 ' ..13~~ 11 13t rll t ;.~3. ..3.._ i. I r ,f 1 Iili' 1f 1 11{ ` ill 1 i I I.'...Li I~ 1 J.t.l 1 i,a,y., j{ ..:.L J I"' ll , , I I 11 ~ ( tr ~ i t ` 7t 11 i I i , J 11 ~{f1 1. 1 ~ 1~ 1 tl r !.i 1 l ~ ~ t• li~ 1. ~ .._.l. I ^(~i _ ~.~It ,.~a. ...[W_~I. y f~__ i _I _ i ! 1 jt, J• r' ~.~Wi-1 t1 , 7-~~3~.~1~.1..-_r li:".3 ` l~ I ` 1- ~7, 1 Li 1, i I a 111 .:I I II ! ~ j:.1 I it i i1I1 I{ ' " .r. •I ~I, ~ 1 I I! lfl, 3tj 'rl fl , , 7~ ,..t:3 [i '1TY ill . ` ` { ~ ! ~V { I , li! r' { i1 3 1 i t!r 1 13 11 lE r, ( 1 ~ 1 + ~ , I' l ~ ' : ~ ! , ! ..i~" Irr : I ~:.~.i I, `3i ~f 1. 3' r. ' I ,1,31..{ { ~ II 31 ,~;.ll .3 I r ~ 1!' I 7 j tliI~~.• ~ 3 1 I l ' j I 3 3 ' I ,I i ~ I' I ~ r i : I- m a13'Sln•,ll ~ r ' . t. O/®. / O • w~ww'>rrcM.rwrwY~l" x, ; f. •ZCe.o• ,7LO.o' ,ibdlo• ~ is 1w a N N N 'ar,~ f + M {,I lit 1I 1 1 'I Vic,; xy ,6•I~ ace, A' 7f A. fab 2t •A, j y, I v $ j w r, ~ ! M r tr At 1 . 0 __3x,''.~ xae 41 ' aw 1 ev, y 4k w 1 w t 1J r .1 s ,r 0 144t •oid.a a sa•c • a,xa. . I sr x . ' 3,xs, • ' t . n ,r 1 fl f 41 k .T aeo.e' ate I xls' yrs. aet.,d~ I 711 I N ' ; P 14 4j I1r1. y M } I. IQ O it O III _ 1 I ; , e , 3 1 ( ,2 V N 1 iY . • ~ S r~ I S ~ ~ , I Ir~i, Q C M I~ ,~Ib! o' 1 . i N N j aI is 4 ~I I V~~ w I. . t f , .2i0.a .9101 i 3. .8 0 a ,VIP. `r t~ fall mxln.~ xoi8. j oG/o' s/o.a' xt'Z,d' ~Ya1o' a r ad W w O , fC j w r~ : i Mr i t'' t, ~ ` d ~ ~ ~ O Ip {'1 l qo. 1~. ~ ~ r h b • f 1 ~ w iw 9 ~ ~ ~ 1q lip ;A w a -2.P6. at dv I1 ~INDy !..AMR 1,~ 1 V I .er.~~.+.a+.+.~~.~_e..... ....-w.w.MSLV. ,[I.weu N.~ k- 4 1 c_.. 4B01oi 4127.4#0 ;i0 ! 4 ' 1;1 1 0 u 4/y. j < p l J J I I , ! 447,4/" #a Asp, 0 w .2/b . I . ;F. as I`Ar ~ 1 V iA d ~ f • loi ?••a f t ~ ~ ilk' ~ , 41 , 1\1 its Y ii E akh rsv r ~r,u,1~,IF ji SYJfh'l:".A - ((yjVSfydY ' off{Ka Jb tfL~S'AaP~ s RANG l ]arATes C:oNSTRUVFJCN COST 1;yTTr1♦111 Volt MNITARY Sfilt'i R M) MTA131di 1WER SLRVIi.G PROM CITY 01pngI01,sY,;rFms B3 jsis of Estimate: Ranch ]'states has 51 lots and 46 rcjsidc:nts to be set i ed ai. le pzesei~i time 'Ibe nearest city services available for Connection to Rancli Estate is located at the intersection of S. 11. 24 alld 111 35. A Lift station %V311 bo required at ]lunch ];states to transfer sanitary seWnge to the City's ci:ist:inl; system, ~ I 't'otal estimated cost for sanitary sower facilities is $94,835.00. City's portion at 100 .li.noni foot per customor (4600 linoAl feet at $5.21 per foot) $24,000. Net cost to proporty owners in Mich Estates is $70,835,00. 46 ostiicrr - $11540 each, k 't'otal estimated cost ofpotab]e water fac:.iZitics is $97,150,00. ! ( City's porLien at 100 lineal foot per customor (4600 lineal feet at $5,SG per foot) $23,750. ` Net cost to proporty owlers iu ]t:inch Estates is $73,400,00, 46 owners $1,595 ^ch, Total ostimat.od cost por customer for salrit"iry sower and potable water facil.iti.es is $3,135 each, Ranch ostates residents will bo roquirod to delicate to the city necessary ut-111ty easements and street ROIV. f u -1 S. Ilaupuna ~n W_... _ D I rector of Community Dove] opment at I ' f~ VI^Ft~y t biFtNM $~R~ ilifil%1 WdNI':vy [~crj ti;I~; iWER FACILITIES F'STRINED UNIT TOM. 111M No. 1)[15CI211'I'ItaN UMUI'1Y UNIT C05c 0011;r g. J. G" C11) Water Plain 12,040 1,N $ 4.00 $483000.00 2 8" CIP Water Mai71 3,700 11It 7.00 25,900.00 j { 3 6" Gate Valve 42 17A. 125.00 5,250.00 I r 300.00 1,8QQ.00 4 12n Gate Valve G PA. 5 fire Hydrants 11 11A. 450.00 '4,950.00 6 3/4" Sorvice Connections 46 11A. 55140 2,530.00 7 3/4" (bppor '901-Ace Line I jso 1117 1.75 2,020.00 8 Co)Icrotc Blocking 100 CY 25.04 21500 40 200.00 200.00 9 ]later Plain Cnnnecttott 1 LA. 10 Cast Iron Fittings 10,000 LI15, 0,40 4,000,44 J- 1'CICAG BS''[A[ ITI) CQNTRAC[' WST--- $97,150.00 City's rortion @ 100 IX/ 41600 LIt 5.16 23,750.00 Customer Cost to Pivl)crty Goners 46 P.A. $11595.00 $73,400,00 in finch I'statos i .1 I 1 W.,r'7I ti'1~1!Yrnq (v?b"41fi~ ly[rgl$te + , : ~i 'r S SANITARY SIM R VACILITIl,S 11STIMAII'D Wrr TOTAL- 1TIN NO, Il11SCRIIYI'I(IN UANfPlY UNIT COST COS'f_ 1 8" CIE force Main 53000 I'll, $ 5.00 $25,000.00 2 O" VCh Gravity Main 7,500 IT 4.50 33,'150,00 3 1.I" VCP Gravity Main 30700 s.SO 200350.00 j f 4 Manholos, std, 4' 21. P.A. 250.00 51250.00 i j S 4" Sorv. Conn, 46 M. 35.00 1,610.00 3 6 4" VCII Service 10150 LF 2.50 2,875.00 f 7 Lift Station 1 L.S. 6,000.00 6,000.00 l 1 'a ( iuvil, Ns,miATm CY)NI'RACI' (bS'1'» $114,835.00 City's Portion @100 IT/ 4,600 x LP $ 5.21 24,000,00 i Wstolner Cost to Property amors 46 11A. $1,540,00 $70,835,00 in Ranch Estates, 1 i f'..a._,..ww+'.i.;..:.~..~:Ri:PLt....~al:~'~..:.....\v1~». ....:.:Yl i:.........i~:u'.:. kYa:a/.ui,..6wJU.•+..a,.L.x.,. ..,13......s.Lu...l..S...._~ua-".:.. .au.~l:~t, tH{q RiA W'A...LsL(l,:ti eaw`......: u`u.~ i' s , G z1a nd W%4AAi W141?;, NO. 70-70013 j I,,,,, ~71M P1F.ltCE, ET AL X IN I'M` D75TRIC11` COURT rj VS. X OF DEN'TON C.OWPPY, `1'h"XAS CITY OP DENTON, TEXAS, 8`1 P1 X 15W011 JUDIC[nr, UISTTRiC`.!' DEPENDANT'S TRIAL BR.ZLt^ ` TO SAID nONORAnix COURT: Now come the Defendants herein, and in reply to plaint.i.ff's Trial Brief would present unto this Honorable Couk't the Eall.owi.ngs Your Dofendants would point-, out to the Court that thi-~ j brief will respond primarily to Plaintiff's Brief, and is not 1 E intended to be exhaustive on the subjeata, However, this should f conclusively support; the position of Defendants in relation to ~ all of Plaintiff Is alleclations, 1 STATEMENT Or THE CAST, j ror purposos of clarification the fo.llowinq explanni-ion 1 in given in response to the logal issues prc5crited by hltd.ntif:f. Paragraph 1 of Defendant's Trial Brief will reply to Para. ri.ph 1 of Plaint Iff's Trial Brief, Paragraph 11 of Defendant's Trial. Brief will rospond to f Paragraph 11 and INS of Plaintiff's Trial Brief, Defendants Paragraph nil: will respotitl to Paragraph T.11 of. Plaintiff's Trial Brief, Defendant's Paragraph IV will respond to Pletintiff's Paragraph V 3n Plaintiff's 't'rial Br ief. , In rospondinq to the legal. Issues of Plaintiff py^esentecl on Page 5 of Plaintiff's Trial Brin.f, Defendant has found it 11ecoos- 9 ary to roseate they legal issues involved and has chosen to present them as follows: I.~N:tLS~dN:r<cJ;l[:H LI:[Y:Ii:li6:\~L:f:ttLLA F.:NIA.+~i.L71l~iJ:lti~iu::.:11.L~iA.t'u J.~i.... ..„AS'..kcaUl':r9L'vvililr.:Vt9,1rJ:I:CaJ:LIIU.d::.Laa;:..4Y`-ciW uSm,aL4 t:ui:i;.{,raf;.:,;• 1Sk't~1 Ol.rtw .ka"KSY 6U4trFr<6~' ;;;;;[IlggMqqgqqqMqqlllltlt P A 1. EQUITABLE RELIEF, I .E . , A 11I?RMAN1 NT INJUNCTION EPIJOININC D1.1- PROM VOTING ON TJJP PROPOSRI) RANCH ESTATIiS ANNEXATION } ORDINANCI DOES NOT LI1 IN THN' CASE AT BAR, IT. ANNBXATION ACTION TAKEN TO DA`I'1; HAS NOT .1121EN A11,I31TRAI2Y. AND CAI'itXCIOUS AS ALLE0I40 BY TILAI;NTIFFS BECAUSE OF Till': CITY'S ALLEGED LACK OF "LEGITIMATV MUNICIPAL INTEREST' IN T1]L ARXA IN QUPSTION} NOR WOULD AN ALLE;GPI) ";ACK Oft' CORRELATIVE f.;LNEPITS" TO RESULTING PROPP,RTY OWNERS, IF TRUl: IN FACT.', BE A VIOLATION OF DUI, PROCESS GUARANTEES. ITT, ALLEt;2VPION OF UTILITY SERVICP; INEQUALITY IIAS NO BR7\nIN(4 ON `ill; QUESTION OF ANNEXATION. r.v . T11E CITY PRO-PATA ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS AF?PLIXDI HOW- EVER, IN LSIO WAY SHOULD 'fill"• QUP'gTION Or THE VALIDITY OF A UTILITY ORDINANCE CfiI1141CT Tilt: STATUS OP ANNP,XA.T.TOH PROCtPDINCS. j ARG.UMPNT AN)) AUT11ORITITL'8 ' I LQUITABLE 11BLIK-1 I.I,., A PE04AN1?141I' INJUNCTION CONJOIN'I'NG I)P5'rN- l RAN'T'S FROM VOT NO ON C'HE PROPOSED RANCH ESTATES ANNEXNPION ORD- INANCE DOTS NOT LIP, IN THI CAST; AT BAR. (A) Romecly at 1<tw must: }Je ttnAvfli).ab1e:; and (B) Irreparable injury necessary; and (C) Void ordinance necessary. A. REMBDY AT LAW MUST Bill UNAVAILA13LE j j Section B of Article V of the, Constitution of Texas vests in the District Court the power and authority to grant tari.ts of injunction, In all cases in which it Court of Chancery would i have the power to grant thom under established rules of equity, except in cases where tho oxc,lunive Jurisdiction thrro-of is vest- f ed in some other court. Where hning no shocific statutory authori..- E zation for the chanting of injtunctivo relief: rel.at:ing to this par. tioular, subgoct, 1,.e, annoxation procoedings, in Elio provisions of e Tit-lo 76 of voonion's Texas Civil Statutes, Po tieles 4642-4670 ir.-• el.usivo, it is tho)-ofore essential to the grai;ting or the injune-• i T)l_;I'rNnAr}T's 'I1?:CAC, 131?IL;]? t?} PH, TWO S~ r t4livilil ~ 1dld~ U i tive relief that there ho no adequate remedy at law ava.il~ I abl.e. • Lowe and Archer, Pomecdies, (1957) . Injunctions, so.ction I 313, ' Page 313, and cases oi.te<d the~:c~in. j i The germ "adequate remoin dy at law" is defined by t,owe and Archer to mean a remedy an practical. and eC€icient to t:he lends of justice and its prompt administration as a remedy in cc city. Somner v. Craviford, 91 Tex, 1.29, 41 SW 994 and cases citecl I therein. To challenge annexation procreclings, the following re tedies at law have been termed "adequ to" by the courts: Quo Warranto and Declaratory ,7udgmont pr.oceodings. ! ? Quo Warranto is a remedy, provided in tho constitution and j statutes of Texas, Soo specifically Article 6253, I ii As to particular situations whore Quo Warranto is the only i mothod available, we rincl'tiaat unless an annexation ordinance is wholly void which must tat ~ , ean void on its face., all attack on such I Ordinance must be J?rOsontod in the mannor of a Quo Warranto pro- i seeding. Lowe and Archer, Ranaedies, Chapter 10, Qao tJarrantO, Sec. 542, Pd. 499-•500, Such rot-oronce lists a larcje number of cited cases 47 Tex. Jar." 2cl Quo Warranto, Sec, 7, Pq. 572'-573 ~I lists iddit:i.onAl. cases sub.6tantiati.ng the above principal, as the I law of Texas, Sae also Mcn,uillin, Vol.. 170 Municipal Corporations, Par. 50.10 Pg. 424-427, necont cases indicate that moat. litigation involving annexation pr.oceodings is broxight to the courts through Quo Warranto procoodingst See e.g, t:hc~ C1.t of Pas~tdenA v. The State of `Toxas ex rel. J Tllo City o Fiou.a.t~~n mot. a1, 5W 2d (Sup. Ct. 1970), 1.2 'l'ox. ,Sup. Ct. Journal. 273, Vernon V. Texas ex rel.; The Ci.ty_of San Antonio (CA 1966) 406 SUJ 2cl 236, err. ref: n.r.e. f ? However., Quo Wnrranto procoedi.ngs do not provide the sole and r exclusive remedy by which the legality of tho existence of a muni- . LIVVENDAN'1''S liTTAT, 1;J?;[J 1" d MT(, ~ ist...._r.:GVUsS.i..W.:,i::v+i:ae.L..bL'arl,:YG.i.a LJ.i'u::+.,.t~i. • ti }~rL....1G:iilwl.au.:'.i....i ••r\•~iAY~~3!>'1~l,Wa..•..-ilrv.Wl 1.:'.{': Yfa.l.lw[.'J.lu~~lYW -..•r~w+~.~~.~~.i- lv.+~~F3~41.tY1. 'i~. { 11et1•xM: 1 i cilia]. corpomtion as to terr.-ii:ory covered by an nnnerati.cn or.di.n- ance can be questioned, The city of, Pasadena v, ilottston ~L;nclown~anL, roi q - Inc.,, (CA ].969) 938 ScrJ 2d .1.52, er.r, ref. n.r.a. A. suit in-clecla- t-ory relief (R.C.S. Art. 2529) has al:,o been held to be aj valid Proccidure at law, to question the W--t.l.idity of, annexat•.i.on ~rcli.n ances, Additionally, as the Houston Pn_d_owinenL_ case above cited indicates, issues as to coils t:itutional qut;stione, also be entertained by the court. without the necessity of Joining Ithe State It is submitted to the Court that in the case. at bar thore are adequato romodi.os at law, availablh to Plaintiffs, which remedies should be sought before ashi.ng for oqu:lt.abl(-. relief from the court. i B. 7MPARABLE INJURY NECIP.,S,"uARY 1 , It is essential. to most forms of injunctive relief that what Lhe courts term "irreparetble injury" be shown, Broussard V. Al Cartwr.i_cght Real-Ly Comp11 (CA 3.944) 179 Im 2d. 7771 err. j rof. win, and cases cited. Purther., the enactment of an ordinance I whither it bo valid or, void, will not generally be enjoined by a court unless it cloarly appears that irreparable injury wil). re- sult: from the 'enactment, C,ari.tty v, flalbort; (CA) 225 S14 196) Dallas v. Cotrchman (CA 1923) 249 5W 234, writ. r.af. s Atlas Metal { Works v. Dallas (CA) 30 ,I 2d 431. 39 Tex, Jur. 2d, Muni.c.i.pal u Corporations, ,Sec. 266, Pg. 594, In the most reaonL aatso of Cites of• ~a:3_,i.nrt=on V. C of Grand Prairie, (CA 1970), 451 SW 26 284, orr. ref. n.r,e., the Court of Civil Appeals of F{or L• Worth held that it was err.or for trio trial. court to render an injunction to permanontly enjoin the City of. Arlington from interfor.ing or attempting to annex or, in any way usurp any Jurisdiction or control over tho subject- area I of the case, the injunction having bee=n granted on thy: theory j j nl.'rt;NriANt~ s IPPTAL 11MVP PAGE; POUF. , .~~1.._.+..ail.al....,1,..1+....a'.Jh...yii.+a'.:YSS s.s.+a,aU..+....-~•~..1,...e..»bi....-. ,.L_.,,....i ...nr, rFVf15F 1' ~.lulSYJ:tLu4[Sul-w:i:.J,U~i..edsLF....u...anra~,evsuv yr~Itd~.l~LLw~:..uLV 81•♦f that the subjECt; ar.ca was already part of Grand Prairie and the'. At any attempt by Arlington to aline:>, such area would be iJ.legal the time Grand Prairie filed the case on May 12, 19691 Llio City Of Arlington hail alrc')ady published a notice calling for a ll0arini to be held under Article 970a V.A.C.S. on the question of whether or not Arlington U1100.6, Annex the subject area. The Court: i,n holding t:'•at• the City should not be further enjoined from con-- l.l a tinuing any annexation proceeding quoted from the CCi.lY_ of Da v. Couchman_ case, supra, as follows: "The decree of the Court, therefore, enjoins ,n lecris~- ~ ~ lative act of the F3oard of C,ommissi.oners. It i.s 4io11 ! settled by the authorities in this State that a Court of Equity will riot lend its processes to die accoirp~ liohment of this character of interference by injune-- { Lion with the legislative 1'.unctioll of a municipal cor- poration; the corporation being endowed with suck: f.un- >ec ial legislative authority. The rule is ation by s1 that: the enactment of a void ordinance, will not be en-- -y a jeinocl, although its Vthatithacmerclnacment,ofmhos it also olearly appears ordinance of itse'•f will work irreparable injury without. i the intervention of somo wrongful act under its authority. The enactment of an ordinfulce v€rnmentgistiscfhccl~xoc a city is a sovereign act. of go cise of duly Conferred legislative authority. It is all expression of the will of the legislature through the ills trtunentality of the lioard of Commiseionero, upon which the Legislature has chosen to con.rer a part of the governmental power repose.d in it. illoooOur SVSt tlve of government is divided into the legt~s 1 and judicial dnpartmcnts, whore spheres aY.e cloarly do-- fined, no one of them, and least. of all. the judicial cle- j , par-tment, should atterltl inleo exce it and invade by s~ich r.e the domain oftnnothcri The more enactmor,t of an ar<iinanr.o of the nurture of that uncler consideration could licit operate to impa t anye of the rights of iappela.epr, If it were void, alone would work no injury only after acts were impend- ing or steps were already taken to construct the tracts could the basis for the reltef• here sottglrt exist, when ~u1 Stich exigenc}' arose, then, and not before:, in any event., could the authority of a court be invoked to restrain E the injury • city of Dallas v. Dallas Consol.,~L'leotria St., co.,lo` h'=)x, 337,-i4E 514 Y 'Z1 Gratity v I }~or.t (Tex. ff- Ap(.>,) 225 Std 196." I This is the law i.ri Texas, and has been restated rnany times. ' The facts in the case at bar have shown that no i.rreparaba.e. in- jury will occur, or in fact does exist, as a result: of the pro., W!,P) NDANT' S Tl1tM 13P.1211 - PALL rIVil ivyl.l.~{,AA!"" J ! .../KfjS.11) x..a; ~''u L:1M:a i.La:+Jyl y.*. ~ a.i '..l FJlull:ualal.:(W%~<'I.L.tl.'d~u!'uuI-:jµ,;yci1'I I :B.:i3iW U.:...u._:." r WN i nMrp}»~ SHIt'a4 .:pY>:Piy~ 1 (/4Q@epj ~P 1 11 posed anneaxaUlon proceodings. There was not even any tesLi.mony on this poin,. other, than the payment: of taxes. Surely, t•.iiyis could net be irroparablo injury? If so, any reference tolirrepar- ablo injury having boon occasioned by the iniplementati.on Of real property taxes should be dispelled by the very recent. casof S~pinhs Industries, Inc., et al v. City oC 1?art. worth, et: (iSl (CA 1970) 452 SW 2d 799, which case held that the more fact that property which was alleged to have been annexed by one Municipality might be subject to double taxation, if annexed by another municipality, did-not constituto proof of irreparab.lo injury such as would warr- ant: issuance of injunction restraining enactment of annexation ordinance. The case further citos C4.ty of uall:as v. Couchman, j Supra. i f l Your. Defendant's feel that the pr~inc.ipa.l of lem stated above IS controlling in the instant. case on the mattor of injunctive If relief, and therefore same should be cloni-ed. j C. VOID ORDINANCE NMRSSARY If the Court would assume that there is no remedy at law I availablo, and that Irreparable injury has in fact been sustained N by Plaintiffs 6s a result of the annexation proceedings to date, one forth r pro-rcquisito and finding must be dot:erminod in order, f to sustain equitable relief enjoining furthor proceedings in re.- gard to the annexation at )far. To sustain collateral, attack through injunction on annexation ordinances, the annexation ordina- anco muot be wholly void. Lowe and Anchor, Remedies, cited supra, and Injunctions, Chapter 71 hurt: v. City of Buless, (Tam Sup, ("t.), 405 SW 26 591 City of Irvil v. C,711away, (CA) S4Q 2d 832, writ ref:. j n.r.e. To dotcrmino that an ordinance is wholly void, it must: be wholly beyond the powers of a muniolpnlity to enact tho sama, an { act not authorized by law or color of 3.tma. Such principal of law 1 4 DJ,*'R'MJ)ANT'S TRIAL ILlR'11-1 ' hACiF: ZX ~re 5.03 } }pjl was gUotecd in L-ho case of City of .I..va.r~ v. C~illat•~a quoting fl~m several authorities and citing cases . '1?urt1) e1'. , r iminalterial variations anti disoke cncies Short cf flagrant 'abuse have been consicdercrcl not to necessar.•ily' render .ln oi:d.inanre vo thin, rer~uirin.1 Quo parrarito proceacii.ncJs to attaci: the sarne~ Mil).or V. Ci Y of Mercedos (CA 1963) 361 SIV 2d 461 err, re. n,r..c.I Deacon v. City of Luless, su ra.• p Vernon v. Texas ex ref, G~:it of S~~n Antonio Y _ (CA 1966) 406 SW 2,d 236, err. ref. n.r,e, As Defendants understand the pleadings before the court, the only allegation of a void Ordinance refers directly to'the fact that no "public hearing was provided as required 'by law to i ~ P1aSnt.if.fs prior to the • institu t.an of Said annexation proceedings. Reference is made to Section 6 of Article 970a 11,C.s. which states as follows: 1113eforo any city may ,inst- tute annexation pro•- ~ ceedings, the governing body of Stich city Shall provicd an o 3 ppor.. tunity for all interested persons to be hoard al. a public hoar.ing,.. j There is no contention by Vl.aintiffs that they (did not have an opportunity to be heard, nor that notice was not provided as required by law, nor that they were doniccl a righi: to spoclk and present questions. In fact,, questions were presented by Plaint.iff''s l counsel and by their very mature were lengthy, detailed and tenor- ally of a complex nature. The proper response to tjaid questions out of neCeGSit required Y squired preparation, time, and some investigation by the, Council, and some of which information according to the testimony of Councilmen I1amoy, Chambers, and Neu, was not. available / to them at the data of the hesiring, nor was there time to answer I J~~ the questions (if the information had been available:), adequate to write out the answers as domanded by plaintiffs. further, there is some quostion as to whether or not impl.omr;ntation of such i.n•- vestigation and/or writing answers to said questions would have Ij ~ b131~'IsNJ7nN~l'' S '!'F1rA1~ I3.h.T.1"s1~ ~ 1>Af,,Is 51VLN r ;N l5 1` 1 ~~tiiiP1M a AYt R P3, . ~y,~J.Ste.L'+.:J:U.:J'v.:WLlulr1LL11++.f+rL. wwt.~a~.unm.:G:w.GUta w:xw,u:aie.t:.asi::ii:i.be.:ku:.>t.t..uw,: V.~.::~wtcf:+id:s.:::ea..:•..:wc,.au~ ~.r.svr.i:~~:x~;:a~e1:.,::: i I f;^swvpa instituted annexation proceedings in violation of Sectiou~~G of said Article 970a. It is furthes:• pointed out, that, if Plaintiffs were doprived of any equitable as:iistance at said hearing), at a later: date, on June 23, 1.970, a public meeting Was held at~ which ti.I11e the City Manager., at'ter having used the administrati~.e staff to obtain the roquested information, did compil(~ answers to said questions, and substantially answered all of the questions pro-- pounded to the Council during the June: 9th public hearing, and othora then presented from the floor. Yhereforc, PlainL•i ff-'s have been appraised of most of the information, data, and statistics relating to said annexation that in pi:rsc:ntly before the council, ' Further, the Plaintiff's could havo availed themso.lvos of the public hearing, and public meetings of the Planning and 'Lon- ' ~ my Commission which t:ommi.ssion had in public meetings, i.nvesti•• I C gated, stud ied, discussed, and made available all infarmati.on, statistics and data availablo to them concerning said annexation j I i of Ranch r_'St:atos to support their r:econvondat:ion to the City Council. Their recommendation was to annex. There is no ovidence beforo the. Court that the City of Denton failed Lo comply with any prer.equisitos in law regarding i : the holding of a public hoaxing, or with any pa-e requisite of tho Municipal Annexation Act, and there are no cases cited nor pre. sented to the Court showing that Defendants have any legal. obli._ t t gat:ion other than that stated above in relation to the public hearing, rtoberts kulcra of. Order apply, rind the Mayon chairs ill j j council meetings. Any Councilman has the right to refrain from speaking. His duty is to li.ston, This meoting was net an in- { quisition, nor interrogation of olocted legislative officials, j nor should it have been. ANNEXATION ACTION TAKEN TO DATE 11AS NOT Br!,RN A11131TRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AS ALLC(1811) BY PI,A7NTIPI'S BECAUSE Of? T11r' CITY'S ATar,JX, 4'XD I,ACK Oil "L1,GIT7MAT} MUNTCIPAr, 7N'1'I•MBST" IN 'Plir. ARVA IN QUESTION1 D13r 1.,N17AN`P'S TRIAL BRIP'l? _ MI'' HTG'11T `_a==.•..*vi+:.ru:Zi+:'LL'S.Yait i1c:.Y L..t:;.wlll:e..-ti ..:_.w~.:::.el:.... VllY4f47 an=~~ IItt1111 a:aenaa ' ~ NOR WOULD AN ALLY,GED "LACY OF CORRELATED 15IYQFI'T7'S" '.!'O 2IsS~UI,'11ING PROPLRTX OPINI;RS, it, 1111JUH IN PACT, BE A VIOLAT101"I 01, I)[Il:: PROCESS GUARANTRES. ~vsr,r It must be noted that this suit directly challenges the 1 enactmont by the City of Denton of a proposed annexation ordin- ance involving numerous acres of land adjacent to the cor orate limits of the City. Dentrin is a Home Rule City. It WassYhe purpose of the None Rule Amendment, Article 11, Section 5,! and the enabling statutes, to bestow upon accepting cities and Towns of more than five thousand population Full power of self govern- ment with full authority to do anything the legislature could theretofore have authorized them to do. The result is that it is necessary to look at the acts of the legislature, not `.•or i grants of power to said cities, but only for limitations on the powers. This is textbook law. Forwood, of a,I v, City of Y-8 y l.or F j (1998) 197 Tex. 261, 219 ,hM 2d 292; State ex rot. W.M. Rose, et al. ; j v. Ci__ty o1_,r,aror.t.e, (Tex. Sup.) 386 SW 2d 782, 785.1 Cif of Trv- ing v. Dallas County Flood Coni.rol. District: (Tex, Sup.) 383 5fV 2d 571, 575. Tho in„tant property proposed to he annexed is un- incorporated territory no+a lying adjacent to the prosent Limits i of the City of Denton. There is nothing to pr.evc.nt the City from annexing any territory lying adjacont• to it-, except as provided in Article 970x, and the City is not .regnired to annex an j Y parti- cular block of land or to annex any other property in that vicin- ity which might be undesirable or not in the best interest of the ~ i r City under the circumstances. The Court cannot be concerned with the motives of the governing body of a city such as Dontoll in the mattnr of annexation. No reason need be stated by the Council, nor by any individual. momber of the Council, city of: Houston V. State, (1993) 192 Te.x. 190, 17G SW 26 928, 930. The ' power to annex terr.itory is t3 lElgi:>lati.ve power. Norris v, 1 nCr1 fJl)AN7'' S TRIAL IM11-:Y PAM NINE; j 1 0 `"'11aJ: .v y%1:,u2 ~hJt"'t J 'tiWrk.u~~F.b.td.t.5t:i.'w.i511A(~lr"Aai'~iF.LjJ.IwL.~~•••J.ILV.JJ+J.WUJd.~u,...u.. A.1C,fe.lp++7.M.j lh O00 `kt✓f1J! 57 Tex, 635, 641. All }lone Rule Cities are oxhress.ly 01111)(A401. 0 CI to annex l'Iny territory which is adjacent to them and shish is not. s v included within the .limits of another iticorporatecl city. State American Production Company v. Texas City, l.5 7, TeX. ex rel. Pan 4500 303 S[4 2d~780y^Ciy of Irving V. Dallas County E'l.ood Control District, supra. And see Article 970a V.A.C.S. City of: Pasadena v. liousi:o_n Endowvtent, Inc_.., (CA 1969) 438 SW 2d 3.52, err.. ref, n.r.e. Additionally, the only limital.ion under Texas Law on the posror of a Home Rule City, such as Denton, to annex additional territory is that territory should he adjacent to a City and not included within the boundaries of any other municipality. Ll~u onds p r 456 343 7?. 2,d lG? cert. of Cor uJ Christi, 226 F. SuErp, r f den. 86 S. Ct. 85, 382 US 833.5 L} d. 2c] 80. k ever, in fact, not only did the administrative staff, in I j How a their, testimony before Oiis Honorable Court, present valid reasons L I i for annexation as slid the City Councilmen who testified, but there was also evidence that a recommendation from the City Planning and j 7,oniny Commission had been presented to the Council favoring annex 1 ation and stating reasons therefor. This recommendation was pre- f sented after a period of study, lnvesti.gation, an(I discussion, by those directly responsible for the Planning and Zoning of the City, ' ( and professional staff: members who are consigtentl.y recognised as i being ng wolf versed and Anowlr:dr)oabl.e in this fiel.d and well qualifi- ed by both training and experience to deal in City expansion. But, assuming &II of the above evidence is not sat.isfaatary, there skill exists ample opportunity for a Councilman to inform himself as to reasons to vote for or against said annexation. i I What is now involved is only the right. of- the Ci.~!t Council to vote on t-ho annexation, either for or against, their right to gain in- formation at any time in advanco of- such vote; and to not commit themselves prior to casting the final vote. Plaintiffs are attempt DMrhNDANIP',S TRTAl'J DRIP,? TIAGE, TrN f Ol3HJ• =o..yy,;.~ppy.44W✓/AI:..`.LIJL~:iSa atW:-•~.. n. -+---'3~JLLl1G.L.::l'LS511~J41.:W N'J•`••.. y_aa.t...4~..w4G.. _ .-l:J.uLLb.eLlJ:R+.;W.:.4,.L:.la+a. 1YFi3i/ ,ing to deny the Counc-1.1 membors all. of these rights, and for. no reason other than they don't want to nay City taxes, and may_ not get utility sorvi.ce at a price they like. Thera. still. remains the possibility that the council will gather and obtain more documented, defined and detailed information than was avai.lablo q to time at the elate of trial and prior to the vote on annexation. For the court to question the motives, intent., and judgment of an elected City Cpunc;i,l.man, based upon information reeei.ved from numerous sources, including recommendations of city staff personnel, and the P7;anning and. Zoning Commission, and to sub stitute its judgment for that of the elected officials, would be i to drastically overstep the bounds of separate functions upon which I this government is based. Texas Digest Vol., 28a, Municipal Corpor.•- { ations, Sec. 63 (.1), 29 (3). Further., the statement by plaintiffs in their brief that lands cannot or should not be annexed by a Home Rule City where there I could be no benefits provided to the residents of the area, (which I I , l I benofits are to be determined by the residents of said area), is simply not the law; atxl a careful. search has uncovered no cases f ;t which sustain such a kaoldtng against a Home Rule City. To the Con tr.ary, the annexation of territory to a Home Rule City may be auth- orized without the chnsont• of the persons residing cithor In the city or in the annoyed` territory. R.C.S. Article 974a. Flurther, the annexation does not constitute a donial. of equal. protection of r the law, or a taking_ of property without due process of law, and r~~1 is not retroactive in, cont:xovontion of either, the i'ederal or State j Constitution. Stato ex rel.. Martin v. City of Waxahachie (CA 1952) 248 SO 2d 971, err. State ex. rel. L. El. Winell v. CitX of. }[ar.lingen (CA 1959) 324 SW 2d 248t err., rof, n.r..e. All these f points have been derided, Plaintiffs havo raised nothing new. { I f k k dr}r~N1)ANT~.S xRr.Al, r~rzxi;r~ ~~Arr lr~ravrr~ Y, r Y Xtf111 4:uYUlYl.✓/~..._.:..r .L~It4L.« - yWaluacl ~{[i~J(j `"''~/~Y:.1 ui .'J.. ~s-'yLlltLU11:1L`AJ..ri."v:1lVl'.b?~.:.:N,:..,.Jti~W.2/ ~y >r hxrs!t ~~Jn M1V:rsx4 grFt:Yb W5® /r ~ fBApp@+ Annexation may bcr carried out over the prut:est of th(a resi- donts. The consent of the inhabitants of annexed territory is not required even though i:he property brought c•iit)ii.n i.tie corporate limits will be subject to taxation to discharge an (-xi:;ttng Muni- cipal indebtedness. E III THF; AURGATION OF UTILITY SERVICE MQUALITY HAS 140 BIPA)PANG ON THE QUESTION OF ANNF.,XNP1ON. The que-eiti.on that Plaintiffs have raised concerning the improbability of Defendant providing the proposed annexed area with ,ubstantially equivalent utility service as such services have bacii furnished or should have been furnished to other areas r I E of the City is completely without merit and should not be con- sidered by the Court. Dy Plaintiff's own admission, Section 10 of Article 970a, quoted at }.gage 13 of Plaintiff Is JJ Brief, AIIthO.t:ilElq any A]111eY,ing city a period of three years to provide or cause to be provided to the annexed area governmental and proprietary services. There i is no action provided, nor any action implied, within such section I E which might be takon by annexed residents pr.ipr to the terminal:ton of this three ~ Ycap period, Y,eep in mind that in the case at bar, there has not even been an annexation. Therefore, there can be no allegation of inability, or refusal to provide adequate or eco-• nomical services, which if in fact were true, would Still not he contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Art, By the express terms of said statuto, remedies for, failure to supply Governmental and proprietary services are contained therein, Such romorlies are available only after a three year period. A City is j given a chance to perform its duti.cs, even governmentel.. There- fore; Plaintiffs cannot yuacessfully attack the annexation of its i property at this time on the ground that the provision of govern- +I f brlr'EN1)AN2''5 TRIAL BR181-1 I'AC,Is TWI,LVs ~i ga~.c+A~ ii:::r.La".;ti::,.:..... _~*'i.,r-e r 4:i•.:1:iL' f:1.'4iT;ot.YU52 7:i6i11. rara .wa.L...s,c.l1 `u[..H4Y... - .r...a..aJ.u ~.a.:~ _ .r.~ner• 1. :-Yl3df1 . R I I rte, ntenta.l and proprietary services per babl_r wi;l]. bo. unfair a icl clis oriminatory, soe for example City Of Pasadena v. Houston Endow- merit, Inc./ supra. --J.~_..I`___~-_--. TV. milE CITY'S PRO-RATA ORDINANCE IS CONSTIT'U'TIONAL AS APPLIED; 11OW•- RVU, IN NO WAY SHOULD `IM OUBSTrON OF VALIDITY OF A UTTLM ORDINANCH MEC`I' THE, STATUS OF PENDING ANNL;XA'I'TON PROCEEDI'GS. We understand that Plaintiffs do riot content that the Pro rtata ordinance (Code I)octions 25-•74 through 25•-73) of the City of Denton is unconstitutional per se. (Plaintiff's Brief, II Page 26) However, they do contend that it is unconstitutional as appli- ed in this case becauso of the fact that under said ordinance i ' they would bo required to pay for the cost of extension of, facilitiets lying outsi.do the subdivision (Ranch 1 staL©s ) proper. i Reference is here made to the recently decided case of Crown-- hill Homes Inc., v. City +of San Antonio (CA 1969) M SW 26 448 Orr, ref, n.r.,e. The Court in a very lengthy opinion established i initially that the "furnishing of public services, rests in the I discretion of the governing municipal withorityt..... and -the Courts will not, undertake to control, or interfere with the exer- cise of such discretion in the absence of bad faith or'abuse...," tat Pg. 459, citing casos, Further, the laws of the State of 'texas, r ' tan stated within said case, very adequately interpret the home rule amendment to moan that the cition have tho oxclusive right i to do and perform whatever may be necessary to operate: and main-, i n thin water works or water works systems for the use of the City fi tancl its inhabitants. There seoms to be no Texas case standing for t the proposition that the determination by a City owned water util- ity as to whore extension shall. not. be made is not a matter for 3 , the discretJon of the govern.inc body. And the trial. coiir.t in the Crownhill flonaes case ruled that the right of the governing }>oard t C i kk l I)I 1 M)ANT'5 TRIAL MITEP PACs,' THIRTEEN ~.IP:iA11/11 44 ".L]14.'1LV61tiQ.fiL!_'Y[ ~ w, u.ul.fuL1a1.4..:.euW1L'a0.~i ~w~' -0Y.NYt ~_y.,scy,~ _ r:!f]]ti41N1'1>.YI1t ' {y6pyq f+'R YY: ITYa!4.1 II to dotermine the area to be served and extension to ba ntaI by n. the waiver utility was a matter within its sound discretio Ci t in g Art. 1.116, V-A.C.S. In this connection the trial trial court also ruled that the determination of how much revenues of thct water ~ystem should be applied to the extensions of. the system was als ~ within the sound di.~cretion of the governing body. Citing Art. 113 and 1113x, V.A.C.S. In the Crownhi.ll; Homes case the board rogatlations of the City of San Antonio were fatally upheld,. Several similarities exist between these regulations and the "pro..,.ata" ordinance of the City of Benton (Code of Ordinances Secy. 25•-74 through 2578) Initially, the regulations of San Antonio attempted to classi- fy cu.'3tomers into two catagories; (1) Single Customer., (2) Deve- loper Customer, r ~ 1 ! The ordinance of the City of tt,:nton cla5si.fys customers into two catagor.ies; (1) individual. Lot Owners, (2) Subdividers, I ! The regulations of t-be City of San Antonio provided in do- tail. for thu extension of "on si^.e" and "approach" mains for both , developer customers and sing1C customers. Under the regulations i of said City, both a single customer and a dovelopor had to furnish c i the initial capital outlay for an "approach main" but are reim [t' burled by the w~~t.ar. board under a refund arrangement for a period ' of seven years, the amount of which may or may not equal 100% of s the capital outlay. An "approach" main is defined as a main which i brings seater service and/or circulation of water to the perimeter 4 of a property or tho projection thereof across roadways abutting said property. k I Also the regulations require that both singglo customers and developers must bear the entire cost of all "on site" main ' Without compensat-Jon or promi ,e, of reimbursement;. The "on site" i r b11Lia" tAN'f'5 TRIAL 131211'16' PAC:,r FOUATPIrhl aryFNN . ;x};~n.a.L1'~::6i:4Y1si~=L'.i.=+ai.l~. ^.t•. .K:J1'Iu:LL~. 7w.ilt2a . lw.'.-.4r 1 main is on<> r:Om which a lot directly received the t~ater;lsuppl.y. , ir, Na °i'ht City of D011L-on Ordnance also provides in' detail for OK, { i ten5i<1'n of "On Site " mains and oxbonsion of "approach" lnains for a developer customer (subdivider) . said developer or r,ubdiviiter must furnish the entire capital outlay for an "approach"~matn t " aln.i s e and "on site" main and does not receive compensation or p` reimbursement of any kind. This provision is the same IVs the of . ubdi.vidol:4- City of San Antonio ordinance as It relates to s T However, the Denton Ordinance provides further that i.n the case of individual J.ot owners, a :single customer or individual lot owner must furnish the initial capital outlay for. approach" mains, but shall be entitled to reimbursement of the entire pro- rata cost paid to the City as provided in Code section 25-•76 for period user who extends a service line from such main within a p~ each r of five (5) years from the date any such main extensions are accept- ed by the City. Thore are no reimk)ursement provisions available under the San Antonio Ordinance, t,'ur- 11 for single customers at all ther, the individual lot-, owner or single customer under the Denton ordinance does not have to bear the entire cost of an "on site" main but is allowed a credit for the first 100 feet of such oxtens ion subject to the reimbursement provisions of 8ocfion 25-77. i In other worsts, the individual lot owner or single customer is better off under the City of Benton Ordinance than tinder the rules and regulations of the City of San Antonio, which the Court of Civil Appeals in its Crownhil~l tlomas,_Tno , opinion approved in detail. j The Court in determining the reasonabiness of the ordin- ance stated that the cost of oil site or local bonofit mains is only a part of the whole cost extendiuq water service to anyone, and that the total cost of extension of water service to anyone 1 i i tOWT-;NDANTIS TRIAT, k3RIP1' PAGE t':[1IVEN I ~GO+YNM.~YMWW4IW.:M41[~G16611~/!./y;11'4.Y iAiY7Gi1L]:Y[yy~.:iiLT64~NM1.SYi1811i~+.~Y.iWilYi1L'LJe`_tii': Ka'Mfv in the City includes also the cost of. what is referred to as "back-up facilities" which Is defined as uwells ~ pumps, pump house.:, chlorinating equipment, reservoirs, tanks, transmission mains, color metering and control. equipment and appurtenances". The evidence presented in the Cr•ownhi.ll Homes case indicates that over one-half of the cost of getting water, to a new subdivision is in the "back-up facilities". The court went into great detail to explore installation costs, rates, and extensions needs, finally coming to the over all general conclusion that the water works board of trusteea of San Antonio in promulgating the water main extension regu- lations requiring the developers to pay the entire cost of local. benefit or on site water, main extensions into new areas without f reimbursement- exercised its legislative or governmental power and did not act. In a proprietary capacity. And, further, that. j the Courts will not undertake to control or interfer with the I k exercise of such discretion in the absence of bad faith or'abuse. i The testimony in the case at bar indicates that the pr.o•- I rata ordinance before the court, if applied in the future, will E be applied in the same mannor as it has been applied to other i individual lot owners within' the City, That if any water or sewage extensions are made to said Ranch Estates Subdivision, such extensions, connect:ions, charges and reimbursements thereto will be made and performed entirely within the provisions of said ordinance or any amendment the;reto impar.ti..ally, and pursuant to the same standards and tests NS applied olscwhere within said City. ~ i There is no ovidence to the contrary. No discrimination has been shown, nor could it be at this time, as none exitsts. Therefore, based upon the well. written opinion of the crown-- hill Noire„ Inc. casse, the Judiciary indicates that It desi.rea for municipal.it:ieh to regulate their own utility services, Andx,f II { DEVENDANT' S" TRIAL BRIE ~ PAGE, fiixTLT N V Y:JJafLJJA%v' :.~.u.1ti~'J~YLL'JJ.eMrY'a. p4L4J,tA:JJ:~e.G'+FIM1M1NI.~'J~"•`O''' K.Nli 4S1 F:A4',rf Y •7 lication of an ordinance is proven to be more bone one alp - iGia.l to individua:L lot oamers than an ar.cli.nance prev ious]-Y ui'" f held by case law as r.easollable, Chen surely the more benef.lcial )rdinance will and nntsi: be upheld as const,it.utional and reasonable eedings The)eforc, uclicial proc. n by the courts in subsequent J fondants pray the Court hold valid said pro-rata ordinance as applied to the f'act's at bar, and uphold the well established principle that the regulations roquir.ing indiviclual owners to pay 1 the cost of water main extensions into the areas without reimburse- of would not be a denial Of due process law or equal protect < 1111-111gw, V.A.C,S• )a, ion of the law. Articles 11.0 that relief. wElR32l rm, premises cons as re(iueHLed in Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition be in \ the temporary restraining order be dissolv-~ ` l things denied, that al i ermined ation proceedings under. attact be p , and that the annex ect I r and that said declaratory juclgment prayed for be ren~ to continue, ! dered in Defcandants favor. Respectfully submitted, c3 f JACK Q. BAwPCN CITY AT'1' PNEY s MUNICIPAL BUTTA)INC. n 'T,xm; '16201 t D} N''ON, 'T E W, RALPH MANN ASST, CITY ATTORNBY MUNICIPAL DUILDINC MNTON, TIMS 76201 BY: G I I)MI'iNDANT' S TRIAL DRILL - PAGi Sk3VrsN`1' MN I. ht~Ya I"YNii\Y1Y31YYY.!II.y.Y4Ayi Va L.lNtt.V ws'.L[IVail1'11:\'Ila y,.i.tl4.MUNJ.:u.vYt:3.t'WtytLNWyy3YiYY1Ji1I.:tAuYYJ~1:.t.111u13.yJ yY"dJNyYL.1lu\'Jl...-'^'~~`Iµ~~un. ,.r i JIM PIERCE: ET Al. ¢ IN HE DISTRICT' COURT OF vs, DENTON COUNTY T E X A S CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ET AL ~ 158TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS' 'TRIAL BRILF TO THE HIINORABI.F, JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Come now Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered II' f cause, and file this Brief in support of their contention that they are entitled to Porranent Injunction and Declaratory I Judgment as requested in their First Amended Original Petition, j NATURE OF THE'CCASL f { 'this case concerns the action of the Defendant, City ! of Denton, Tcxas, and its olected City Councilmen, in attempt- . ! ing to annex the Ranch Estates Subdivision into tho City's co,rpora£e limits, Plaintiff's have requested relief in the mature of a Permanvnt Injunction to restrain Defendants from annexing Ranch Estates until Defendants can show in open Court legal basis for such action, Plaintiffs have also sought Declaratory Judciments that the schemo of annexation is un. { constitutional; that no public hearing as required by law vas i E held concerning said annexation; that the "Prorata Ordinance" of said City is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs; and that there is no roasonable probability that Defendm-Its can i ' comply with certain statutory requirements which are conditions { precodcnt to tho a'nno%iition. Plaintiffs contend that a Oecl~.r~ { vtory Judgniant. in thair favor on any or «11 of the above grounds iI would require this Court to grant the Permanent Injunci;ign As, roquo.s i.ed i a N t II FACTS , It i.s undisputod that Plaintiffs are each residents A and real property owners in the Ranch Estates Subdivision, located approxfi~iataly one-half nine from the corporate limits of the City of Denton, in Denton County, Texas, It is also undisputed that Defendant, City of Denton, Texas, Is a Muncipal Corporation, organized under the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas,(4rticle XI, section 5), and the Home Rule Enabling Act (Chapter XIII, Title 28, Texas Revised Civil Statutes), See Charter, City of Denton, Section 1,05, (Copy attached hereto as appendix" It is further undisputed that the five individual Defendants herein are duly elected City Councilmen of the City of Denton, i In late 1969, or early 1970, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, at the insistence of the Planning and Zoning Department.of said City, requested that a "feasibility study" be prepared by the City Staff concerning annexation of the Ranch Estates Subdivision Into the City, A study made by the Engineering Department of the City disclosed that extension { of. water and sewer utilities to the Ranch Estates residents would cast each resident approximately $x,140,00, (Sewer, $1,546,00; water, $1,595,00) See Plaintiff's Exhibit No, One, (copy attached hereto as appendix*J'), The °faasibility study" was limited solely to the cost of extension of sewer and water util - / ities, and did not take into account any other factors, it is uncertain when the "feasibility study" was completed. The evidence adduced at the hearing, however, shows conclusively that the study was not reduced to writing until after tho 4 "public hearing" on June 9, 1970, and the "public meeting" on June 18, 1970. f f 'Plaintiffs testified that they made repeated reouests for a copy of the study both bofore and following the Jline 9 "public hr.aring," but that they were unable to obtain a COPY of fy~EF:F`d\7 f~ienSWq. \W61\~~~•":'/.IY.Y/6'.N.W4~4J4M'l Ya4~.~J.YY1J4.YilllM1JlY lV,4WJA411I4.J.[I.4N 'LLL,IVe'1YI.MJGL 34i1v}✓..//FNY.fYY'9t4LL/Ltl1614~.tY6WJ:~1..~2. JiJ~WL•~l.aYe<.~ ~k f e..vj the feasibility study uni,il Tuesday, July 28, 1970, a little more than a week before the trial of this cause/ It is undisputod that at the "public hearing" of June 9, 1970, Plaintiffs, individually, and through counsel, presented'certain written and spoken questions to the City Council and various City Officials. Plaintiffs requested the City to provide them with written answers, Plaintiffs furthe requested spoken answers at the hearing, The councilmen and other City Officials refused totally to answer any of the questions propounded by Plaintiffs even though Plaintiffs l requested the information in good faith for the purpose of determining the facts known to the City so that Plaintiff's might I y he able to examine, explain or rebut evidence concerning annexation to which the City had access on the date of the i " public hearing". i/ , At the "public hearing" of July 9, 19700 Plaintiffs I I requested a second meeting to give the City Council opportunity ' to disclose the facts requested by Plaintiffs, but the City Council on June 9 refused to consider such a second meeting, i{ Subsequently, however; Plaintiffs were informed that a second meeting would be held, and such meeting was held o,i Thursday, y' June 18, 1970, At that meeting, Mr, James Whites City Manager, disclosed to Plaintiffs substantially tho information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. The evidence reflects that Plaintiffs received no answers to their questions other than the information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. I On the August 6, 1970, hearing of this cause, counsel for plaintiffs propounded to the City Managers (James White) i f the Assistant City Manager,' (,Jack Owen) the City Planner, (Joel Albrecht) the City Engfne6r (Bud Hamptman) and three of the City CouncIImen (Harold Ramey, 4,'illiam Neu, and Robert Chambers) questions asking whether any of the following factors wreve relevant to any extent: in the annexation of Ranch Estates; 3 y ts5••t..:. aH:a;lu :.;wu.a.::.:,sw:.e:.rw.v,.:;.u.u....:.;.~..~,..:ni.s:,w,:..w~L.y.:.•...:ssa;:~a.su:..::.u..,n::..Y.u~.c,•.;.a..,s. tsues..•.: a:u'.aa.:.h ~:a:+s...a+...u kY .Ki a yj V (1} `fax revenue; (2 ) prevention of annexation by another City; (3) prevention of incorporation of the area as a separate city; (4) increasing the land area of the City, (5) increasing the population of the City; (b) protecting the zoning and building standards'of areas adjacent to the corporate limits; (7) expansio of the city bound&ries to include those areas which have a social and oconomic community of interests according to the master plan; (8) facilitation of the extension of utility lines and services more economically; (9) insuring the development of the area on a financially sound basis, and forestalling the f v~ creation of a financially unsound specia" .iistrict; (10) ~'nnex- ation of an area adjacent to a preferred residential neighbor- hood, protecting such neighborhood from having undesirable 3 businesses located on Its fr,nge. outside the city; (11) drainage control; (12) special government purchases such as airport, park, lakes and water supply, highways and highway interchanges; I (13) sewage treatment plant; (14) Pollution;(The factors were taken from Municipal Annexation, Report to the 57th Legislature, Te))s Legislative Council, Table V111, Page 39, (19b0), See I Appendix to Brief, No witness for the Defendant could testify that any of the named factors, or any other factor were valid reasons for annexing Ranch Estates, The only reason propounded by any of the above witnesses 'for annexing Ranch. Estates was that it would be in the "best interests" of the City of Denton. No witness could be any more specific than that nebulous and /l meaningless statement, One Councilman (Ramey) admitted he did not have enough facts to make a; intelligent decision, Another { ! (Chambers,) stated he thought possible water pollution problems existed-in Ranch Estates, but he admitted he had absolutely no evidence Of any pollution or of the best way to correct any, problem absent a scientific study, s Plaintiffs brought this law snit on July b, 19701 to forestall the annexntion; Numerous questions of municipal, f statutory, and coosittutional law arc involved in this case, _4- I NViYIYY"Y.'.ut61WYl1Y t4.Ytl.Y.YI.tl\JlailMl:,1.Ln..Y.u:Y.u1[i...YJ. 16J...r114L..fiaJt.44YJA4lY.I+w+YN,L.tL~W11\1u.4\Y:IM1]ya611~YS,1+U<N'd'aG.LLUX'..i M1IY.~W~.'an .r~ I L GAL ISSUES PRESt_N'rE0 DEFENDANTS FAILED 1'0 HOLD A "PUBLIC HEARING" AT LEAST TEN DAYS AND NO MORE THAN TWENTY DAYr, PRIOR T(j THE INSTITUTION OF ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION CF REV. C1'V, STAT. ANN. ART. 970a, SEC, 6, THUS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF VALUABLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, A. Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs''First Amended Original Petition on grounds of surpris\) should be denied by the Court because, by Defendants' own admission, they were ready to go to trial on the merits on Thursday, August 6, 1970, and because the cause had not been officially set for trial on the merits on the date Plaintiffs filed their amended petition. B. The meoting of June 9, 19700 was not a "public hearing" as required by article 970a, Sec, 6, because Plaintiffs were given no opportunity to be appraised of all evidence upon which a decision of the City Council mould rest, and because Plaintiffs were given no opportunity to examine explain or rebut such evidence; Defendants' refusal to make such evidence available to Plaintiffs constitutes a denial of due process of law under article 1, sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United St,tites of America, THE ACTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN ATTEMPTING TO ANNEX THE RANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION IS NOT, BY THE TEST114ONY OF CITY ' OFFICIALS AND COUNCILMEN, BASED UPON ANY LEGITIMATE MUNICIPAL INTEREST IN OBTAINING JURISDICTION OVER SAID SUBDIVISION, AND i IS THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF LAW! ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT, AND WHOLLY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF PRT, 11 SEC. 19, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE. OF TEXAS, TIT. 1 THE AFORESAID SCHEME OF ANNEXATION DE'IiES.THE RESIDENTS OF RANCH ESTATES EQUAL PROTCCTION OF THE LAWS BECAUSE SUCH RESIDENTS WILL NOT IN REASONABLE PROBABILITY RECEIVE UTILITY SERVICES UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT ECOP,OMIC. CIRCUMSTANCES ! AS SUCH SERVICES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY SAID DEFENDANT CITY IN OTHER AREAS OF SUCH CI'T'Y, , IV. f BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS WILL DERIVE NO rORRELATIVE BENEFITS FROM ANNEXATION, INTO THE CITY of DENTON SAID SCHEME OF ANNEX. k ATION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVES, THE RESIDENTS OF RANCH r' ESTATES OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAIN, i V. BECAUSE THE PRORATA ORDINANCE OF THE SAID CITY OF DENTON IRRATIONALLY AND UNFAIRLY CLASSIFICS PLAINTIFFS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS REAL ESTATE SUBDIVIDERS FOR PROFIT, THE APPLICATION OF SAID ORDINANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SCfIEitiiE j OF ANNEXATION IS UNCONSTIYUTIONAL IN THAT 11' DENIES PLAINTIFFS EQUAL. PRon vi ON OF THE LAW AND DEPRIVES PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR PROPERTY 41ITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, +i V t` :4P.J a:IMWIM Ir{l:~ jYLC:Y•JYI:i:!/GYLIA+C'.:4(wr.t..{6h'..IaN^+u(Y~1A:tiHi(NM.vYJLM {UaLJ[.JYr' 1+l~Ltl.tY'^11.LLlli.'J[vl4~t YfA.r:r-1SNW+f..y.YU Yt.i::•113iiir.4. u.avu:r.nr.Wawaue:..r.: 3~ s~•myt:.x t ARGUMENT UNDER _POINT ONE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO HOLD A "PUK IC HEARING" AT LEAST TEN DAYS AND NO MORE THAN TWEN-1Y DAYS PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF REV, CIV. STAY, ANN. AR. 970a, SEC, 6, THUS DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFFS OF VALUABLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL. RIGHTS. A. Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Ori inal Petition on grounds of surprise should be denied by the Cour? because, by Defendants' own admission, they were ready to go to trial on the merits on Thursday, August 6, 1970, and because th'e 'cause had not been officially set for trial on the rneri.ts on the date Plaintiffs filed their amended petition. Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition'on grounds of surprise, First, Plaintiff would point out that the Temporary Restraining Order f f in this cause, signed and entered the 27th day of July, 1970s by the Honorable Judge herein stated as follows: "It is further ordered that Plaintiffs' Application 'for a Temporary Injunction effective until final decree herein, as contained in his original petition be heard before me at 9;00 j A, M., on the 6th day of August, 1970, in the 168th Judicial District Courtroom, in the Court- house in Denton County, in the City of Denton, Texas." Therefor., the hearing set for August 6th was for Temporary Injunction only, and not for trial on the merits, On August 6th, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Original Petition, and delivered a copy of same to attorney for Defendants Plaintiffs contend therefore, that they could amend as a mattri- of right, the seven day period prior to trial on the merits not having been in effect ort the date of the Amendment,, On the Gth day of August, 1070, Attorney for Plaintiffs j stated than he was ready to hear the cause on the merits, if the Court so des4red, and Attorney for Defendants agreed to the 1JI same: Attorney for Defendants made no motion for continuance 1 1 , of the cause, even though the Court stated that the matter could be heard on the merits the following week. Attorney for Plaintiffs agreed to hear the matter the following week, if the Court so dosired, Rule 63, Texas Rulos of Civil Procedure, .j states that leave to file an amended petition within seven days of the date of trial shall be granted by the Jucige unless r ++.[Y1:LL'v4$.i:la.oaww:a.t+,.3wi.,:.:ia'U.:.1.L~..•.+..Y..-•:.~'•:-'+-• . there IS a showing that such amendment villl operate as a I ,pyaw surprise to the opposing party, I It. is well established that Amendment of Pleadings within the seven day period prior to trial is a matter within the discretion of the Trial Judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the complaining party makes a clear showing bf abuse of discretion, Box-v-Assoclates Inv,. Co-, 389.SW 2d 687 ('fox. Civ. App,, 1965). Defendants Con- tention that they were surprised by such amended pleading is supported by no evidence. All the Individual Defendants, the City Attorney, and all City officials called to testify in this cause were present at the "public hearing" on July 9, 1970, upon which Plaintiffs' Amended Pleading is based, This Court would certainly not abuse its discretion by allow- ing Plaintiffs Amended Petition to stand, even if Plaintiffs' I ~ con' ~ tiention that jj they could amend as a mattes of right is l kt without merit. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Strike { Plaintiffs' Amended Petition should be overruled, I B. The meeting of June 91 1970, was not a "public hearing as required by article 970a', Sec, 6, because Plaintiffs were given no opportunity to be appraised of all evidence upon which a decision of the City Counc,'1 would rest, and because Plaintiffs wore given no opportunity to examine, explain or I~ rebut such evidence; Defendants' refusal to nttiko such evidence available to Plaintiffs constitutes a denial of due process of law, under artic)o 1, Sec, 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and under the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The public meeting of June 9, 1970, was not a "public hearing," as required by Article 970a, Section 6. which provides in part as follows; "Before any city may institute annexation proceedings, the governing 'body of such city Dal) provide an opportunity for all interested persons to be heard at a public hearing to be heard not more than twenty days, nor less than ten days prior to the institution of such proceedings Strict compliance with the above provision has been held to be a conditI on precodont to valid annexation of torritos^y into a city, and failure to comply with such provisior, rn,:etts , 4 Callahan any attempted annexation thereundor nu11 and void, --•4i a -t3, tj v,_Ci1;~of nen_ton.. Texas, No. 69- 1ti8th Judicial District 1970. Court, Denton County, Texas, Ju'i It includes It has been widely held that a Ihearing, the right of each party-to be apprised of all of the evidence upon which a factual adjudication rests, plus the right to ex- The Court so amir:e, explain, or rebut all such evidence. 5th C'ir'' 1945) 146 Fed. 2d 672 ( held in United _St_a tes y~-0illman, required Plaintiffs contend i;hat the "public hearing roduce by Art, 970a mado it encumbent upon the City Council to p "public hearing" all information available for Plaintiffs at the l i to the City relevant to the annexation of Ranch Estates. Plain- tiffs had requested a copy of the feasibility study prior to the public hearing, and renewed their request at the hearing, I Nuvertholess, Defendants flatly refused to give Plaintiffs any of the requested information, much of which 4ras included in ? Defendants refused to answer any ques- the feasibility study. tion whatsoover propounded by the Plaintiffs at the public and the I:ayor vent so fa. as to inform caunsol for hearing, Plaintiffs that 'ne was "out of order" for a:kempting to obtain information from Defendants, I 1 + 403 111. 507, 87 NE 2d 620 (1949), In Braden 'v 111 ch, the Suprema Court of Illinois held that a "publi,c hoaxing" required in passage of an amendment to a zoning ordinance means. the right to appear and give evidence and the eight to hoar and examine tho witnesses whose testimony is presented by the E Opposing party. In the present case, although Plaintiffs wore ' allowed to appear and give what evidence, they had, they were denied the right to hear and examine the witnesses of the R I oopposing party" the City of Denton, and its officials who were comtomplating annexation of the Subdivision. f The Court of Appeals of Kentucky ;n Majfield Gas 259 541 ?.d (1(M) held Co..,._.Inc~.rv."P«b~1,ic Sorvi_ce Commiss'i'on, that a "public hearing" required before the Public Sorvico r8M ! ~ 1 ya'*.'HI •'~a L+..1.+1...W.u.uui::.r.aa1 .-.+......~.v.r..~r.ee..r~•ar..wwa.rrru.uaaww~.w•Y...u.w..uu...uav1.W.ru.s.4Yn~rY W~JJUJJA^I.ur+4.~~_. i 4d.:w.t}rl~ i5 N I 'v+w...a.v^+.~ava au.u~ '.:gut Cotdm';SS iUil relative Lo rc,luctiun of rates foi' natural gas distributed by the Plaintiff Gas Company meant the right to appear and give evidence and the right to hear and examine witnesses whose testimony is presented by the opposing party; a hearing'included the right to seasonably know the charges, meet such charges by competent evidence, and be heard by counsel upon the probative force of the evidence adduced by both .parties, and upon the law applicable theruto. The Kentucky court held that the action of the Public Service Commission in rendering a reduction in rates without affording the gas company the opportunity to test the evidence upon which such reduction was based not only violated a Kentucky statute, but denied the gas company its constitutional rights to due process' under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States j! Constitution, Plaintiffs herein do not contend that the city Council I I was obligated to hold a full scale judicial trial of the annexation issue at the public hearing, Plaintiffs do contend that the City Council was obligated by lati to furnish plaintiffs with all information pertinent to the decision on annexation. Plaintiffs could hardly be expected to make intelligent arg- l uments either for or against annexation without access to the informations already receiveo by the City council, For the Council to decide to annex under the present conditions, it would have to do so on the basis of secret evidence not adduced r at the council at the "public hearing". Plaintiff's right to appear at the "public hearing" and present evidence should definitely include the right to reasonably, question members of I i j I the City Council and City officials concerning the annexation, As this Court well knows I the presentation of evidence j is not limited,to calling friendly witnesses. Often, such II presentation is best accomplished by interrogation of witnesses adverse to the questioner's cause. If Plaintiffs had boon ~g. ` I J .✓NVJ.e.r•vuW-fs.N~i✓N/:LL VtiYf+J^LFNN W4Y.41i.':1Y.i.1(+\W JIL ViWM~~~•~~•W~~ 4CCC4' hat Z:RT 5 . ,7une g, 1974, to reasonably examine alluvrLd a~ ~hc+ hearing on the city such officials as the City Attorney, the City Planner, Enginoe and the City Manager, plaintiffs would have had a Council that fair opportunity to demonstrate to the y sion• insufficient basis exists for annexation of the subdiv' hold Plaintiffs mere denied that right, and this Court should S•jere denied a "public hearing" es provided in Art- that they sec. Sec. 6. arguments that This Court should not be mislead by the hearing before the City Council on June 9> 1970, was (ry~ legislative, rather than Judicial or administrative in nature. i As a noted legal scholar has stated, th<~t "The central proposition of Full hearing is arti~ adjudicative facts - pacts pertaining to a p without cular. party - nor~ally ought not to be found of allowing the' party a chaisent~ rebut,texplain$ a { cross-examine, 'the Ivey j 1 udic al or legislative, even 3 naj udicial charariztion a whole pral p roceeding procedural safeguards i are often relaxed aq ith respectatoartgicularipartycts facts which do not pertain to p , ppo1i~XT°rSec$c7e20~n~1g59). but which hear upon 1arI K. 4AVIS, ADMINISTRATT VE l.Aid In the present caso, the purpose of the "public !,earing" ? required by Article 070a, Section 6, is the finding of adjud- ' pertaining to the residents of These icative facts - i. e•, facts Ranch Estates and the annexation of their property. igere the precise facts which Plaintiffs requested, and viere refused an opportunity to obtain at the "public hearing. issues of law, policy, Plaintiffs did not demand a trial on n. Certainly, Plaintiffs were entitled to argue or discretio the law or policy under yang the decision to annex, and they were afforded an opportunity to do this by the City Council, nie less vlithout. an opportunity But such an opportunity is mea g the adjudicative facts which form the framework ~ to develop Plaintiffs To draw an analogy, for deciding manors of Policy. a lawyer would be if he i Vlore placed in the same position as ylp.. `.~,•M'S:':+ rr~+.+,...e.........r>.~..~a..v...-.....a........,•.~.ra..+a~ w,. w.w.u....raua.n...rrr ' ;.MG k'.y llithUUt t e,"e reg1zi ,•ed to argue a c~ se b~fnr t; air a},pel l ate cuur'! any opportunity to know What facts were developed in the retard below, it has been stated that the essence of justice is largely procedural. K. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TEXT, S The Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated; " Sac, 7.20 (1959) history of liberty has largely boon the history of procedural s 318 US 332, 347 (1943). safeguards." McNabb v. Un-ted State , Plaintiffs herein were denied a vital procedural right by the arbitrary and unjustifiable action of the Denton City Council in refusing to allow Plaintiffs to elicit the facts known to the City Council and to the City Officials at the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing required `ay Article i 970a, Sac. 60 is clearly to allow all parties, both City l and arnoxed residents, to obtain and develop the facts upon I which annexation will be decided, Certainly, the asking of pertinent and specific questions to City Officials is not an unreasonable method of ascertaining facts, Since Plaintiffs were denied a "public hearing" as I contemplated by Art. 970a, the City is not in strict compliance { with all conditions precedent to annexation, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment to that effect and to a Permanent Injunction barring Defendants from pre•ceeding with f the annexation instituted on June 23, 1970 by introduction of , the Ordinance of annexation (Exhibit At Plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition). DeacoO V~Ci of E0 ess, 405 SW 2d 59 {Tex. 1966) ; C, a1lahan v, Coi booton, No. 69- -B, i 168th Judicial,District Court, July ,•1970; CF., Miller v_. Cit of Morcedea.L 361 SW 26 464 ('Pox, App-tastland, 19625 j writ ref'd N.R.E.). Similarly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the k requested Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction on Due Process grounds pursuant to the UDi1lman, t3raclaen, and Mayfield cases (Supra), -11 . MOW" +.w.w...vu~wu..Nn~.....a..n..a......a..un.u..ust..::w..y..v:.Y:./YU.w-`.Yyn.u_w.awuJ-.ul.a[.u.uuwua..lxvw.u.YJI.:•:r.•:'y':ta~J•:~••'y::~-•••~u'••~ r i}.,::;2ti1 wr.wrv..e...r.~....u..ur..u.n+r• I ISr•V i 1 Ah61J121LN I UNDEk POINT I I A very important case coatcerning the power of Nome Rules Cities to annex additional territory is State of Texas et rel_,Pan American Production_ConiJtany v~Texas City, 303 S.W. 2d 780 (Tex. 1957). In that case, the Supreme Court of Texas held, in a 6--4 decision, that the constitutionality of the action'taken by Texas City in annexing certain submerged i lands to which no benefits could accruo-..by reason of annexation j was not a question within the province of the Court but should be directed to the legislature, The Court refused to overturn a decision in favor of Texas City and declined to consider the i constitutionality of the annexing ordinance, Inca strong i j i dissent, Associate Justice Norvell made tl:e following statement: "In my opinion the court of Civil Appeals correctly j hold that the due process clause>of the General Constitution has application to the annexation of additional territory by a City. The opinion of that Court also suggests the controlling factors i which determine the validity of an annexation I ordinance, Benefits or lack thereof accruing to f the owner of property sought to'be annexed cannot I be made the sole test of the validity. rroperty is t held subject to the general good, and if essential to municipal needs, a city's action in assuming authority or jurisdiction over such property b cannot be gainsaid although no direct benefit accrues to the owner of the property. Whan, " however, property that will receive no benefits from the municipality, either immediate or reason.. ably prospective, Will Ch is tidholly unrelated to the city's present or reasonably prospective economic or municipal needs is subjected to the jurisdiction of a city and its taxing powers by means of annex- ation ordinance, than such action must be considered as unreasonable and arbitrary and hence invalid as constituting an unwarranted deprivation of property brithin the means of the Fourteenth Amend- ment of the Federal Constitution."' Id, at M. I In his dissenting opinion, Justice Norvell relied upon M I a s SaIt_Cort~tiny v, Doard of Commissioners, 239. U, S, - - I ` 478, 36 Sup, Ct, 204, 60 L. Ed. 393 (1916). In the 1es f Salt case, a drainage district annexed and attempted to tax certain of Plaintiff's lands, The Supreme Court held that I Plaintif•C's pleadings stated a sufficient cause of action to preclude dismissal by the lower courts, and reversed a decree ! 1 [WID4 ffa wviL.waat.u..rw-JiiJ36'u.-..:./.,`w. SU J4.'.. u:.._u:.Ar-.: YAl,34i..YW X.`.fl'u.. A.L.'ALI.:.atiyflJYJitu~~t:tlA J1iYJAi.1:i1:i1 J XfLWJt:yJy.1Y:4'• .y iAM.'u~,Yl WJ•:+X•J •y~~ 1.,5agK1'! I 1 Opnnsite offer e n* f h i I , ~ „c a c.gee tfiaG 11o benefits accrued to his Land by the annexation', and that the annexation was solely for the purpose of deriving revenues from the assessment of his property. The Court held that where a drainage district is so formed to include property which is not and cannot be benefited directly or indirectly there is an arbitrary abuse of power and an act of con~iscation which .violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, Plaintiffs submits that the view of Mr. Justice Norvoll in the Texas City case, would now be held by the majority of 1 the Supreme Court of this State. Several factor's contribute to this position. First, Art. 970a, Sec, 10, was not enacted until 1963, six years after the Texas "ity decision. Acts.1963, 58th Legislature, pg, M , Chapter 160, Article 1. Section 10 of Article 970a provides in part, as follows: I A. From and after the effective date of this act, any city annexing a particular area shall within three years of the effective date of such annexation provide or cause to be provided such area with governmental and proprietary services, the standarc' and scepe of which are substantially I equivalent to the standard and scope of governmental and proprietary services furnished by such city in other areas of such city and which have characteristics of typography, patterns of land utilikations, and population density similar to that of a particular area annexed. In the event a-City falls or refuses to provide or cause to be provided such services within the time specified herein, a majority of the qualified voters residing within such particular annexed area and the owners of W or more of the land in such particular annexed area, which area must adjoin the outer boundaries of the city, may potition the governing body of such city to disannex such, particular annexed area. 9. When any such area is disannexed under the provisions ( of this section, it shall not be aniiexed within one year of such disannexation, and, if it is again annexed within three years of this annexation, the period for affording such services as are j required by this section shall be one year from reannexation I rather than three years as in other cases. fey 4 At the time of the Texas City case, the legislature had not spoken relative to the duty of a City to provide 'services to ~ I an annexed area, The Court spocifIca Ily refused to determino I the issue, saying that the legisla%ure hid not spoken on it and 3 that the Court could not substitute its opinion for that of the ~ -l3' w legislature. Now, however, the legislature has given the Court a guideline. It has set limitations upon the pOWer of a City to annex, and tho Court in rendering a decision i'rould not be substituting its judgment for that of the legislature, but rather interpreting statutory law, Secondly, later decisions of the Texas Courts indicate that the Courts can and will determine questiuns concerning the power of a City to annex. The Texas Courts have since the Texas Cif decision ruled on numerous annexation issues both statutory and constitutional. See, n.g., Miller v. City-of I Mercedes, 361 S.W. 2d 464 (Tpx. C1v. App,--Eastland, 1962); Cif of Fort Worth v. Tayl_ r_,_ 427 S.W. 2d 316 (Tex. 1968). Thirdly, thn Texas City case did not raise the equal i j protection issues raised by Plaintiffs in this case (discussed later in this brief). It is clear beyond question that should the City Council vote to annex Ranch Estates into the corporate limits i of the Cit;, of Denton, that decision would be made in an arbi~ E trary and capricious manner based upon no underlying interests 't of the City of Denton. City Councilman Harold Ramey testified j under oath that he did not have sufficient information to decide one way or the other whether to annex Ranch Estates. It is well established that findings of fact made by a City Council without evidence and'the records to support, ,l them, and orders based-upon such findings are "arbitrary j 11i'ller v City 'of Tacoma, 378 P. 26 464, 474 (Washington), it has been stated that arbitrary and capricious means without any reasonable cause, without any cause based upon law, without reason given, in disrLgard of evidence, and the phrase arbitrary and capricious is comparable to "without Justification or excuse", "with no substantial evidence to support it", and "conclusion contrary to substantial, compotent evidenc(PI, ` East Texas Motor Freight_ linl5 v. Unjtod..States_, 96 F, Supp, -14- i•.`.Y.•1l 'W.Ywu.w,u+uu.yuuw..YU•1v:auw 4.u.a...L.uc'uH-•rurw•r.NVbl~4uu W.c ~....V.Y•~..:.u.r,. vysJ1..•!~ W .il•l.:i : •w".•_•rrywuu®-.•r r ♦:aWwbi.l.J1l~[:JYU%4wa ..._•e"".a'rt::.'.i+~`~u' t:. tl's fiYr %i sass%t a a=41LaG`.~, 424, 4E; (C.C, 7ex), Courts shUUi; ilot substitute their Judgment for that of legislative bodies if the're is substantial evidencc, ~ to suppo~ Jt the ruling > however, if there is no evidence , or the evidence is vacuous, the ruling of the body must be doomed "arbitrary", Kansas City Southern RaiIway Corj O v Louisiana - Publtc Service Commission, 223 So, 2d 132', 136 (La.). If there is room for reasonable men to differ, based upon the evidence adduced, then the Court should not substitute its ,;ad~ment for that of a legislative body and that body's de- cision cannot be termed arbitrary and capricious even though it is not the decision which the Court-finds most persuasive. f Wagoner v _Jik of Arlington, 345 S.W, 2d 759, 764 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth, 1961, no }grit). ' The evidence in this case shows conclusively that the City Council has absolutely no evidence which could justify a decision to annex Ranch Estates at the present time. Questions propounded to the City Manager, the City Planner, and the throe City Councilmen who testified demonstrated that none of the fourteen factors listed on page ¢ of this brief--viere in any way relevant to the decision by the City to annex the subdivision, Nevertheless, opinions were expressed that annexation might serve the "best interests" Of the City, Plaintiffs submit that there are no facto upon which a rational decision to annex Ranch Estates could be based and that therefore any action to. annex would by definition be arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the.due process of equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. One City Councilman said that he thought there might be a sewerage problom in Ranch Estates, . but upon crass n.xamination he admitted that no studies of the extent of any problem had been done and that he would need such studies before he could decide one way or the other whether to annex. Plaintiffs submits that grater pollution cannot, under E the facts as they now exist) be put forward as Justification to -15- f ~ .a/war..+y.iuasw+lJr.W.....WJ.:4. r. W~Ylwt.a.,.n.v4!s.4ar: w.W F_ Lliaµ~i.ill.wu_.~ti+-ei:,Ya.u-r F~sea+~.r•~.rt..wy-._ .rla.Y.vili!_a. aJrva._Gt II!lA Nw.:LFyy~.u.W • `J i , f J1 4nhuxi1)g Ranch Estates into the City of Denton, Indood, the residents of the Subdivision testified that their water was i excollent and their sawerage adequate. Defendant w1l I undoubtedly cite to the Court the many cases stating that. Courts i,1iII not took at the motive of a governing body of a City concerning aniexatior proceedings. I See, c,g,, Cifyd_Pasadina v. !Houston Endowment Inc., 438 S.W. 2d 152 (Te,x. Civ, App,-.1-louston,',1969), Plaintiffs would point out that it is also a Wall estahlishod rule of lase that the power of a Home Rule City to annex adjacent territory without r the consent of the residents therein is subject to lir;ritations i by the legislature or by cons titutior5al provisions, For oxnmple, in Tod v-City of:thous4o.n 276 S.W. 419 (Tex. Comm. App., 192x, I i opinion adopted) the Court stated; f "There is no express limitation upon the poorer of a City to annex adjacent territory, Therefore the Courtsthomsolvos must write such limitations into the law if any limitation is ever enforced, Under the wording of this and similar Charters, the City of Houston could block up a strip of lt.nd adjacent to its present boundarias.and run an extension for an un)lmitod distance, taking in land which in all probability would not be, settled as a part of the city for years and years, We do not believe the legislature intn~lded to authori2a any such extension by a City. But arc, think the Courts would be entirely unauthorized to say that Houston abused its discretion or acted beyond the clear intent of the statute in annexino this territory under the facts here present," Id, at M. The Tod Casa clearly indicates that there are due process and equal protection limitations upon the power of the Homo I ! Rule City to annex, It should be pointed out that subsequent i to the TOd decision, the legislature has enacted provisions which speak of the abuse forsoan by the Tod Court, Now, a Homo Rule City may annex only ten par cone of its territory { in any given year, thus limiting the potential for abuse for., seen in the Tod, Case, Tex, Rev. Civ. Stat, Ann., Art, 970a, Sec, i Soo also City of Houston V. statr, et ref Ci`Y of West University Plaice, 142 Tox, 190,µ17G S,W, Ud 528 `(Tex Comm, App,, )943, opinion adopted), and'Coh'en v, C1.ty of ~1Fi~ `tlouston, 17b .~,IV, 809 ('I ex, Civ, )~pp._-Galveston, 191G, error refused) which indicato that the power to annex under the Home Rule Amendment is tempered by the constitution and general laws, It follows therefore that the power of the City of Denton to annex the Ranch,Estates Subdivision without the consent of tho resi- dents therein, is limited by constitutional and statutory sanc- tions. An annexation not based on any rational assessment of the city's interests, nor upon any studies consideration of its Affects upon tha annexed citixons, is by definition arbitrary and capricious and violative of Plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. More- over, if annexation is undertaken without rational dotermination that the City can provide services upon the terms and conditions E ' provided in Art. 970a, Sec, 61 such annexation is violative of ( the stat'ute's lettorland spirit, and should be enjoined by this Court, (Plaintiffs argument concerning furnishing utilities developed later in this brief). Under either statutory or r j constitutional grounds, this Court should declare the action of Deifendants in attempting to annex Ranch Estates arbitrary, and issue a Permanent Injunction barring such annexation until such time as Defendants can establish a rational basis for annexing the subdivision and further demonstrate compliance with all statutory prerequisites to annexation. i THE AFORESAID SCHEMr, OF ANNEXATION DENIES THE RESIDENTS. OF RANCH ESTATES rQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS BECAUSE SUCH r RESIDENTS WILL NOT IN REASONABLE PROBABILITY RECEIVE UTILITY SERVICES UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY RQUIVALFNT ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES AS SUCH SERVICES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURNI5HE BY SAID DEFENDANT CITY IN OTHER AREAS OF SUCH CITY, ARGUMENT UNDER POINT III Article 91ba, Sec, O, ~~oted at pagw,13 of this brief, requiros a City annexing territory to provide the annexod area i with governmental and proprietary services substantially equiva- lont to such sorvi,ons. furnished by the City in similar areas of such City. f (17) 4 i ~ _,y.. ..uwlr..ww.aw-y.~u~.:w...ti...Yn.' ,.eau:..a._.sae..a.aa::r._.-:..~...:,uu.•.._:aioa~:wv ~s~.s....:..4.i.s.a.. 1. '.3 h. ~l Foli.inuht pruvis ions of the Code of Ordinances of the G. CI.y of Denton provido as fotlows "Sec. 25-75 Where an extension of grater or sowor mains in excess of 100 feet is required to serve an individual lot, the owner shall pay the entire cost: of such extonsion beyond 100 feet, skibJoct to the roimbursement provisions of Section 25-77. Sec. 25-76 (a) Subdividers shall pay the entire cost of water and .scaler main extensions required to servo a Subdivision. (b) Whero the extensions to reach a Subdivision arc,`lasd in k;t'reet rights-of-way are in dedicated areas directly accos, ible to service lines, the subdivider shall be entitled 1 to rnimbursomont in accordance with the provision of Soctioil 2577, Sec, 25-77 (a) Any owner of property who boars the cost of water or sower main extension in excess of 100 foot, as provided in ( Section 25-751 or any subdivider who bears the cost of main j extensions to a subdivision, as provided in Section 26-76, shall be entitled to reimbursoment of the entire prorata costs f paid to the City as provided in Section 25.76 for each user who oxtonds a service line from such main within a period of ffivei~years from the date any such main extension 4~re accepted by city, (b) After expiration of five years from the date of water and serlrer main extension, as aforesaid, no furthor ro imbursoment shall be wade, E (d) Reimbursomont payments shall be made to the orson whoaaid the cost of the main, and no other parson shall bppo pled to payment under the corms of this article, (o) , r (f) Thero shall be a maximum of five years trs the period of eligibility whorcin the original installer o the mains may request reimbursement of prerata payment under this Section, The period of eligibility shall begin as of the date of the final inspection and acceptance of the oxtensiona; by j the City, Sec. 2578 (a) Every perbeson applying for a tap of any water or sewor main which has en constructed under the terms of this article shall pay for such privilege at the foll0wIng rates; 1 One half ( ) (1/2) the actual carst of a main not { exceeding in inside diamotor eight inches, per front foot of tho lot or tract or land to which water connections may be made. (2) Ono half (1/?) of the actual cost of a main, not exceeding in insido diameter ten 4Aches , per front foot of the lot or tract or land to which sanitary savor connections may be made) , •-li.u,:dL1~YLw,lj.aa:i.~a~tJ Y:-u,I:J:v.r.~l...~.1'_ua.k~iW u: A<ifi~W:1>iuha(iLTSr'~'.~•• • _.LL1L....r BY.......YF .nta wi'.tta - ~a u...+..,..... 4 (u) 'ihe iistent and compass of this section is to V, provide an equitable charge for water and sanitary sciwer connections as a proportionate distribution of the costrof or main extensions to serve prop water and sanitary se4! within the Jurisdiction of the City or a front foot basis. In case property or a tract of land is so situated or shaped { that the foot front rule created an inequitable basis ~s E between it and other tracts of land, then, in that event, f the City Manager shall determine the proper charge inaccord j with the intent and purpose of this suction. No peer acquire any vested right under the terms and provisions of this section." Certain Charter provisions and Statutes are also pertinent herein. Section 9,08 of the Charter of the City of Denton provides as follows: "All of the terms, powers and applicable provisions of Chapter 9, Title 281 of the Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, as now or horeafter amended, relating to a as.sessmaiits for street improvemonts are heroby adopted as a part of this Charter and hereby constitute an alternative authority and method which the City of Denton may use in improving stroots, alleys, and public places and lovying assessments therefor; provided, the City shall have the power in all cases to make such improvements with its own forces if, in the opinion of th,s council, the wort can be done more expedi- tiously or economically," E I Pp.rtinont provisions of Chapter 9, Title 28, of the 1 Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas are as'follows. "Article 1086-Towns, cities and villagos, incorporated i under either general or special law, which shall accept the benefits of this Chapter as herein provided, shalil have power to improve any highway 'O thin their 'limits, ; and to construct necessary appurtenances thereto,,4,ncluding sewers and drains, „City" when used horde (except when other- wise provided above) shall include till incorporated towns, cities and villages, and the term "nighwa," shall include any street, avenue, at`tey, highways or public puce or square, or portion thr;ra:,f de(lic,tod to public use. Provided that before any proposal to cons';ruct sanitary s0wors.herounder shall be put into effect the governing body of any city shall be presented oy a petition signed by two thirds, of tho ')uting, ; property owners to be affected requesting the governing oody of the city to make Such i;nprovemonts, 1 I The parties at trial stipulated that tr,ere are forty six families residing in the Ranch Estates Subdivision; j that thirty one of the forty six residents and property owners of the Ranch Estates Subdivision would, if called to testify ! state that there is no possibility that they would vote to E assess themselves in the amount of $1,545.00 foil sever service and the amount of $1,595,00 for water service; that they should riot so vote because the cost of ext-onsion of such seVIar an(' (tg) y 35 ;w • tl.....ia.{1Y].dadLa~i..r.r.•r ~ s - • f z ~f~)j 4 _s. eMi ' r f watts services is too cdreac, ror them o bear, individually or „ collectively, and because they feel that such 'rato is exorbitant and Lill 'air; it Would further stipulated that the thirty one I. persons indicated compose two thirds of the residents of said subdivision owning 50% of the real property and further Compose at least. 60% of tine residents of said subdivision of-lning t•wo thirIs of the property therein. Evidence at the hearing disclosed that residents of other similar subdivisions in the City of Denton have received sorer services for less than $400.00 per family, less than a third of the proposed cost to the Ranch Estates residonts, Evidence presented in Plaintiff's Exhibit III shows that the l Spring Valley received sewer service for a cost of $370,95 i j for each property owner. The evi;~once demonstrated that of the total cost I of $94,835,00 to put sewer facilities into lunch Estates, $31,000.00 ~ ($26,000.00 for 5,000 feet of force main, and $6000,00 for a lift station) would be expended on improvements lying outside the Ranch Estates Subdivision leaving a cost of only $63,835,00 for Improvements inside the subdivision. The f City Manager admitted in his testimony that if the prorate ordinance wore applied only to those improvements inside the subdivision, the cost to the Ranch Estates property owners would be a total of $39,835.00, or $865,97 per family, The tostImony in this cause showed that the prices and for soWor on both the Ranch Estates feasibility study and on the Spring Valley Subdivision were based on price per liniar footf j There were thirteen families to be served in Spring Valley; f there are forty six to be served in Ranch Estatosf -If the total costs of the Spring Valley sewer system ($8,810,53)'1s j multi pIIod by the ratio of Ranch Cstates residents to Spring Val Ioy rosicients (3,521) tho total amount is Approximately $3) ,000,00, some $8,000.00 less than the total Cost to the Ranch Estates roside nts oxcIuding the of fsito mprovemc,nts, i' Vavta..4N.:W.vW WYYI:u~y.:AL'LJU.LIJV Vr.J.~ul.la.Lb .J 6t -..pla Gaut) n WWIYIJdi.4'r-i YMFY~aw t..rVNl9rr.LK~Mr.FNIJ(11e.[e.u.(!a--v rye !/L3krlLl..L11-6+.+~~r'M'~IJaa- _ Y V r r J , ;ju $8,000.00 clifferunce, can vary easily ucj explained by the f k'a fact that the evidence showed that the lots in Ranch E:st:+tes at are a good deal larger than those in Spring Valley, and also s i that the evidence showed that larger sewer pipe is being required for the Ranch Estates developrr,ont than was required i j for the Spring Valley developr;ient. { The 'foregoing is rot an idle exercise in mathematics. It demonstrates to the Court that the cost per customer to the Ranch (:states residents would be very equivalent to that which had been charged by the City to other suhdivislons in the past except for the $31,000.00 for improvements not located within the subdivision, The Assistant City Manager admitted that these offsite'improvements constitute capital improvements to the city's utility systems. Plaintiffs contend that forcing them, person annexed into the City against their will, to ~ j { bear the cost of of'fsitu capital improvements to the City i utility system violates their statutory rights to have utilities services furnished to thaw under substantially equivalent ocoriomic circumstances as such services have been- furnishod or I I ` should have been furnished by the City in other areas of the city, Obviously, the further an annexed area is from a j f connection to the annexing city's utilities, tho greater the cost of expending services to the annoxod area tfll bo. Plaintiffs contend that article 970a clearly required that { the City, in nonoxing Ranch Estates, bear all tho burden of i W extending the utilities to the edge of the subdivision. Plaintiffs furthor contend that they are entitled, under the j i Prorata Ordinance, to credit their 100 liniar foot per customor of improvomo nts within the subdivision, . At this point, Plaintiffs would cite the caso Cro,1ril~il11 j , Ilom,S lnct~y -C~~y~of Anto_tnio 433 'S.W. 2d 448 (Tex, Civ. App t~- Col^pus Christi, 1968, Writ refused nro). In that: case, the i i Court. of Civil Appeals hold that regulations of the San Antonio 1 21 i' . .Yr•..s M~.~.+aY+P N.f -o ra...~.. E«=v J- e:r+u.. •..r.uruti-+err>.W.u.4.a4naaaetnp.,ro~t s<•µa4.E,+'ryai: .¢,1an1u s1.1l.ya.. uyi..Hir... 6<wk..n u.~~ Sil t~_ .tM1.~v.ti~a +Ill1J.b.,lv.e4u:4-L... e fir,,. e• Vo„ks board ec rI. ustic" tri~icL r'equir,e(l developers as (3 a Prerequisite to the approval of their plats 'for subdivisle)n, i to to pay the cost of water mains within the proposed devLOopmont. Inc'ludecl in this cost to the developer were 'approached main extensions from the city's transmission crater mains, The City of San Antonio, unlike the City of Denton in tho present case, paid all of We 'general benefit costs of extensions, including wells, pumps, pumphouses, booster stations, valves and transmission mains, Although tho Court held for the City against the DoveIopor, certain distinctions were drawn between developers of subdivisio•s for profit and private citizens. The Court in Crovlwi hi 11 was careful to limit its opinion to the {{I I question of a Developer customer as opposed to individual f + customers, because a Developer customer develops his subdivision for profit, the cost of laying water or sewer mains is a capital exponditure of developing that property, If Devoloper should demand extension of vrater or Sewer services at the city's i expense, it would in effect make the city a lending agency for I t h o d e v Ioper's economic pursuit, Furthermore, the City would have no control over uneconomic developments, by nlakirig the i developer bear the total costs, uneconomic doveloprnont,s are ~t l E discourtrged• If thfi development proposed by tho developer is not economically foasible, he will not put up the money to `E extend water and sewer mains, PIaIntiFfs in the present case are not in the position of Vie developer, Unlike a developer, they have, noi. chosen to subdivide an area within a city for the purposes of selling i j i lots and making a ~,rorit, Each roiIdont of Ranch Ustates l already has a substan Hai investment in septic tank facilities, I 1 1 Thus arguments that the cost to developers of putting in mater and sewer mains are pas!~od onto the ulti mnto purchasers of the lots do not apply to Plaintiffs in the present case, These ffi Plaintiffs have already paid similar" sums for septic tanks 1 (22) y r.r r ..n.a~s~~..yrs.~~._.~r~~~s....~.re+.nw...Yr~.w.u.LLU.Y~r ~w...aJ.r.rP.wawr...-.r.-...u.rMWLLVrtMMW rtYW.u~..uii44lluis4+u~u.V.eiv+re..N..r 11'~~ix41.. ~.tu~ri.. J. [r~'#. Y 5~ tr [14tfir' systcurs, all of which, according to testimony of Plaintiffs s~ do an adequate Job of handling the subdivision Is sewage. In the Crotrnhili case, the Court also relied on the general rule of law that a municipality which engages in furnishing, utility services to its inhabitants is generally regarded as having a governrirental discretion as to the limit to which it Is 'advisable to extend its main, and an extension will not.bo compelled by the Court at the insistanco of the inhabitants. Of course, this r-;neral rule is qualified' by l the basic underlying obligation of a city owning utility i systems to supply impartially all mpplicants in the substantially like position to those being served, Soo 47alr 2d 1222 at ~ 32?.5. In the present case, howevar, article 970a, Sec, 10, Imposes a further duty, upon a municipality concerning g extension 1 of its utilities to annexed areas. The general rule of discre- tion is modified by Statutory Mandate that the city must make those services available within a three year period, The careful distinction drawn out in the CrownhIII Homes case b-tweon Developer customers and individual customers should f be taken into consideration by this Court, Because the E , i oconamic ro,lationship between the developer and the city t utility differs from that between individual customers and the ci+ tIIItyI those individual customers cannot constitution - ally be ~-sessod for the capital Improvements (offsite improve ments) to the city's water syrtem, Only those improvomen.ts lying within the subdivision can constitutionally be aesessod against Plaintiffs in the present case, and pursuant to Denton I ; City Orrl~ ,nance' they are Y entitled to credit for 1110 liniar feet I per customer, ' i ~ To hold otherwise would deny Plaintiffs to } thoir rights under article 97Oa, and would unconstitutionally c I E deprive them of equal protection oi' the laws because they f would be treated differently from the residents of Similar II subdivisions such as Spring Valley. (23) RPM" ~r ij Attention of tic Court is not.r directed back to the case of Tod v, Ca_ty_ws'_f._i;2t! .f<_Qr.t, 276 S419 (Tex, Comm, App, > 1925, opinior adoptedAs the lengthy quote from that case on page of this brief indicates, the Court have power and should exercise the power to limit the action of Home Rule Cities to "block up a strip of land adjacent to its present boundaries and' run an extension for an unlimited distance." 'Phis is precisely rqhat the City of Denton is doing in the present case, They are annexing territory located too great a distanco from their present sewer or water facilities for such area to be economically served by water and sewer extensions. Since the City does not want to bear the cost of these extensions r it attempts to place the cost on the subdivision residents, i knowI ng that the subdivision residents cannot and will not vote to assess themselves at such high rates, the city plans to sit back and collect high taxes from these residents, year after year. Plaintiffs respectively submit that the }tome f Rule Amendment allowing cities to annex territory without I the consent of the residents therein was never intended to : authorize such V,buses. A city should not be allowed to annox an area until such time as the city is prepared to make utility services reasonably available to the rosidents therein, Reasonably available must be token in its economic sense, for that ib the sense in which Plaintiffs will be affected. - In summary, Plaintiffs contend that because they j will not in reasonable probability receive utility services under substantially equivalent economic circumstances as such services have been furnished or should have been furnished by i j the Defendant City in other similar areas of the City, they have been denied the equal protection of the lark goaranteed by them by the constitutions ol, the State of Texas and the United States, In this respect, Plaintiffs contend that ,article Me, imposes a duty upon the City with respect to annexed areas (2A} • 1s4J.fttLSS.IL-<YUwuY..._.y1A1:~lYri~:Y3rr1J.~.{.y.v~4a... 41 1 p. 61iu iiic LT y i~US ShUwn nU 171dicdt'IOCI that it is ready to 1. f or drilling to fullfill that duty,, =1 Plaintiffs would further point out that with respect to eater service, the City of Denton has made absolutely no attempt to contact the owner of the private water system presently serving Ranch Estates either with respect'to purchasing his plant, or 'with respect to franchising hini to serve the subdivision, This is ore further indication of the haphazard and ill prepared "feasibility study" prepared by the City. The city's attitude thrortghout this annexation proceeding has been one of annex and worrying about the legalities and I problems of the residents later, BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS WILL DERIVE NO CORRELATIVE BENEFITS I FROM ANNEXATION, INTO THE CITY OF DENTON SAID SCHEME OF ANNEX- ATION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVES T}!E RESIDENTS OF RANCH ESTATES OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. i ARGUMENT UNDER POINT 11) I Plaintiffs would derivo absolutely no benefits from annexation Into the City of Denton pursuant to the present I scheme of annexation. That scheme is therefore arbitrary I entered Into and v{olates due process because it deprives the residents of Ranch Estates of their property without due f, process of law. It is undisputed that the Ranch Estates residents will be assessed property taxes, Plaintiff have demonstrated that tho residents will riot receive the utility servicos to which they are entitled, The subdivision presently' enjoys law enforcement protection through the Sheriff's Depart. i ment of Denton County, It enjoys fire protection rrom the f City of Denton pursuant to a contract between the City and Denton County, It enjoys garbage pickup from private entre. preneurs, It has pure water from a privately owned water company, And it has serfage disposal by privately owned septic j tanks, all of which work adequately, Annexation into the City of Denton would result in nothing for tho benefit of Plaintiffs other than a tax gill, Under the !jy,les Salt Co, case, Supra, Ap4l 1 - , taxation of an area for the benefit of other w i { .r n'.. S.T IW.Jlreiv.[J%+1/:346J;-"•A.{24J~LJJ:u[.:l: J.-. _ '{d.diLu:i.aw G.JY liJ2L.A::aAil1[r1[.['_,.:LSliulw.vl~JUSi~u~JLLi.2 - ':wL+1_~2a~Jn'.. J 1~1f1 :06 properties violates the constitution because it deprives the r! land owner of his property without due process of law. Unless and until the City of Denton !s prepared to serve the Ranch Estates area with utilities, Plaintiffs would indeed be deprived of their property without d.ta process of la{r. BECAUSE THE PRORATA ORDINANCE OF THE SAID CITY OF DENTON IRRATIONALLY AND UNFAIRLY CLASSIFIED PLAINTIFFS Iii THE SAME CATEGORY AS REAL ESTATE SUBDIVIDERS FOR PROFIT, T11F.' APPLICATIONOF SAID ORDINANCE IN CONNECTION '?)IT[] THIS SCHEME OF ANNCXATI`ONIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS EQUAL PROTECT10 OF THE LAW AND DEPRIVES PLAINTIFFS OF THLIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, k ARGUMENT UNDER POINT V Much of the law on this point has been argued under Point III of this brief. Plaintiffs do not contend that the Prorata Ordinance or the City of Denton is unconstitutional per se, They do contend that it is unconstitutional as applied j to Plaintiffs in this case because under the scheme of annex- ation Plaintiffs would be required to pay for some 5,000 feet j of force lift Sower main plus a lift station, all of which constitute capital improvements to the utility plant of the City of Denton dnd all of which lie outside the subdivision to be served, It is the City that has chosen to annex an area some 6,000 feet dorwnhiII from the nearest saver main, It is the City that Should bear the cost of improvements to reach the subdivision, and Plaintiffs should be allowed credit l for 100 foot per customor for all improvoments within the subdivision Only then trill Plaintiffs be treated fairly under such Prorata Ordinance, The distinction between developers for profit and residents annexed into a city against their will has been drawn in this Brief before, and Plaintiffs 011 not dwell on that distinction, However, Plaintiffs again urge that the underlying import of the Crownhill_ Homes case, A Supra, 4p is the clear distinction drawn out in that case bottom developers fior' profit and other customers, The effect of the Pro rataa 0-dInanre, as applied to PI(Ii'ntiff's in (26) /'AISL'la1L'.rYVaffa:~lYGW~GLYudm.Gf~ Ea:~ ...Yt-I:~>~A+.~:.++:1ilHJJ4diwLL`C.&:u: W~LilC3ia4.::1Y.lY~`1+4YS,..sWilr[(Ei.L~.+y.y;-'wF`~r:~l>~.iiSi+L,:...4'...' Z..lai:iy~• Aa t;1fs case, is to treat Hai ntitfs substantially the same as real estate subdividers for profit, flaintif,fs contend that such a classification is irrational and unfair, in that it does not properly consider the different economic relationship betwecn City and Developer and Cfty and Annexed Resideot, WHEREFORES promises considered, Plaintiffs pray for relief as requested in their First Amended Original Petition, Respectfully submitted, MTCi,AE! J,: 1' 'Id, A Iff~ney for PI tiffs i f E E j I 1 3 ~ (?7) d•'"ttYdS Jp•.AWa.Wi.e,uVS.iµ«M 1.,a.utu..G... u.~. rG.rs. ~ i.G.;„y ...t.1•-d er .4....4`4wy. •-.x...L L~~.i .+....?r.G::aditi33..~,..._.._•:r...,~ •..a: a...,.ll:ta.LS4A..:v G I, ~ tl `3 4 I,0'I CHARTER .4106 V..._ f!f ornmentof thou city. All powaas of the cityshnll be oxercase(I ii in ll{a lnnna,cr prescribed by this chartrr, m it th,e ayan. i f be not procribed, than hi Batch mianner as m;ly be tn'csariiaed by ordh)"wee. Ste, 1.05. i'owors of ilia ally The City of Denton shall 11"v, And may a.xerelsc all the lattels gPnnte<i to ciElrby the Callstitulion oa lnwy of Toxas t includirng speri±' ci,ll those powers rondo ,available to cities I ai more thrul fivo thoasnnd M000) lnhabltauats by whet is mown is the home mule Admendment to the Constitution of J Teens (Article \I, Scatlon E5) and tile7lomc RUJa 14110511n;; Act ~ (Chnplor 130 Title 28 of (lha hevlsed Civil Statute's of ilia State of Tons, 1025), as now dr heircaftor iunended. Tho city may Acquire property within or tvitlsout ita corporate limits for nny muaicipAl pilrpose; Dirty eooporaato with the govern. meat of Texas, or any tlgottcy tharcof, or with the federal gov. d ernment or any agency thoroof, or with the government of an a ' \ unycounty, city ol. political suhdlvi ton to accomplish any lawn till piai,poso for the a~vancanlent of ilia henltl, rnornls, sttfaty _ eonrenaonco or tvcMire oe the city or its inhabitants; may J sell, lease, ntortgago, hold, numago and control such property hs its interest may require; provided the city shall not'aoll convey, lease, mortgago oi- otherwiso Allanaito ally puLlie uOlty without prior npprovnl by the gaalifled voters of. Cho { ! elty; And may exorclso the power of eminent domr,ln when noemmy or de3lrabic to cury out any of the poivers con. fott1ed upon it by this chutor or the Constiiu~ion or laws of f Tons, The enumeration of partieuinr powers in this charter shall act be hold or dormcd to be exclusive, but In rdditioll to the powers enumerated hercill, implied thereby or appro. j priato to tho exorciso thoroof, tho city shall have and may j axermso all other powers which tntder ilia Constitution mid tlenolnl laws of this stnto it would be competent for this char. lot- to specifically enumernte, 1 See, 1.00, Llabllities, oxomptions and Ihnilations (n} No property belonging to the city shall bo subioat to s ally execution of any kind or nature. 1 E 1 i 1 f 1 I a f j fe-sV.'N.Y.fvxMIWYI . -•.........W({LL~:lW.F+iI.(:.w`J.GiW.ri(~l'1'♦]iL4A4ldSYr4.LL~J1.Si?Y ♦ ~>-h'+Lii.L.1.lY + -\M1AR+J/3(YSWtJcv~[LLJ:~~1{[al'4YaS.uiToTY>]+.6.'.Ltay.;y!:_. 1 • F r rt~ti~';r;r J I "rn•;~~ sn CONI?MUl"ll(A\ Ci)~17 7S1'~Il+7; {art ~,I,t1~:ItY ~17~[:J~ ANO i`il l'•t111 r 1)W1 I It RV t f H IM M t SyNrI :~5 i,ii1)Cit } St'.111:C i rldlti ~ lt~ia7 ilitlJ )(,S:UJC1)t7i f.0 i)Q hU'2'1';Ci i11 Y'I' (;:~)li t'ih7C,. JJ)C IIL.tTo!;t'. City solvic65 a~'p1lElt)J.u for U G0771)i'Gt:il 2U t 'i b[CiLi) ~S J. C7 IItC(r 11 i, Oll 0~ S. Jil 2,11 Clilc:i J.I I r~J. i lr f~ $ N t£ri~Icv, 7'.!lI RL A.loci) 1...f?i:os. to i;)'tInscol. ~•l)Ci+J. t::1t11i77tC)ii Cost foi' smlit ry ,,"•C1';C1' TttcJ.l t is C:it}''s par:ioir Irri 300 Jincl;l focl. p::A' cusf.ohlc>• (4600 line.aJ. foci: tit $5.2J. ))c:r foot) $24,000. Not cos 1; to i,•,•c,i)ci- omicrs in R.mch 1'.l~latcs is $70,8;iy,00, l. olvn;n':E 41 j1,c'IriO cacJ7. Total t.£ Lir,7;,'trd cost of potoblo ldatrr 'f£;ci litios is $cJ'l,l5U 00 j City's pol-Hon at loo lina£tl Poct por c'u:;t:omcr (4600 Lc(7t fit $SI J.G pa, .ro"st) $23, 7S0, Aci to proport'Y orrocrs in Ramch l,Matoti I 3., $7;i,'100.04, 4 G vwvlnxs ~ $J,S01, c+a.itl ~ f ~ I Tc~t£Il. c.,c:illlt7tc~ci c.a<s1 i,,4 ,1• C.175t'U7ror for sai7i.tnry .,t,r pntabl.c witi'rr 3 l' 1 1'hoand ' nc9.]1t.~cs is $S,l;i5 olch. f R:oIG)h ostat'c's rosidar2t:5 7•1371 bc: z'cr{Erit•o:d to C';IcJarAtC to thy' r..ti:y 7u;cclssrotU' I ~ tlJ.i.,li.ty Ug5C111C52it;5 £!nti :It;IC°.f. Ibi't, J f i 1 J (iJ,t'C~~nV.~~~'~... I S 1 Ilaupfmt,~;lri Dl rector of commur i t;y bovol o;)ln •ut f I I E k I i t • , .wiv ~A'Hq.1 YlIWUUM.Y..t~WaW '"tW+1~~MJ.W~IUbiI.I✓:u www+Mazzfwila+nY.YMU.u+.tiJ 4.r.WYU.twll.We(11~'sI.:AY,1F#uil4aa.+f,✓.+. t • I -}lNCnAKi A97 t 1 SANITARY Sl , l? 1'AC•1IA 11.5 I.ST1G ATEIJ tI,V1T TOTAi, r1~ d \'Q. I}1sC1?`i1')rOV QIU,`ji))Y. UNIT (fJ5`i' CO.~)' a S" CI), ibrcc M011 000 Ml 5.UU $nA00.00 2 b" VCP Griov.i :y Main 7 , 500 Ix 4. S0 33, %"0.00 3 1111 VC, Critv:i'cy Main 31'/00 I11; 51 SO 20 );150.00 i 4 Aitat1t01,cS, Std, 4' 21 11A. 250.06 5,250.00 5 4" Sorv, Cottn.' 0 46 1IA. 35.00 1.0610.00 1 6 4" WO Sm•vico 1,750 I1+ 2.50 2,575.00 7 Lift station 1 L,S, 60000.00 _ 6,000100 1 TGPAL PSTP-Vi Pll) CO\TMCI' $D4,635.00 City's Portion 0100 MV 4,600 x I'll, $ 5,2J `24,000.00 ~ ~t$t'•01ttbY• l Cost to hroport:y Nilci's 46 I3A, $10540.00 $70,535;.00 ' in 14111ch 14sstntcs ~ I ' r s i 1 i~ 1 s ~ r i i j 61 WWI N+a.ildlWr.tLl.na..uwu..i/Y.._fi,'u/.=,. a.:r+~1• ta.i Maal.__a41,...a:1. ✓i'kXaal_1{1f.:.:i4.1f..1L._~)'I_i1!!Y}._. i.i+..W uiWrWes,.• `•fs ~`:U( Por'nlil l~;nrca? I~,tr,tta r:cis S4 LN LT 11ITM NO. n, sC~zrr.~.ro~ '(Z))A ;,H trfl' c l~' MS , 1 6' Cap I~~,1 .cr Alin 12,Ob0 Ll $ 4,00 $45,000.00 2 8" Cl 1' blato4, Main 3,700 Lr 7,00 25,900.00 3 611 Gat o, Wilve 42 IIA. 1'/.5.00 5,1.50, 00 4 12" 6<11:e Valve 6 300.00 1, £00.00 S Mira Ily~lral>ts 7.1 I'JI, 450,00 4,950,00 6 ~/4" Sorv.i.co Comwe.'Vions 46 I?A, 55.00 2,530, 00 7 ~14" Coppor Sorvir.C Li1lc 1,7.50 I.1", IX 2121020.00 S Colicroie 133.oe,tcinf; NO C0f 25,00 20500,00 9 4Pnt:or Hain Colincot..lrI,l 7. M. 200.00 200,00 I to Cast gran Fitt.:Inys 10,000 1.US. 0{40 i?,000,OU TO'T'AL P,S'I'77lJ~r113 (\?i; ',Cj' MST. $97,].50.00 1 E City IS Port) 01) O NO Ll/ 4,600 Lh 5,7.6 2.~,~150,00 IE C<1s tallo µ Cost to Pioport.y Orrlors 46 PA. $1,595,00 $73,400,00 in Itarich llstntcs t f i _ f ' l I s. ;e+,')~1 Kr1 ~'yYUL6i,+•Wa'J LYl: L.Y4~aMyY'I..~'L~du ...N V~ivwLLillp)rLLVAYNJJlX51•W"rAV.NYYdv'MW..ti.l>:14WIIvYL4m JIrLi.Y.riY'Afw1hLIL:1:W.WY)4b.LLLliILiL'V44LLLY✓il~L1.1+74^- r1,OLr VI 11 • S,14VCY Fr Tnr Rr Ohl Pan ANNC%ATIOus oY 1oj TCNAO IM RYAC rlurtlCIPAA1rICO I9olo I%99 1 o'jIl .11mtKAT10]!0 fy111aNIO1rAC IYILC 21 M:W rICIrAa,l llr5 TWr GIANYC110 rf Nlicll TNC Cu I[Irnr, of WIIICII 60 PIT _.C:AAIS.1LrlLLA_Lfltf!..CB.tI Y.SO'1^Ji PfJUj(_T. ".f16AL.fA vd 44rin-'1 ..~='•tJJ7JWL4i1ALI11G.._-.- l ....,Lh". Y'.1L` AJ t /iATN f 1'a{6r¢ ~f1ilI:IC1.1TI0 . ^'_ISdd':Q. :C"/ui1:Y6I or r ..CVn SwrAL 011C r .lrvurAl Gm or „rvclAt Ouc SDCr RCA 111 rDll NrA I1 roll •Olc IICA OR fan ACArO111 rON 'OLC ACASOIt rod PrA oND ran A,17C• '1r1 111 ,•„.'.ltidC;ilf.L.'l4.-. 11II:L5!,li!1L .,~LtW n1A71:VL. ...:dIOiCXaLL'lllti .._la<W :Y.X1.L4f1-- -~'I''1fKAflA11_. I (1~~y~Ir1 17 " 10 17 2J " AA Rcvumr • 18 10 10 - fo Pmvun AN49)(Ar IO!1 07 ANODIC" Oily 10 I PncYtNT THE tutadtam ATIoH or YIIt ANCA Ay A 1 1 10 1 2 It/AAAYC 10 01TY I S4MY (OA P1t Puaeou or wcnc Arllrn TNO III II LANG AhCA OY IliC onY 30 12 2 I 36 INOACAle YIIC POPbLAIION or IH( C1TY 7 3 • ' ' 3 ' 1 PAOT"? 2ON4110 AIn RVILOIIN SIANUAne0 or 169 ARMS ADJ4eCNY To Vie CCA16MAlt LJH171 55 173 3 1G 50 i (H)ALO IHe PA C SC If AgeA Or 741E aI TY 011 A0 TO I1,440C /IIDSC AACM 4111 t,1 NA YC A 0001 AL AND fe011014IC CDlum'N11Y Of U.TfNfoTO A"OnO' j IND ro V,.( pANrrn hAl, 91 GO I 13 2 73 I t i AAgcNAfloR IN Rcof0111t to P0~I1`10110 Or tNdA017ANT0 or 7RS ANCA 421 132 07 28 170 -'I TO rAOII:IfATC TNC CAYCJIDNQN 61 UTILIYV 30 2~ 4 LIN[A AND senYltro PORE CC01141114ALLY 3'1 19o 1 16 ANRrMA71CN to AS,fO 1110tihe me DevtLors,MT ve , AN ARIA on A fI11AHtj AI.LY 0011N0 DA011 AND 1 TQ fO eSIEU4 1`110 014A11011 Or A f 111ANOIALLY 1 j 4NSOUNO SPCOML 0141010Y j: 1,2 1 • 22 ~2 i AIIgCAAYIOH Of AN AKA AOJAOfh( YO A PACYCIINCL, AcllocMiAL IrCl01WDD110no1 Ili 4GC PnOUCYPIO ' 1 J c 7NIe Nq Cll0nnl10o0 rflrN HAY14I1 UNnC61nAOL[ 1 , 1{ Irr WOIMG0It0 L4447CO ON IYO CHUIOC Willett Allt `i OVfel Ot YNL CIYY ' 12 24 2'( 1,2 ~1 11 OAAINAAt COHI46t 5 5'1 2 6 55 SKO1dL 01114n14NCRrAL PUAPOStO Crgr AIAPJArr PAIlMl ' LARtl AID VATCA SUPPLY$ HIONVAY6 AID HICIMAY f j INIIACNAkgfS1 ILWeAAOC PtItA1H011I PLANT. CEO. ti3 12 5 1 49 13 d 1 If2 It OiPln wAro/r/ 110 10 I I 1' r I ! YOIAL Aviim or AII4cwlaNS Gall ' J/ YOYAL NuNOCA Or ANNCI IN:1 WILL 110Y AID DUC 70 DUPLIeATIO1I.1 rl,7. t! / YY (Y YCIIAI A:W8141PAL I LICt0t I i ~ ~ J 1 r; "~"'+Yfe.+M rt'fr!.nyAIw111M!+I•''+.tn:rnr..w!r+,~rT+f.n.r.L-+rv+:-n r.r.-!r: ~.~-.«.+A!wrNw,.rn~...r««rr L~.,Rnr+n..r rnnw rM1IHf'he•!rMevw.r.n•w L 1 d 1 1 1 f I I w f a,. ,[41.14 a4CL'YMwIF,~IUJ:1:.6.ka 44Mt{Ar'JF~.t.eur:u..alJ..lti.'FtL :uJy.l lWuu.~:tL.LL41tl/.U.I tYFM 1W YL...4GM wO..l Ylt.:aAUN uai4Lli'6WI.Ail..f.a:rf.t l:WLW..+WI.1/.,:I(.tYi.u... / • 4 ' BIt2 ~ rfaxc}, 30( 1070 SI:i'iFR } TN[ ]N SP}ZIN VULLY ADD):TxOsLI III ThkIr.sday, Mal:ch 26, 1070, the City rCCCi.ucd twc;i)-ve,hi:ds front Cviit::ul~tJl;:1 vii the sriwer liner:, ill Spring Valley;' 7ho low bid cake from Grady W. Collins ri.po Line construction. I (ilia total bid wis $B,8}.O.53, li-ihich includes taps for each of the thirtoen houses in Spring Valley, The City W ].l furniUh 1001 pdr customer of the razlin line, which would be 1:300' fr.orl the City's existing sower lane:, 11he City is ! inotall.ing 4331 of- this lino along highway 24 with city Creais, and will pay for 067' of the contract. Since the thirf:een tats voro Ci.gurod in the bid,'..wo will deduct $55,00 per tap from the' contract prase Of •$8,Q10,53. f 73.5.00, total for the thirteen to Q,495.5 'total, Cost for the nlain p Tbie would be $9110 ,pex Coat for the main. The City would would pay for. 867' which would be $3,0£3£1.20, leaving oil $4,107.33 for the customo-,& co,;t. (Zia oustoirimrs coat for tha taps would bo $715.00, which would }wring the total cost for the customer. I i to $4022.13. This would be a cost of $370.95 for each property Owner. 71he City's cost for the 43$ 1 on Rwy. 24 will bo $4,217.41 $7.74 per foot for this portion of the line of l0" and the dine ' I 18 deeper than the 61, line in spring valley. Jq ; r' 1 f i 1 4 ; 1 4. • ..._..~_......_._._...T...+.:--..~s.-s--tiri,~~.........~•.w«..v-v..'..u.[.au.ww.wu.i.d%N'.~4i...r.-,6fAUkeTICwsRY.attW.ai.1. Y13...':3 Y..-~rL:..1~' i i }61:.4..1161 rY.Y:J-4-a•t+...w4..:..uJ1sWl..s rla:'~...L.li.rr.i.(IM::wYVa+u.1..i..w~._.:.:....L..•L..:.Ji~.'.ullil.ii:~..r}+IrS_:~i14w u__.~:3a:i.'JV..G.W1.i..~lr...::~.4 J..I-.Y.u~+::.1.1. +e.L1Lyy $ 1 f, ° 191 Fl!1a4 fry(. . F SPITING VALLEY Sls ER SYSTEM FSTIMATED M OI:SCRTPTTON (LLA~}'I11Y UNT~P PRICE A110UNT 1'nY iriz rnd 7n<;Ca} 1 611 111pe, 0.6 Cut 490 1V F,. $__1 .43 $10 90. %0 1.,1 Furltish and Tnstall 611 papa, 6-8 Cut 580 L.F. 1583.40 g, V nish mid lnsto l 61' 1?ipo. 8-10 Cut 72 L. F. $ 3.13 $ 225,3 Furnish and Install 611 pipe. 10-1'.. Cut 69 I,.F. $ 3.53 243,57 5 Furnish and Install 611 Pipe. 12-14 Cut 550 L.V. $~3.98 $2190.00 U, Furnish and luotnll 41' w, pipe sorvico linos 300 1 g $r 2 17 $ 651.00 -~1 70 ` Furnish MAtoriatl and ConsLVUoL (rv Standard W -61 dopth Mmholo 4 Each $200.00 $800.00 E rc. Furnish Material and Construct C::uxa Depth Mentolo ovor 61 dapch 20 11. F. $ o m 800.00 0. Furnish Ha terlal And Construct Drop Tnlat in A<ldi tion to Std. M. H. 1 Each $ 22.5100 225100 00 $ 45.00 90.00 l-urniah and lttstolllCloanouL 2 Each _ Furni.s11 and Install 611 X 411 Toe j and other umtoLs oxcept Nino ro- $ , w $ 162150 f' ggivvd for custornor connocclon 13 Each 12.50 Granular Embodmont and T2ncusomont Matorial, in Placo . 150 CFY. $ 3.50 525.00 ; 1500# Conoroto not shown and as Requestod by Snt/inoor 5 C.Y. $_!%()O 125L00_ y 10'1AL AttOUN'P TSJD (Na Il) $w _88101 53 Ijll • 1 1 t Y•` V V rI-F .•.w.•.. .r i r,r ......n .fl... ..yaw '.N i j 1 Awl A. City f Denton Manicipal Biti'dvjjg,'Denton,71)xa9 7W01 V February Z, 1971 a ~r\ Wilr' Property Amer; &ielosed is the revised petition for a zone change of the Ranch Estates Subdivision as approved by the Ranch Estates property r Owners On January 13, The City Attorney has gone over the proposed petition and made some m nor changes of the wording, t The continuatlon of the public hearing on this subject will be schOdulod for the next planning acid Zoning Coiviission meeting j at 4;00 p.m. In tho Couhicil Chztmbers of the Mtuiicipal' Building On hebruary 17, 197:1, l If thore are any quastio;Ls regarding this matter, p1OA9e contact the City Plannor's office. f, sinC02'ely, i I l il, Alt,rect City Planner ti JI IA/kir Licl os ure j I 1111 I 1 i t Z t t ca3wa 42 n, v# AIN, PETITION FOR ZONE QIANCE The residents of the Ranch Estates Subdivision and other newly annexed land to the City of Denton do hereby petition to have the zoning classification altered from the existing Agricultural zone to the Planned Development zone with the following restrictions: s 1, No stnicturo shall be erected or altered on any lot other than ono-singlo-family charelling, not to exceed two stories in height; one 1 private garage for not more th~,:n three cars; and accessory buildings i i typical for single-.family-use, 2. No building shall be nearor than 50 feet to any lot line, I 3. No lot shall be subdivided into lots having an area less than a two (2) acres. f 4. All residences shall be at least 75% brick or stone, of either veneex• or masonry construction, and shall face the street which the lot fronts. Hollow the or concrete block construction is prohibited. All roofing shall be of, either wood shingle, asbostns, slate or clay tilo material, Accessory buildings may be of wood or rotal construction, t s S. No garage shn11 be erected to open onto the street whic]i the residonco fronts, I 6, No mobile home, trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn of other f building of a temporary character shall. be used on any lot at any time as ~ n residence. f`f 7. No animals of any kind shall be commercially raised or brad on I , { any lot, except that dogs, cats, horses, ponies, cattle and domestic I c , animals may be kept as pots, provided that livestock and farm animals I i shall noc be kept in quantities greater than five (5) per fenced pasture i t-! "WWI, Ll- , 2 acre, Excepted from this provision are Lots 17 and 18, Block C of R,aiich Estates Subdivision as long as a Specific Use Permit is in effect for said lots. I i A j i i I I r ((II\' I I I ✓ +r~ Specific use Permit for Livestock Yard, Limited to Bones Horses may be raised, bred, mid maintained en the described lots under the follaving conditions: a. There shall be no open pasture brooding of arry animal, and all breeding shall be confined to a barn, shed or other closed building; b. The horses shall not be kept in quantities greater than five (5) per acre, provided, however, that for { comnorcial breeding pwposos only, additional animals may be temporarily kept for a period not to exceed f fourty-fivo (45) day per animal and in quantities f not to exceed eight (8) per acre. Provided' further, that the three hundred sixty-I've (365) day average of such pormanent and tonVorarily'kept animals on I 3;' any tract shall not exceed five (5) per acre. f i I f I I 'I 1j i .....~_......._...~.....«:._.:.....~.:,u........ ......n..i.t..::w.....~.:......w~~...._w..:- .:.......:.....:.....i..:....~.....i.s:i.....1....-.,...,....+. ~.J«-_..,.......u.:... ..srvi:.~y , r 110 k , hii O1%U:l1)Id 1(:}'1 hi!h1! ~;;[;IG !1 5.7;i',U..1.' (}Y W MI) 'k1);1l+CI~;I"j /%"))1)('r (ld;I~ U)' l!l;i;''Uid .I`I'I);. ; , I I,rl''C f'IVT U), 1, .I `,'1':I II ''~j (1 l U 11',1) J lil (al f , /11.111 ~ )!Y.~1 I!1\1) ,IJ I 1 f 11 I OP DNNI'VONI f O O 1 I t 1 1 1 I I , >fl r O J.1'..A-,, A)lI) )-TI'Y 1h~,,,Ga11,ill, 1f; .,1.1) 0J11),1a1t';Cb;; 03tA%Sl)'YT1,(1, !Pi 11'1 SAi;as" lti 1'1~.'.1d,1s1.1 1?„t'1s)r,1'llr;l;`J' 1Jl„'1'li't.(;'.l' )'1'10)'„11'1'1.'; A1)1) })1,('),A1'i:f1,l(, lti; } Y).;L'i'L111; 1)/t7'); i 5 1'11i1S1;}sh~i, t))L' }.'i:(;IIU:i1, fOY t1111'I(!)'Uf?.Cif) i'lcla 1)7'CtiC!i7f.CC). 'c 1. t• i,.~ f 1'TJO-to, Nl^.Mont; of tho, }':i. u)n:111(; fl11d /,c)h;i.nf; Gvlni,. :.alp of th C:}.tsy of Dont:on; Toxam,, and t'J)li?1il AS, tin opporttl'd 1'!(!tl 'TtPro),dod at a public trflllj; 110 d foi' Wmt; ptu'po.te on hmo 9,. .19,10 1 bof..'ui+n t;hr 0:1 ty Clolu)r.!?.1 , for t11.1. Jnt~!r'etit:r.d persons to sUlte th(d.r, vi.crls and )i)'.lo1ts cv l donoa boar:l.ng upon the annox"t:l un prav:[dod by t)l:i 5 ui cLtl:tira~ca; J 1')1113)1 I%0, t)la!t a) dJ.uFa:nec has bo,(' n },tt},:I,:}t111c d :1.1) fu:C.) at Joa tt I , ono t1ju-., :11) tho c'if f:4cd.Ft l.` ~1e:rtr.tp~~))~'sr of' thc, Caty of Punl•vn, '1'axfl,r,, at. arti.!> ,t: th:l.rt , ~ (.10) dt1.,VC1 ))T'i.w.+ to a. t, t'. ))Flt'13f1.(?e t111C) i , I Falid Ftfte):' tho p11b [.1i c hc.-m n 1x)14, 0J1)1);)1VPOR;3) T11}?~ (:01))JC:i) C)?~' 'P)1)s C.C2'y' (s)1' M.1, )TON, 'f'1~, s", })1x)111;1;~1 bFi) A I N S i That .t:}sc hr.>'(' t))af'tc!r dot (w"I bed tract; of af(n(t be Fal)c1 t;))e sFUna 114 }1C1)7c, by !;1)1'1 LY.C (1 t U f, } a CI . , I > c l < fold > t1)C bctltl(. J 1 t!I ra(I(, hcreoby. Fl pArt. of :+Fc:1.cl C:1.t:,y 'w)(I t•hlo Iand and tiny i,rr..ic!nt: find ' futuro 9.nhnb!f.(;w)t thc'ri'(,f t4hF1:}.1 bo ont tlcc} to 0.1 t)lo ~':1.trht~t avid pl'Iv.i.;l(a?Lt1 of CAN.), L,'iAJ,v,Crai of f1F1; el (11ty and 51101 b(: bound by t:ha tultlt; 11116 ox'd:1.nF1nr(';i of sld.d C:ILy now to offoot or t'th:L(11) r I tnw? be)lbia,'tcr N a»ffctod t,ntl i0po )vo,-~r)-t•y td tUat Od tharc!J n Edict1.1 t bo qublioct to rind tshtil.;) b(!Fl)' J.ts )fro 'rF,tFl }atlz'tl of ilho tux(;ti :t(~viod b1, tho Cfl.,y1 'J!1w ti,flot, of' Fan(t herob;l Frt~nc):ed~itj dr.rscz'J.t.,<!d Fz's a faJ:luttts, to1.i'tJ.LI _ A:I1 t•})r!(s ca!rtF(n 1.ot;) tr+F:pt• •of'' 1c.,.L.1 066 Uf, l i 1 CaI1C 1,yI,1)t:, FLr10 .110 .1 a~;itut,t•od J.)1 t},o CJt'y 1•n(1 co'.Int,y bl'' 1A.rltoli, ,St;M'o of Find hcd.np; riarr P 101Y (irt:cr;; bc:C1 tlr fo.1101"m : ' 3 f ~ a l . ~ , w.wry.J~]+...1....ulaw.w-l.i..:•r.~..d.a.~r. ...a..J..ira1Y...LL..«.....~..AL~..a..a:ve..:~-at..uw.~..n .......u~..~Y. I~Srtlf H,4:~fll tl ♦..,..w..+.u1~.i.W..ti..ur..s+.i-w..:1.a...~...w:;i.... i..~.J.+....•... • A I~I~;CI:I IHJ ';CI £tt tit. .iri the c ~:i ;•li 1 u~~, l, c.l t t rtntc~ hC n„ ;l11 flit t•rc~r•t o£ :(:t na of tJt~~ (gulf Lt, l ~,.clc, £1114 i7 c'Jita J'c l.t.'c,;aci £lt- 1)~,IT!{, ;I t1t„') r~: ('t'•: ll I~" }~11 Ci it ptlc,;icat,.iun of l,ltc :~c,ut.lt ;i I I e of t•h I.I L'It9.tauclt ,.`.ut~ c^• , I,LtI+S. 1 ro.cl; :1110,,; , !1'111?!fC}? south f11" 091 Iw!lt:> £:t. T'f(I f'c'c:t, oI lc't;rs, w . t}t: },oi:nt 0f J.ntc,:,tc:ct~c,r, of the :;£a:id uvt,}, 111rw af' tl,c. 41111 L lock, Survo,", iIA•I, the G< trtcO i.n0 of Hav:;hu tl. }1,,'icl,; c olt•• 4 t't.uu.l,lq, oil tltr a;'u+:u be ar•irtl, t,S t•h t:hc r,~t cd e.ov.t.h 1.1. I,c t}10 1'lh:f.tlocl: Sot.°vcv e,~!ou i,vi.tt; the north 11,111: of th 1'11,:1011! }5r!ya,It Sru vcy, hb~ tt £.it tiU• 11 , £a tot 1 d11 nrr.o of 1'eci; t-u t~h<: r7c,i i;l,lrc sl, co) nee' of.' l;t;tiel, ls;;tc~.tc Sahcii.v:~; :1.otti far corncr; h'llt;l,'L-}. e,out,h 01' 1I1' 1011 era, t , 1};111, the vrc ;t. 1:{)te 0f tl e SF^ li£mcl, 1?Ist r;t.cs SmbW1.v fd on <a d, ~;t r-Ito c of M11; f'cct, Inox?c oi. aeas, to 1,0,1.111 J n thc north ),Jght; of flay J,3.nc: of St,£ t,c, };:i t4£ty 1tl fov a corner; '}.'ll}?hC}r; £,auth W11, (jUt c?.£;t:, t:At,}7 the ncwl.)(, I':it;laf of t~ay 1:1.110: of a 1i.stC, .locl of, '(8 Poot: to a po:l.nt of of f'„ct 5.11 r £al d t l hi; of v £av 1.1110 for rt c.or. nCt ; P,(A. ra dS.at £an c.e of 1.0 Sect: to it sotztl) 111.11, .,vial off.'~ , 'J'}11~1JC1!1 po:1.111; f`or ra ec,rncr; • 1 , I t } T}1f4}J('P; out•I, FEi° j0 t ca,f3t. , lr1 t,}t the north ! r;hL of 1lr:y -1. 1 c>f ,ald Sicttc; 111 It clt°,trtnce of 2'('(,10 fcci,, nu,rc or 1rscs, to ft }cant, rrt t•hc cai.,t• 1..1.110 of 1511'>ih£..11 hns;d fat' a i IT) fl-,N C} in ra nnrt,itrr1y d:llc~t,:i.an r•!:f.i;h tl,c 131:11 art:; t• r;4p,l1t of ' way )J.rtc: o', a public Y•,:,rr.d l r,rn'fn £ut lf£ir,,hrta.a 11111, £t d:i~.t£,,itr.c Of' 2',;0 feet, to a po ~.nt S'c»" £t cor•rWr; i 'f111a1~('i~. south 89" I!y' 10" car„1, pr„°ral:1.a1 to £'ncl 100 fort: north 1 of 1.110 r.e11tc 1:1,110 of Sta1c 111,1;1,0, ,y ;111 , a d,1 1 11,111;1,' of 3.'(6'i fcc+i , morn a). Ic ,a, to a pol1)t: Jn t:11(I 0a; 1• '1:1.1',0 of t) lc C.)l.13 Su3,voy l.'ract: Ago. 111.1., foa• a aorllct'; '1'llhh(.}?; :i,tt a 1111 t•hwrly 1:1.10 c t .fort ~lJth (.hc £t£:l,d cri.; t. 1.1.11" of, 010 }3, 13111, f, C.1, }1• Stu•vey tr,cc: of :i:z0 • fi Soct; to it po,i.11t• ' rt thc wc!st x•a.ti;hts of 0uay :1:1.110. of t1w 00,0'' F< S.F, }iilllroad far it COMIC)" h tho. t'fc:st r:ityht kl+f. In a no tt> 1r,r1,v d1.Y of t~f£ty .1111 0 of (l 'C F< S.V Iiai.:lroa.d ri (IJ.stancc! of S0WIaet, )0o7:•c: ox' 1.0£30, tC plracc of bcU1 n1-1:111t'; find a(Ili t(al.n:tng; 2j}I. j itaro11 of .1anc1, ;.1C)3, : or 1.Cfl'.1 'The dhow, Ow"or:l.bod 1,; op rly ;i.s hcroby c1.rtssxf':ied £to, ITMY11 111;1'1 col fora } I , . ~ 1l <~U <<>>c,ar an t.hes i s ),Xr,lil,;~3~1?:3!;?i;:L;,+~,,,i~;?aY: 1)4;,11'.111; } ropct t.y £11100, sh£a, 1 1 nif•:l(J(I:[ i,olllulu m<ap of the C A.'y of Donton, a:}Z?.cI I wtp hereby , I , nmenclod Ac:c+ardirtf;a;; . I j . l 4' .w.~.ale..11..i...uu..u.f.a~l.:.auww.i~....r,a.,~~+.+.t...ur -'''~~~.~~4:.`r...~..ul.--....uw,wswa.~::.:uw.+.a.~~.wua.lJ..u{:.~15Ywu.Jw.-..L~:~•••• h:~yTt~l~:ya 9L6Q?l y 41 • 'I f i} - ;l 1.:f. Ircr i~i'1'E't'L:i.ti'~:' .i,.ilt:i.'u:i~li,~r7,\' Ilkiul, a.i:~3 • X17 :I,ri UJ l~~1. 11i 111 E1C 1. lil i }'ASr3V1) AND A}'1'I(OVE P th.'I.s tti,<: clay of 3 . , (r A),NXANDEJt li. 2+aA1,f1Y3 XAS Cl''1.'Y Ui}' t)1'sl;'POiJ, Y. 1 r 11 j 1 _ IiliCiU1;S }ICiI;tT, b`I'~'Y ,SI.C1(}'T1+)i}; E C:I:9.'Y OV ) A)11POi'1 } YAS APP)(UVED 115 TO LT:(iAIJ } C11(i8; r JA(iIL C1, ~~Isfslt`S'U~~I, ('[']'Y~A'~,ii11t1hf'~ - TONT i I : PAr,1 rI~1(1!,1~, 1 , ! r RANCH ESTATES WATER COMPANY ROUTE 1, BOX 427 DENTON, TEXAS March 28, 1972. TO; Ranch estates Water Company Consumers i FROM; Ranch Estates 4lator Company, 14. T. Alford, Owner I This is to notify you that, effective April 1, 1972, water ' rates charted by the Com any to you Will be increased, The new rates are as follows; . t 3000 Gallons $12,.00 minimum 4000 13.80 5000 „ 15.60 6000 " 17.40 7000 19,00 8000 " 20.60 9000 22.20 10000, 23,80 F 11000 25.20 12000 26.60 E 13000 " 28.00 14000 29.40 i 5000 30.30 20000 35,80 25000 , 39130 f 50000 64.30 76000 76.80 t\~_ ,1 100000 " 89.30 (All consumption over 25,000 gallons charged at irrigation rate of 50¢ per 1,000 gallons.) This is the only rate increase since Novombor, 1964, These t rates are calculated to enable the Company to break oven on direct operating and maintenance Cots, i In addition to the above rate,incr@aso, effective April 1,, 1072, the Company requires that ouch customer make a X60.00 i security find d4mage deposit with the Company. This deposit ! is necessary to provide a surplus due to a dr00 ng nt~mher of I j slow-pay consumers, and to provide financial relief for increasing dtlmages to motels, etc. This doposit is refundable or transferrable, Because of the recent simultaneous•failuro of the primary/ secondary water 4lells and the primary pressurization pumps, ! after more than eight year; of continuous operation, consider- F able capital expoodituroc have had to be. made. The rates , I 1 r kngi8rt, dt7)Y11A I:;MIt-,IM(t , charged by the Company to April 1, 1972, made no provision for tine accumulation of surplus funds for ma,tor in)provemonts or repairs. Indeed, this system has operated at a loss each year of its existence, Therefore, it is necessary that the Company levy an assessment of,$300'00 per customer in order to cover thfi cost of the recent improvements, Municipal utility systems play for capital improvements through tax or i` revenue bonds, higher utility rates, and government subsidies. Small systems such as the Ranch Estates Water Company can only pay for nia,ior improvements through increased rates and direct assessments, Realizing that it would be a hardshI p on many people to pay the $300,00 assessment in a lump sum, the Company agrees to financo were "at the rate of $75,00 per month, and without interest. BII I'Ing for the assessment will be separate from your crater hill. 1 For your future eeferonce, other charges of the Company will be 1 E Installation of 3/41' Standard Meter r 1 Installation of 1" Meter $250.00 $360 Installation of Industrial (deter .00 Pipeline extension, -street crossings,. $450,00 extra or City standard Fire Plugs Actual cost of hardware and { Pro-rata assessment for future improve. installation l ments E,ecessavy to keep system k functional Actual cost r keconupction after termination of service for delinquent account 50.00 plus delinguont account plus 10% annual I interest r, !de regret that these higher ratos and assessment. are necessary to theE c oittinued operation) of the system, The assessment Could i' be avoided if the City would grant a franchise to the Company. However, the City is unwillinq to do so, so long term financing f for tho system is unobtainable. The need for the affairs of the Company to be placod on a strictly business-like basi> dictates that a writtEn agreement bet;waeit the Company and each customer be entered. Shortly you f will receivo a contract carm which will set forth the terms and i II conditions upon which tho Company will flrrnish servico, j Contrary to th,a rumors you may have hoard, the resent does I not intend to abandorn the Rance Estates Water Company or its consumers, We Intend to continae to supply the Ranch Estate, community with high quellit,v Water.` however canrmou sense and state law p,ro , vide that a }>uLlic, utility In, enl;itled to earn a reasonable profit on its total investment. Thu rate increase, E I Te p IS{!r)AkS T, l } 1Pez6'.{~' ' nkYC>:Yfi? ~l74wx' do Posit requirement, anti d d ~ssel;snfent' above oi,tlined 1s a= signe - to i nsure that the Compt,ny vtill receive a r oasonab e return on its ilrvestnlont and that the Ranch Estates community W171 continue to receive hig water. h qua 1lty Uery truly yours, 9zel "l C--(f~~ W117 tam 1'.: lford 1 ! ~ r i k_ , L E r' r I { i I is I t S'F•M b31'A a3lta;'Ur~ rJ CITY OF DENTON MEMO DATE: APRIL 7) 1972 TOt BUD EIAUP'PMANN, 'IRECTOR =01UNI'J'Y DF.VELOPMI NT 1 FROMs ERNIE TULLOS, UTILITIES ENGIVEER { SUB.7ECTt EASEMENT ABANDONMENT - RANCH 1,1STATES , The Utilities Department- has no objection to the pl;opossed abandonment of the north - south erisement on lot. 110 Block B J } of the Ranch Estates Addition. 3 E. B. Tullos is j Utilities Engineer ccs Jznt Little, Electric Supt. Doug Blackburn, utilities Director Carl Jones, Water. & Sewer supt. t t, t I I C ' I Ir..+..nI~Y..' - k:...n.,.r.....:.,F!.w..I..M..1..:Ytwn...M......,..,,' . , ' Y I 1 ,r ! J ",i rl I rid'. q 4 ~ ' d it Y k A WT ON DRIVE, 1 r t All 41 1 2, p9 . ! E Aar 7 "Ire-Ac JAV t w plxr' v . , I Isa + ~ , i P'y ..kL.,a p.. 4.. N} % Sw :ry ' ,.r sr I((.' I S`, I N5 V ~d \ , r I ;1 1 1' `~~7 111 AQI 17 N' Q~T IC `v till a i >lI+Y~Ad, It f J M1I ♦ 1 . I ! 14 % 1V A0. .,SCALE: V-m Pod f. 'x~ J -t I r , 1'1. ~r i:' A >R,~!(, ~ i-, a t~FI AO 0 I ~ fY! ACr, ~ I ~1 1~ry I" ~MJ~nN+ ! I ' I I I I i 1 0 iS I v y.~a"Ah I N a.dk+C 1 'r I ! \ 1' I 1 f I! ll: I 7 1 ' r ! - I: rt J ~F~ ' t tiN ~ w. L ~ 4.a ~ lY f 1iI'~~' ~j'S( 1_N {J Jv A}v w jMl v~ 4..~ .p W w nie 41 t4a k V lii e1. 4~ ~g ,w.. ~ ~ t c ~ v 'i r ~ 1 r i I 1 e r. S 1, r i r ! t , ~ r; ~ , l ! r 1 . I`i ! ~ 1 1 . r , y + , !I , ~ ,to t 1 -r ~ , I r .f l ~ . i 1. ,1rI 1wl' JL, 1 ° s tr," „ r 'A I ~ I 1 J f a i l ~ t~ tr~7 ~f *t ;QI A[~I t i `J A4~At 1 r iCOO 1 t, to r f )t ~ at ~ w 10 t!r'+. t t 1 t t , ' t 'lfYyJ1+J..r rd..j.M . t. 1, i J.1 M1@xj :«w t JrM QS w i{h.l , Ij4 Sw. l.Sl °h ~L h ~''t~ f, # I }t , dlr~S$.r. 11Y1h17Yk"YAq t.14 A1R ({t( iwr A+ "A Ekj t t i r I ~ I I l 1 Qffi31~9,.Vq~ {yu.{tnyN/ Ytlp7 irApji Syru.&4 elf City of Denton Municipal Building, Denton, Texas FACH PROPER`1'Y ON PETITION Dear Cii zc;n: 1 _ I Since most of the cltiz•emi who aigned the pratition certaiding city uti)Vjes were not able to attend the rnnetinU of the (.Sty Council at which the p -tltion was presented, I want to forward "Oome comments to each oflhe t;Jgnei'r,, I would like to say first that wo are not t nwiare c.f the is>oblems. The Council and I would like very rciu,- h to aee eEtr.h orsidf-ni of the City have the benefits of full City sooAces i ~.ould liko tc nsyu:e you that thfs will take plane, as soon as posMble, i The State law which was mentioned in the potVion rte serves .some discussion, j This law states that the city, whale piopor(y i,s annexed after the priasilge of the law, will provide utilities within three yetirh to all ptopertyin the area i whlcb is similar in density and topogr3plty to other areas In the City roc:efving utilities, In other words, if your property had been Ginnexod after the passage of the State law, the law would not, apply because the density of population I i not sirollar to built up areas of the Cfiy~ The State hegialaturo realizes the nocessl.ty for orderly growth and the impossibility of providing utilities or, an taneconc+mical basis. The comment was made that the property owners cannot subdivide because the cost is p.~ohihitive. I can only point out that man), people are t,ubdividing and some of them quito a distrtnce from oxitttinq utilities. 't'here Is a provision whereby subdividers can recover home of the costs of extending utility lilies, 1 ' oAVM t+pnra~y WW ►45:1'.=Si. ll [ i Page 2 Also included In the petition was a rouueat ;or reduced taxes which had not been grari:ed, Mrst, I would venture a guess that if anyone who signed the position has acreage and would sell it for what It is valued on the tax tolls, that there is a ready market. Taxes must be based equally on the value of tht thing being taxed. The City and the School District consider the taxable value as being forty per cent (40%) of the current market value. Naturally, ~f land without tatilities does not have as high a value as land where utilities are availablo. Thus, your land is being taxed at a lesser value than similar 3 IfI land wherca WHities are available, I Probably the most Important comment muds; in the petition was that you are being taxed for something you don't get. This is lust not so, In fact, those persons who have utilities are nontributing to services you do get, The City collect,,.i approximately $681,347,83 In property taxes. Of this $208,367,50 goes to pay principal and interest: on general lmn.ovenient bonds, This leaves $472,980.13 for other functions. 111re services, police services, streets and parks which are services you do get cost 5511, 104 per year. As you can see, 1 City functions are supported by many revenues other than property taxes and thri primary source Is utility funds. tIl 111 Wilat the City will do in the area of extension of utilities is quite liberal, The City wlll'txlend Its utilities 100 feet per cuslomfr. In the case of a sewer line, this amounts town expenditure of approximately $150. Considering the customer has a $2`, OO bill each month, which Is normtal,, it will take revonty- five months or' six years just to get that. investment back with nothing to pay for the rest of the line necessary to got the sewage to the treatment plant or for treating the sewage:. This some analysis is applicable to the water. I don't want you to think that I am saying all this to belittle the problem or to pass the buck, 1 Just want you to understand that there are two sides to the queistton. We are quite sympathetic to your problem and will work diligently to eliminate it. f Sincerely yours, 11 Warren Whitson, Jr, Mayor, City of Denton l' WWJr;cm I tsawxx ltiJneafr(, April 11, 1966 Mr. William E. Dreher j Denton County Notiontil Bank F Denton; 'texas Dear Blllt j i l 26, } 19G6 at concerning will be held the Aprpublic This Ra nuh gEst Estate a advise the Council me~,tinqw~hlcl starts at 800 a.m, i Sincerely yours, I Jack L, Reynolds City Manages rL1t/c~n1 I ~ E A I l A. TO THE MEMBM Of THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL: GENTLEMEN: The City of Denton has proposed an ordinance annexing the Ranch Estates Subdivision, The residents and property owners of Ranch Estates request that the members of the council respond, in writing, to the questions below. We further request that the council make itself and City f Employees or Agents having knowledge of the facts surrounding annexation of Ranch Estates available for further questioning { at a later date; 1. Why does the City want to annex Ranch Estates? . 2, ores the City agree that it is bound by lain to i furnish Ranch Estates with all utilities within three years Prom annexation? 3. (A) Has the City conducted feasibility studies concerning the extension of sewer service to Ranch Estates? i If not, why, not? (B Has the City determined hoer to finance such extension of sewer service, and if so, what is the- projected cost to the City of extending such service? j (C) What is the projected cost to each property j owner of extending such services? s (D) iYii 1 l the necessary sewer lift station be paid for by the Cite, or will the Ranch Estates property owners be ' assessed for the lift station? (E) If Ranch Estates residents are to be assessed for a iii't station, what will the cost of the lift station be to each property owner? {r) It is the position of Ranch Estates property 1 owners that the City's :')ligation to extend sewer service to j Ranch Estates requires t the City furnish the lift station, and further that the Ci furnish a sewer main running past each residonce in the su'division, all without assessment of same to Ranch Estates property owners, Does the City agree or disagree with this position? Please state fully the reasons for your answer. i t 3 :~abAF':p , yVFhYI'd"F M + 4. (A) Has the City made any feasibility study concerning extension of city electricity to the Ranch Estat¢;s Subdivision? If not, why not? ( B ) Has the City contacted 'texas Poorer & Light Company concerning the purchase of the 'texas Power & Light system now in oueration in Ranch Estates, and if not, why hot? (C) Would the City finance such a purchase by assessing Ranch Estates property owners, by utilizing ordinary tax funds, or by passing a bond issue? (D) If the City furnishes electricity to Ranch Estates, will the City agree to cur.tinue to operate the mercury guard -1ites"owned by Texas Power & Light, and will the l citizens continue to get a flat rate per month on these guard-liter? 5, (A) Has the City conducted a feasibility study concerning the furnishing of water to the Ranch Estates f Subdivision? If not, why not? (B) Why has tl,e City not contacted the owner 1 of the private water system presently furnishing watoo* in I Ranch Estates? i E j (C) Doos the City propose to furnish water by installing its o.rr water system, by purchasing the present privately owned water system, or by franchising the present i privately owned water systdm? (D) If the City plans to extend its own grater systom, will the City bear the cost, or will the cost be assessed to Ranch Estates property owners? (C) What would be the cost to the City of extending i the present city water system? ` y (F) What {Mould he the cost of the City of purchasing the present privately owned water system? (G) What would tie the cost to the propperty owners of Ranch Estates of extending the present City ldater system? r (H) What would be the cost to the Ranch Estates ( property owners of purchasing the present privately owned water E system? 6, (A) Has the City considered amending its pwesont E ordinance concerning pasturing and stabling horses so that the f Ranch Estates residents could continue to keep their horses wlO out violating the laze or having to move their fences? If not, ashy not? j ;B) Has the City considered amending its present ordinance so that the Ranch Estates property owners can keep horses for breeding purposes? If not, why not? _(C) Has the City considered amending its leash lair (effective August, 1970) so that Ranch Estates residents can continue to allotw their dogs to run 'freely? ! K1rWM M 1. (A) idi11 the City r° re that curb and gutter be fl installed in Ranch cscat•es: (B) If so, IIri 3 "I h u ci ty requi re the property oti.ners to bear the expense o., such curb and gutter? £i. How car. the City ext::iid utilities service to Ranch Estates within three yours villen many residonts now residing within the corporate limits of the City of Denton have gone much longer than three years without receiving utility service? (A Hour many homes within the Denton City Limits for more than three years do not yet have all city utilities? (B) Why has the City been unable to extend utilitiOS to the klestgate Subdivision within the required three years'? (C) If the City cannot serve Westgate with utilities, how can it conscientiously contend that it will be able to serve Ranch Estates? I 9. If annexed, when will Ranch Estates receive the following city services: 1 (A) Sct-,er service? 3 (B) Electric service? (C) Water service? {D) Garbage pickup? I ~ (E) Regular police patrol? y (E) Adequate fire protection? { (G} Traffic control signs? j i (H) street maintenancr:? 10. If Ranch Estates is aroexed, would the City agree to let the Ranch Estates taxpayers pay their City taxes into an Escrow Account so that their tax money could be returned to them if the City did not furnish utilities within the required three (3) year period, anu if not, why riot? Respectfully subinittec( 1 icier .jfflien~ ; itarncy for Ranch Estatos Property Owners 1 f i j I -I I. MYJYd KlyYp;Y 1 {,\H!4N1V41 AW$pp, t ,!.kILY!f 4 l a ~ '1 , 4". st4a , i red f~ , I U.1aW~k..1 a Y f i• tl ~1 c~ j , ` . . "'Viva' Rf:4,d?k 1 TEXAS; MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 801 VAUOI IN nUILDL`O AUSTIN, TUXAS 78701 • ARLA CODE' 612 Oltou,lwood 80001 ' RxcoWlvo 01roctar 7111,2Y 19, 1.7101, U1iFi 6o,ioM1 Gnnlanl 1 April 15, 1966 sl Mr. Jack Q, 13arton, City Attorney City of Denton r Municipal Miliding Denton, 'Texas i Jt Dear Jack: f Thank you for your letter of April 12 asking about tho duty of (,ito city to furnisil public utilities to an area with substandard utilities after such area is annexed to the city, I Section 10, Article 970x, V. T, C, S, , providos that aft•~,r a particular area 3s annexed, the city will have three years in which to "provide or cause to be provided such area with governmental and proprietary I services, the standard and scope of which are substantially equivalent If to the standard and scope of governmental and proprietary services furnished by such city in other areas of such city which have character- I istics of topography, patterns of land utilization and population density similar to that of the particular area annexed.) k if the annexed area fits all throe characteristics of similar land already in the cltyti (1) topography, ('L) patterns of land utilization, and (3) popu- lation density, it will be ontitled. to 'cho same utilities such land already s in tile city receives, The annoxcd land will not automatically be disannexed at the end of turco years, The owners of 50ofo or more of the land in tho area and ~ v zxzalority of the taxpayers in such 141-0a znuat petition the city council FI; for On services, That will take a little timo to obtain, Thf,it the city I 1 council has 90 daya in which to act on it, Even then, the aslnexod area will not be disannoxed, unless the citizhns in the area ratain an attorney t and go to the District Court, 1 if another tract is subsequonlly annexed which wholly encloses the area \which is complaining, such enclosed area is cut off fre#n relief, unless I An AnOoolutloh of Citleo for Nfunwral Progroae 4 4fflaW Publloallon TnXA9 TOWN At CM? fi 1 :.lCsvl ~Sv!Y.p kk ~.I I I.~ k April 15, 1966 f j Mr, Sack Q, Barton, City Attorney City of Denton Page 2 i the citizens of the last annexed tract join with them, since any tract to he disannoxed "must adjoin the outer i,oundaries of the city, Another block to disannexation is to vote a bond issue, the proceeds r of which go for capital improvements in the area, A very small Isond l/ issue for water or sewer mains for the annaxed area, payable over I a long period of time, will block disannexation as long as any of tho ! bonds Are oulstandinar, Back to your question; X know the city councilt will want to do what is right in connection with this now area, sinca after they are annoxod, the reAttenta of this area are citizens of the city too, But the city council knows what the resources of the city are, and what it can af- ford in any one year, I don't think the courts will make the city cou,n- cil furnish any particular nervice to this area imrr )diately which is beyond the resources of the city to furnish, However, once the area is annexed, the property therein will ba subject to city taxes, and the citizens residing therein are. entitled to consideration along with all other citizens, Of course you already know about Crown Hill Homes, Inc, v~City of San Antonio, in which a developer tried to force the city to lay water »iains in his subdivision at the city's expe«na. He lost in the district court and the case is now pending in the Corpus Christi Court of Civil Appeals, l 'T'hank you agMn for your latter, Jack; ploaa,~ cell u„ u4 any time we I cony be of eurvicu to you, Sincerely yours, Riley F. Fletcher General Counsel i REF:bt , /r \...•~t ~rjjfJ,('~1..f++4~4Ts'✓ ~'}'"~'9Gi'•t~~A''q y ~r P• 11131 T BEGINNING at a point in the present. City Limits line, said point being the intersection of the West right-of-way line of the ti Santa Pe Railroad and the most southorl.y North line of a 55 Acre ` tract conveyed to Edgar Horace Linden by deed dated October 7, 1948 and recorded in Volume 347, page 766 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, said point of. inLa rsection being 75 feet Southwest of and perpendicular from the center line Station 453 plus 54,2 of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Ie Railroad,, THEME W(.st, with the most southerly North line of said Edgar Horace L•i.ndon tract, passing at 1599.39 feet, the South- east corner of the 0, S, Brewster Survey, Abstract 562 samo being the Southwest oorner of the A,,B, Tompkins Survey, Abstract 12461 and continuing Writ with the most southerly South line of said 0. S. Brewster Survey, same beinf; the North line of the J, Edmunson Survey, Abstract 400, a total distance of 2500,76 feet to a point for, a corner in the West line of said Edgar Horace Li.ndeu tract) said tine also bef.iig tiv, East line of the William ;I Snjvis Survey, Abatruct No, 1174; TIiENCL+ t.outh with the above mentioned Fast line of said William SajviK; Survey, same being the West line of the afore- mentioned J. Edmonson Survey, to the Southeast corner of said William Sajvis Survey, a point for a corner; j ~ t THENCE West with the South line of said William S:tjvis t Survey, crossing the proposed center line of Interstate Highway 35 West at Highway Station 808 + 25,0 and continuing West with 1 Cite South line of said William Sa,jvis Survey to its point of intersention with the extension of the most westerly West line of the aforementioned 0, S, Brewster Survey, said line also { j being the extended most westerly East line of the T. W, Daugherty Survey, Abstract No, 3'4; THENCE North with the extended most westerly West lino of t? said 0, S, Brewster Survey, crossing Cho North lino of the afore- mentioned William Sajviu Survey, some being the South line. of the a 9bove mentioned T. 14. Daugherty Survey, and Groaning said T. W, a L'I'agherty f:urvey to the most westerly Southwest corner of said 0. S. Brewster Survey and continuing North with the West line of said 0. S, Brewster Survey to On Northwest corner of said 0. S. 3 Brewster Survey, said corner also being the most southerly South. I1 west corner of the J, Davis Survey, Abstract No. 3260 a point for i a corner; i' TURNCE East, with the most southerly South line of the J abovomontioned J, Davis Survey, to the Southeast corner of said } Survey, maid corner also being the Southwest corner of the E. F'uchalski Survey, Abstract No, 996, n point for a corner; THENCE North, wii:h the We6t line of said E. puchalski Survey, to the Northwest corner of said Survey, a point for a corner, said point also being in the South line of the B.B.B. & C.R.R, Survey, Abstract No. 192; T14PNCF; West, 249.11 fens more. or less, with the South line of said B.B.B. & C,R,R, SurveyAbstract 192, to a point 709.21 j feet West of center line Station 322 + 06.3 of the Santa Fe Railroad, said point: also being 650 feet from and perpendicular to Coster line Station 319 + 22,56 of the Santa re Railroad; TIMNOE Northwesterly 600 feet from and parallel wt4h the West right-of-way line of the Santa Fe Railroad, same being the present West City Limits line, to a point 660 feet from and per- pendioular to Highway Station 650 + 07,15 of the center line o£ State Highway No. 24; :(I l 'i Ire o Garmsrrlrr IRI: L: : ! I. a To She ICH 'Y M.' ~ / Q Neadlte ldnt ONR 111 la "1I f!i 10 l I{ ,lq!3ii; I .I!1,', I IN~f ~ III DENTO[N " TEXAS Aluksr sr ' I I I'. f ! lills'H I~kl if '1!I 5 ~ I.. 0 i ..I _ PEACH Sr h~ i$ I'fII I`I'I'Nu{'!I I! il4 j i l III' I. 1! i JAI Jit 13 g LO WK rp, j FNnr,ln Codnly o a V rl/w Qtly IN ` :Fart t?row,d/ r ~ ~ ~ R f EATS `+'g ` 1 ?t/ad NowFRI A~i1 lyllllillt.,~ n .!'a.'V: A D 5t. 1no. B, Denion Ii PmeFe, L..yn rnd Sofdgr f~ f ifL' ` I ` TOYAMCrtfl fill€ fIE {p,oylsf rrN N:.1`I,rf. T ,It f.'•' E STATE IIWY, ^_4 I'1!!!I 'r7f~~rl : I .,.SUN r t ,.p AIINM1 1'' TA W R ` 0 91~r1f r r11Ei If'11fNtlifl'',' 1 k A111tq to 4a:r IE.i' II~ lYp,i Q' i ~1.. 111 Ale } pr r M 5 .r I '/'dr ,I Mr►lYptd~ 1 t I r Lr ~f, Amxill0 roruut10N ?1,345 LiIM 'It Wow ~ a" EMEAY A COLE f to (1954 B S Census) il, ! a +y D I i AA[A, SOUAR[MILrb S. 7! ORD !I` I. Agpw~A~e BIN Brkky It ALtITUes.. , ego n. Io wY AYtRAOEMUNtrMI"MAIUR[.,.M t^.•~ U tr. ; 1 row R ~I rp,C AV[RAO[ ANNUAL RAIN[ALL,...rl 1111 ~I~~~ l~• I ,7 h~.b! 4 r '.a7 P~ 111 tress n ?AX WE...... 1Jt ~f~ ' VEA 'I'I ,)BON Sahm[' t I ( f I f . dell i 4vdlwrd:rhyr:ylMiR. ~I{• LINDEN DR, rNfrrrnFlefd': t A /,IAt IWO LARO[StAtCCWllOLi j!f r 0 L N fG r eseenl y BNOADWAY r 7EXA5 Olt ~ ♦ A RfCH AORIC ULTUAdI AN0 LIVE, 1~li MAAY n 8011 SiOeN t(NtEA 0 rFR FCC • CENTRAL OUMAN0140 INMnN ES CAOW I : rn Prfw IIII€!:1; afNlli€ ~f SiN1! r z < Y AyIII I54r -7 ~q y~ r r t F, , . 5 1 111 ir, A,M rNotAlryl~ I l.Iu6 NfA1 %Wr , JMi.,. $~Aen B e lAA ER L A Q ale F y+;~ sTUN < A y tib , PEnberW le Y, `i} N4US10N r ` 1E R IEuiAi reNo •af z D o 11 Y ML .Kwft IIHknat': Phr 7• PLACE p A34~' z G HAY M-,IM1A 1 ' I U 4 n, f Q may, o K •U k' r rv. I,l,f. S HWttM AIN ii s < d A i Drlw fI tWe lfN:: 111888 , k , partOfuc Q pITI~ . SMR` NM'. y {IE~. --L c W DtJal A rj M ,,.fIeHA IIBTivI 1`I r. LIER i xn Si t°° t,}ltr r t fr~f E qqr~ 1! T I st n}s Wutwoy E< ~Y4AMORE iU tY .h.Ler nl;y t b 1, WilllAms j f py ,fy„-• Wool Yr ei f e 51 I`I'I'It .!i!ILIVIOL- it MIT c'' H f Jt d^N'~r r, Q Oak" 0" 3 Crmaay II( J < ~ C•'xnM • A IF r1A ~ '.r om aumn t'. < . v rllJrJMde tlrld 5rhon ~ ~ ~ ~T+ ~ Y M I y .y q ~ r~•. Awnw A r. u. 0. t1 r 1<. ,.I Avow B KAtghl r. f' . T^-^-^• 3 ~~y _ Cerntrey TIW OC LeM I= < [ k }I Y AAyN~N LL 8rlnla ilndf oy r t 5 ? ` III ~s~ I < NeAn MCA 9 Al A F Awno1 B I,VI'e ii,+ I1 III . < Se ,oo }yyyuAAA,, LW A ,Y< FA I J. r'B E Me I MJ € " ` 3 x. u AYNW p C~i or ormI k r- - Arlie I klflls IiJ . l - Ls &etty yMfsAJ eri 1 t sn4ry d . I ~ ~ ~ SIMMONS kF,p ler TnU berry h! (loft Coo rio [ Q/ Z l-a LNG t rlolte ffRtlfNf1N eA ~I F ~s y Urlhanr J 9 A¢~ S_ fbti) Ni1+{slit dtmtRR~~Ntpidd Of. i'ir! "IS I l QR_[f NLEE I1H sk Fir I IIlIt~rllrle ~W~hllN aolwl{!,'~ MICUTAL E L • Nainr 77,0 44NL9L fAt1 A r~_r,i j L•rli i ` (rIV 1 urur EdRrdS $symmd I,. f ~I,i, I:~f.': f f s Il •u°I..'.. II'I'!€?';. !ylh!e:.:.l: "EI!Ilf''. I:::' ennb Sytamon IINUSEY 1111 L lf, rr~I ~ fnmrn HleFory Urldeyiwa,d r ~ III HIJAIIy 36 WeIth NIEFl1f hrA Rd. W11 PIorw!II & I! NI sl l o.o f w1NP/R t W • NeMe1p WIISNiro bNk•19D DRS I;rill pr;;; N V4 9 IIN: A! { Wr, rr ' Cohyl Fl lly Wm.hL I411'r, Ell AnRtra I All. f e'' o(io,g4rJlh 1' 1111 Tn Sbrrmun E,! lerl V nR IIW111len0 OAR EII Y1 IR - :k-i 764 Mop k., ""el~~ di HURSt $f 1 f 'I 1 r!y'`' II Q jril' •7C{^J t i { ! ! IJJ, DEWON It l ~I ACN n ( "r1:I!l;1!! taurerwood o ~II`~ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE I!~ Il"l lil IIII 11li~lil{I II`ilj ERIN a : S k.`6RE(NW r€ EEARO 4 K 4 TAU z v c so IN Y 1af d1(MfY~ a ~ s?f 1 h POI I{iyiltr N!li4ril l~:_{JaJ: Ir r „ !l .,r;th!h llij'fn ~l'O },I }ut Q1olaHtE A IS I In Jl l! Cl. 8 2b {l1t ~ Lk..,. - I stS~t OMA+~ 51. ~ kf 171 In { : IElr~l.j Auflin E!ECIS11Ny ' 14 ST. O,mlyner! AHwArfleWy NO. 44X tnd~t & Motwr/ , .r~ f ADfIAM00d 1errK,1 i k li/dur pO~Ewgrld VA tg 0+1k Shm( p 1ViiMMr 7`• ~r - aim A DR. I < C E Of ~rQ41I .N't 4'!c Plhhy Z _ ;i rTI ~ Watnel` *Merb ~r lira. fllRrifE PM ' p0 r p CA(SCE JA 4, OWpi~1w a PI+1e Piu Ine ! ......,.y !ar> *II ~ + ; 'rF1w1 ! (^Y r . rr . De i&Vw Pf A aln f!.. Pen all , Im YI Ei wail ' 8 J Fail P. If 111{ llrft f~ [F~ertfUA High School ? ! v IN LtkD[AIDR. rhlnufidd~' g TEXAS l" 5 1 I ferrtfl AeawoodPl,, of. 81(OADWA E 3 G 3i!I fFf 1 A=,; Pp ula A"innil d O f a E jr !'Isr..ifllpLk d'Piii!fli.il0111liflIke" osn 1111114" t; -11 1 Rou -,I < _ rl r I I i , ~ 1 Q(eenrOQd~ ~ II ~ I ti. f • y ~ ,cu ~ C ! E rl c...,. @ph~i, a 9U t a S INERT h CI0A • r.C 1' it U'✓rJ li I iy r:' ~rhler t . A A AAA CA L MA SrhoJ R I IRM AScAoe w~ , rn" E~ J~,'1ME Ilon! u Rti i'n _ Vi5If+ AE/MN/ m tow om. 4AYM. 1 for _ . s K 1( $ p y ~E lEffieM V1*1 ~eh I xi ~i, 4 YR 33 r Cflr rON 0 rfr< 4 I/rr i Or, wlyft ' 46~ SE, 4, pp Dnccl KOAY r I f a>a foo MAL [ r I ~i a lr. I {i! f 04 Srhda Y AMORE 1 t .r E r7 QaALood .ail ~R ..fl. a.NM Ci r! d Crr+urrlB .Z I!f SAIYeelr /frMA I r % 0 PR It AAA < q S Yn I' ( AfI1tnC1 [an Nepro. E<i fit f Alren f p Z p RE till. 4 lJAah Aa ky O. O :i Mep1r L•e,trn.r ~ tt ~ T ~ ~ II: ~rOd hM' reel E J A fMY f Au ENlrry MOW P:! iw lNxld IA1 I# < P TEgg ;':I CeRoA pdElawerlh " cook s Reeurc p0 COLLINt PhgeR D ~1 4 4 c ae(R4 D <Fr cmiumber PNIrlo 0411is Drivo r)9 Oh. .I q'. Qlutherry RoMrlsori E[ 11lcmr lr 9 Z ,;:MILK.. I: fm1f~ y A `r wMxNKK MIS Ruth ` 37 • 4rNyn IfA fA 7 HIA Xie1My f: WCHIAI nnn NI land 1 C iru Er rl it . it }f U:G ' NI~AIAIA WNw iAwl 61" s UND EY r .!r .E IAONR v , fMufllllf 'N41M r ' IOAAtpt Wwd d: KeReE y Hopkins 101 ORR-XID DR. tit E! r Ef 1 mi. h'1, Wrjr1h Cullat !It {1111V,.~Y • ~ilpy,,:~*[g 1 THENCC Westerly, 660 feet South of and parallel with the center line of snid State Highwny No. 24, crossing the west line of said H,8,13, & C,R.R. Survey Abstract ,No, 1920 same being the East line of tl:e William Bryan Survey, Abstract 148) a distance of 4,085,15 feet more or less, to a point 660 feet from and perpendicular to the center line Station 609 + 22,0 of State: Highway No. 24, and 720 feet South of the Southeast corner of a 100 acre tract of land conveyed by dead to M. T. Cole Jr. by Joe F. Robinson at ux and recorded in Volume 397, page 407 of ' the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; , s THENCE North, crossing State Ilighway No, 24 to the South- east corner of said M. T. Cole, Jr, tract, snme being the South- west corner of Ranch Estates and recorded in Volume 4919 page 491 of that Dead Records of Denton County, Texas, and continuing North with the Bast line of said M, T. Cole, Jr, tract, passing V the Northeast corner of said tract, said corner also being in the South line of the Robert Whitlock Survny, Abstract 1403, and continuing North to a point for a corner 288,03 'feet North of and perpendicular to the South line or- said Robert Whitlock Survey; THENOB North 89 degrees, 09 minutes gnat, 288,0:3 fart j North of and parallel to the South line of said Robert Whitlock Survey, a total distance of 2442,80 feet'?', to an existing tt corner point in the present City Limits line, said corner point ~I being the intersecting point of the Bast line of the Robert { Whitlock Survey and the West right-o£-way line of the Santa Via Railroad; THSNOE Southeasterly with the West right-of-way line of the Santa f'e Railroad and the present City Limits line across the following Surveys; the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey Abstract No. j f 141; the h, Batson Survey, Abatrect No. 43; the B,B.A, & C,R,R. Survey No. 1,91; and entering the aforementioned E. Puchalski f Survey, Abstract No, 996, crossing a County road (Soripture Street) and continuing Southeasterly with the West right-of-way line of the Santa Fe Railroad to an existing corner point in the f ; North line of West Prairie Street and in the North line of a tract of land out of said E, Puchalski Survoy, as conveyed to the City of Denton, Texas for street purposes by W. C. Potter and wife and recorded in Volume 383, page 186 of the Deed Records { of Denton County, Texas; i TH$NCS Wost with the North line of West Prairie Street and tha present City Limits line., to the Northwest corner of said City of Denton tract; THENCE South with the woof. line of said City n.' Denton of nl tract and the present City Limits line, 454 feet to the South- west corner of said tract; j THENCE East with the South line of said City of 17eaten et al, tract, and the present City Limits linu, to it point for a corner in the Southeast corner of said tract, said corner point being `in the West right-of-way line of the Sauna Fe Railroad and present City Limits line; TONGS Southeasterly with the West right-of-way line of the, Santa Fe Railroad and the present C,ty Limits line, crossing the following Surveys: said E. Puchaiek1 Survey; the aforementioned 0 S, Brewster Survey, Abstract No. 56, the A,N.B, Tomkins Survey, k Abstract No 1246; and entering the aforementioned Asa Hickman Survey, Abstract No, 521 to the place of beginning and containing In all 4444450 acres or 2-r0',-1 square miles, more or less. { 1F1Y1d5 Y ( ~r ~ r = ~:'t.lCr~l~ ~t:.j~>.j,l,?Jt,tils~~tt~ ~ '~z:~i.~•ri~~~ .fArlr~s rs, rKavv, nt.t,., r,t.r•.h, ,;:f CC]Ai1dISl1OItCVI OF li l: A t.Y 11 PU AR4 Uf 11Gh1. T11, '1 AIDS'mj, 7 E:}(A; .I, p. LCV`t:L All U, 11. U. HAMO T014 r, Pt biN^. N, le, O„ ; ,Arlni ,i OCPUYV 1401t!7ftT U, V.,nfth Tc, A,, C.OMMIJ,IOV(:H - W, i(C11fif IH T1111N .t. • ' I- p„ 1111. Afli I7. 1. I~AlliCi )1 irL. l71H D,,.f, SI:Cftl,J R1` Clf &M. Vi MAX CUt.@, !AICK11: C IIUI CD/4P, p, O 7 J01114 I l It .1 VI- AI, p: i JISS VIAYHI VIV, T, OotUhc:z i.9, 1.971. !lovtt It, I,1,.ewvgxhu, L1. 5, t HU. Alr, iZ T. AZ.fot'd, C3t,nutr t. f rr Company I I Rdute 1 ' betttutt, Texas 76207 Sub,jecl : l'ubl.ic Drictl<inFI WaLe:r Supp:(y [ttarfcft 1aLr+LCh Water Company Aentott CouotY, Tmns bear Alford: pn pcPohr.r 2, 1972, our reprOb,l,tat,,,,e of the lion 1'rctentau, P,i3,, roadc.n sub,jeca 4t<tcer rynter:t• Asa ,vat{ u' e il'ary survey nre?tdatzons j tt,?de for result ul lhi.s suevr-.y, thu, fv7ZowJ.it~ recnut your. nter ::yyt.em nttY QdrofaulndstudY o L parutel `s accepLabZe prricLic,ct;: elt~' with this b Z. 'rhO '.t'l Sttnit:ai .on 3ncJ l;aa 11 r l'rotrcei6n Xtntr requires L'n i semJilcs of taz(c.r frrom an aetJ.vc part of. the dJsCribtttivn trnl l: it least four Pcxaa t:e !)cpazutcnL of li tract eriol6y ut~ett tte d t t o he mouth the watr cutlp1, alt}r for s y J.rt ill o erati~n. t 'da mtalysia clurittt each e Our rr"cat dct i.ndi cn to tltn t ytwr J to+fale %s Pori not cbrnjtly'init triLlt to Vile thf1j requit'et ont'• (hu rru:c x Wort, City ![e+tleh fleparLlttent l Laborator l Jer ata~ be fisbrt'.tLLo Not, l tQoz Cft, •exta., 7(11.07. Y, 1800 11 J,vc rzti l,y bt ivt + c 2, A 6uc~ ' 1 Ittalf c;atl.nn stmgsla of: rrat•r_r uYl.lel.tr.d JrUm ait active tr'zlrut3ult ~yatcm rliould be c;ubmiLtcar pare of t11 1• dls- J analyst., 5uatples for irutf and marttrlry(.fsf`1a(Ietczofintt(:fouprlhouJdtbo.oc:.olltmicdl f in nn fi ouuc.c Zlasr, bol,Lle rtttd nrailcd tviClt the onit•hnlf, the Tea, t 5 JLnI r llepartrttent of Ifcralth 1,ahorzt.gt'.{~.: Atistih z".11,011 ntttaittai Co Texas ltll~bu ! 1.100 uttcc.t, Rust 49th { 1 y >r:Ek i,t. I e: y , PW4 'S 'a 1 Ruuclr I ;f.ltes Wnt cr Compolly Octobel 19, 1972 Pate 2 1, :ir'ctiol7 1 , (l , 1 of Ole TC rF a,inr l zLi.(1 u niul il.alLh PrutecLlmi Lam, Art ,f('1r. IM77•-1, Ravi soll Cial.1 stm,at:cs, Stab, of f'c:< roquircit Chat 1:11o, proce!;;;in, Lreut~«(~nt atld a{stl`lbuLlon of: ctlin!:ing tanLgr. he under the sup(•c- vi!i.il7r1 of a cL;nflc:tc+ul taal:cl' cnlrkn vpct.,itot• hol('l.n; a valid ccrl:r,ticatc of Compcteacy it,su.ct undor tilt, direction Of the ,Ce1as State De pa rLrt(int of Health, our sturvcly revealed (Ahilt your wat:or system is not supervised by at co.lA lflecl operator. 4. 1ti ordsz• to enab.l.e the opevatin personnel to more tiff ickont:ly operate the tast(!r sye i,m, pr.ov9.dc tatit:er tl<.e inforwation and d;{ta for future develop:,,ctlt of Ole C.'a't a ul. ldetlt.ill.y Report:,; (,r tf.. I•r r,Iu hs Opt:r r.L.lol1 should. tie.. 11Cep.11-od. 71w reports, as w, r as otlu,: taster. ,,vgLelt rocord_t Should be maiuediocd to be re•idily available for rdview. Regularly ,act) month, it copy of the Nontilly AC!j)0 is should l(t, 8l1b;1llt:tL!d Lo t1wToxos Sotto. Ueparttmant of lloalLh, Division 'r of 8nui.trlry In:Inn ri.n(;, 1100 Nest 21901 Strnct, Airat.ia, Tcxas 78756. 111 order to more oc(urtLely c.ompilo. the wontaily reports and all) provide your operators faith valuable d at 1 r.egar:dlug the. capabi.lities of 111e well;;, flora ` nleteriui; factl.i.t,ies should bcr provide!((. 5. You, ua the water system ow)cr., should adopt adcqu:rt:e pl.wnbin t'e~,ulations and makti provisions for the enforcaraenL 4hcr.eoi• to insure that neither cross- connecti.otrk nor other uocle:rlroble pl.wnl.tine pruettecs are permi.t,cd. All privatte wells Ili the Subdi.vi.sion which at',e preselltly cross-counecte.d with your public water supply must: be diaconuuetod itwnrdiat(lly and all air-gap provided bchaoot) Um systems at all tidies. 6. Supply of calcium Ilypoclllorito dinln£~ctant should be kept on hand for use I vilien making rcpairs, setting meters, art,d repaivinp, line breaks. li 7. 'lYte roof. hatches or, the gr•otutd Stot'n,^,e tanks silOL11d be kept locked at: all { times to ln:ever(L any contamination from entcrioe, your water supply from outside sources. 8. Li.x+ctrttock should not be permitted within 50 feat of 111, w;,ltor supply wells, 0. A miitablo sampling, rock should be provided mi the. discharger pipe of the well. 10, Sociti.on B1.1 of the current "Miles titer Regulations for Public Saar tdorlcS Pro,je(J"I") 1 thill the State of '1'c as, requires that: x411 cdaf:er hupplle;, 1>C ; cilloriuated prior to belitg pu(nire>d to the di.sLrl.bvtion syt,tenl. Thcrefortl, continurntS chlori.natiou fav.il.i.tieet must be pr.oviderl and opcrat.od no t'h'at. a chl'or'ine residual or et lc ,st 0.2 ppm can be 11lafuf:,Jll0d lit the fur oxtreimi- ti.eS of your distr.ibuti.ou ,ysLein of all timos, I j I i it LllY9S i0tiiill~ AMAW,, I a,?, R;trtch [:st;atP.,.:> ltatar Co-upany OctolJer, 151, 1177) l': E r 3 11. A 2a:ri2ttenurc.e pro,*can: ;ixrul,d he Ill 0: Ljtc,Jj of (111 to improve the t-licl-rd ,t!>pear, sure !13 tut: Icu z11 t.i.( J, o,11l I5 1Cil WC 11 C.OSI:iy h c 2CIMi.l.'S Jtl tltn 1711L11V :ipcCAf~c, Liy, C •uitud (c`1: Js , t'asrt~,l.J:s (trc in nt,.,d of pai,,itirtc; and t1le erne!:. in Lha cuuc-zcLe ,lab at t,,ll !'}o. aftould be repnircd to prevent ;iny rut£;tr_(t cotlLar;iinr.tio❑ f?'riin enler,ing yor.z wator sup}>ly. i 12, A })1001'FdnY 01~ repaia-Juf, LXlAt7 R;; Va 1v4;1 nrl i.tis tall. ing nrw V(ilVC,'i ;lf 5trittOt^iC ~locntions throtti;hout: your dhAcibution s)FSL(-,n should be initJatc'd b,) A prPwal27: poycr.blu d[sruplzon Of ,..rvi.ct to lac};e arar your 1;y.gtcm dur:iug main btc,rl:s, ropnirl;, etc, , l 13. The 1crenAcd vent ot: 440.1 No, 2 should be fl, 'Coil dowrtr✓aCd rand located and r;1e 1 f vrltul tb minimizo the drrm 11f, of cont.2mr.nunts in tfie well. ! F f 14. The exJ.St.r,m; Nerve, nL thr wc,11 LLa should be converted to a m(tnproof tyE1e, to furthr,r di.scouratge uuaulitorz:~ed hornnns fl•rn2i t1le well site, h 15. whc11 poarlble, an (2uxi Unr1 y },oluE r sourai+ j should be provf.ded for use in (nse of a power Ir:l.luro dtle to slonn:l, repairs, etc:. i i ~ Wo rAsk Lhat you pleases advise this Department in writinn wit,bi.n 30 days; to your planned course of gvtloll oil The above reconunrtudations, 7n e0tlc111sior2, we W101 to express the thanics and appr.•eciation of our represeuta- { tlvo for the courtecieo ealencled lum during fitly of the racoin:nendattians made be desired' p) Curley. Should clrrrifiCntimt of. t Eric!!„( let us know. t Yours very truly, f V Loyd 11. Williams, P.Li, Water Supply Program ni.virlian of SaniCary Eri J.noertng ce: 1). P, Blnckhurn, 1'.:f:,, Div. of. Utilities, Denton rc : Dct on CiLy-+County 11ealth Dep(trttn+rtlt ec; n('Uion 11 i I k }I1bCd'f."ls$$p7 E) lfl c wW r,'fxtilu ,"'I'J1q{' lj <:1;r: rvsy L.1 ~ t1J 1 VOt KCR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DALLAS DENTON December A, 1972 Mr, 13111 N, Neu, Mayor City of Den , ton Donton, Texas Deal, Mr. Neat i 1 have obtidneci 11 COPY of the, 1011Cfl Mytate 5 petition which wats apparently p.reE7ented to the City Cuuncit on Novornber 21, s time after the Pubilc Hearing on our zoning applicatlorn vns legallynclosed. Although lhiy' document is not Tart of the Official City file on our I application, It has nevertheless been exposed to Council members out- side the f,w-um or pohltc c11:30.'loscrr•e ant: as such reglllres some comment, ' E it) CONV';.,SIGN t)P' :s LOW D1i,N5ITY AREA TO A HIGIT 1 ARBi',; I. B%, ABOUT 80)000 QUARB FV%eT REA VAMIL UNIT V.S. TITT VOELKER COMPAIJY PLAN j 0Y 7,500 SgUARE' PET'T PNR; h'AMI1)Y UNIT, There ici no disagreernont between partieq that Rench Estates is a low density area. What Is subjact to discussion is whether or not our 1-1I5 request In high density, I beltevo k~e have domonstrated in Public hearfpgo that our roqueHt door not approaeh high density, and have referrencod our opinions to several accepted standards oil Community Planning, Objection by Ranch Estates is made to an area of 7500 square feet per fancily unit (the actual number is 8200). ',Phis area falls between i (7000 sq. ` ft. Per family unit) and SY-10 (10,000 sq. ft, per farnIly 7 Y unit)t lonfng c' lass iftcations which are acceptable stn •'Ia family d found throughout Denton, Single family classffications,~ other thaneon~tfes acre tracts, is to Ranch Estates hig denssItx, and therefore, unacceptable. " 3 j y i j . I l k 8512 1.13J rt(jawaY Dallas, 'texns 76240 (214) 239.0203 [ `v a,r ~j R tr: 7 i i KA4 Mr. Bill N. Neu Page 2 I)ccember 4, 1972 (21 INCiu,'ASI IN VTafIC17l.A11 TRAPVIC FROM 108 AUTOS TO AN p%t rpl IA'I'Ta1J 948 Vl'IRCl.ES UTI'IVlNG ACCESS A HAS NATURAL 'PO U'S' IIICjflW11.V 380. AS THIS ARE 13U1! f ERIN(.} ZONES, Wl Fr !.J-11, 1rj(IS I'[IGII I)EN1SlTY AREA IS NOT C0MPA'I'I131.L (RAILROAD ON 'PTIE 1;AST, C,0I_.1" r,,STATI. ON 1 II WVS'f AND NO11T13, S'i`n'i`E T_,ANV) ON I'f1E; N'OI1TH, ,CiELWYN SCHOOL ON 'I"llli, so'wrn) i he ~d ' tn the hands of t The qu(•~stton of vehicular traffic has been p1tsc.c 1 City Traffic Engineer and he has rospo[ided at several public lsearingn on his iindinf;s, I have baked that his conclusion be placed in writing and submitted as part of our application. There need he no speculation i on traf.t'ic generation and I reference his report for your consieleration, t:.) RANCH rsi„'n'I` EHE . 5 15 BY ll1saIGN Ulu' THE RESIDENTS A ) M1-RURAT, ARNA OF IOW DENSITY LIVING VOR USE OIL VAMI1,Y LNJOYMENT (HOUSES AND PASTORAL VISTAS, ETC. ) We have clearly indtcated a concern for tile value of Ranch FE3tates as an existing and integral part of the City of Denton. But It remains a part of tine city and not a rural (structure. To what extent and how far must property owners surrounding Ranch Plstate;i alter their own interest to protect pastoral vistas ,)ought by the residcnt.+ thc.rc. I believe our deriication of eight acres to transitional open area is realistic and E wot.•kable. (9) INCREASING FROM A I,OW DENSITY POPULATION TO A HIGH 1711'NSITY POPULATION WOULD DIPCIiEASE' VALUE, OP" EXISTING PROP'f~,IITY, Although this proposal Is not high density, there is no basis whatsoevetChe rr to assume a higher density decreases the value of existing property. contrary, however, is easily observed in Sottthridge, where various denattlos work together in creating a mixed community of very high value. ]Further, the Urban Land Institute states, "A well balanced community k plan providing for a variation of housing accommodations will help j materially In fstabillzing values and prevent decline by allowing the k individual family to adjust its housing requirements to its size, af?e grouping, 1 i 1 i ~s V,f`n CI(a ~I 1 1C. JcM1:3e r n,lgsN\l Mr. 13{11 IV. Neu page 3 December 4, 1972 and Income status at any given ttrtre and still remain within the The community of its Choice". uolc)r~''llhere isl,good ~reason tito rtargue that Community Builders <tmmwrity will }'wing stability to tite area and set the our planned e direction for future large track devcloi7ments in the area. DENTON 'rTJXAS IICONOMIC BASE - THE CITY, iT 1'1fiOP1~E, AND I,ANI) TiSE AS [ EVELOPVD BY `TIIIs' CI`T'Y PEE '1'H NU1ZTff 'I'NXAS CENTRAL COUNCIL OTC' ASSUCIA'.l'F,S CsOV1:f;NMLN'.PS AND nIA1ZVIN ;7P1tII3CT1SIt ANU SI•~1;UW 'rIIT; AREA I-INDE'll. J)IS 'OSMON TO BE BE, T U'1'111L],IJ AS SINGU- VAMII.,Y, I,OW DI,NSITY, IZ71;SIDEN'I'IAI, A check of I~lttte gage 55, will clearly show tiue area in questions botng best Utilized as industf ito low donsity -asrathe,'etile denseehou 11191 3 chore Is no direct refo>enc 1 i label refers to apartment deVOlopmerrts around the ccnta,r core and the two Universities, Our proposal is not only In keol)irtg with this Study •,pe are asking for single family restdenttaI zoning -lout also improving j the area as we arc not pursuing industrial development, as suggested. The intent of my response is to pl:Ice the written obJections of Ramilt Estates Into the perspective of our viewpoint for your coneflc'erintSoh'oslitan is regrettable that residents of that area chose not to app pp [ to our applicatton during Ole ptlblie hearing scheduled for that purposoA l ~ Our plans for the Wisdom I,,:lll 'T'ract have been carefully scrutenired by _J the Community Development Departmrnt as well as the Planning and zontng C"otntntsston. We have gained their favorable ruling after months ost of working sessiorv and public ear ingsrin his p,o ect h ne aabItshed social, economic and phynieai 1 g l~ quality community for all of Denton. r final decision~d to answer any qucstions you might have and nwrtit your i Sinc rely, j Jac C. lrw rr I"Necuttve Vice President 1 l cc, Mr. Jim White, City Manager Mr. hlarold Ramey, Mayor Pro-Tom Mr. Morris Kibler, Councilman Mr, From` Jester, Councilman 'r Mr, George Schneider, Councilman 1 i lltptentbar 15, 1972 1 Va, tha ow,lcr^r(.rl'idetlts of tltd 1. l7Uhf11V.1.fAo6 of pOn Con, 'l~extlf;, 1f11o4Tn an ltanch Isncnj,,(W, al'e, lndivi.dartll.y and col.lc(.ti.vo,l.y, ctgainct: lase roirnting of 3400-3800 block of tdertC Uui.var.t;Lt:y (rant Ag11:,:ultnrnl to 1,1111 mod DOVL!' lopmcnt for. Lim raafjouo hafted below: (1) Convexision c,f rt 1.oca denuit:y areii Lo rt high dertrsi.t:y ftreal 1.. about 86,000 square Font. pov fnnd.ly urtit vn, the Vocllmr Company plan of 7,"500 aquare fcet: tsar ftmfly unit, (2) 7.ncronfse in volliCU3.111- t vnffi.c from 108 aucos to an e8r'iai;tt'ed 9011 velllc;7.(ui ut i.l .z:lnf, c ccenn to 11. S. 111.gliimy 380, An this melt llnu hrtt.ural. buffering znnen, we feel tlti.r 111,811 deaai.cy .tt'ua in not cumt~nt:tbl,e (rn:l.lron(I on the oast, Cols: Bstat:e oil t:lte weal: mid nortls, ntato land on I:ho clorl:h, 'Selwyn School j on the south) (3) Ranrlt 1'?tstateo is by (efii.gn of the resiclantr, a semi'-rural area 1 of low denf.at:y t.ivinn for ufle of fuvily enjoytncnt (hornon and pastoral vi.rst1:3) etc. )14 (/T) 3:ncr.urrsiufl from ri low 'dcnniL•y poptal.o('.i.ou to n ltl.gh density poptslnta.on would decroase value or. axi.scinl, property. f j (S) Damon Texan rcnuomic bane _ Tile City, Tito pcoplet and Land 116re no dovelotred by the City slid the North lcxas Central. j I Council or Covetntnenta a"d Marvin Springer and Au<tociates show tbo. area under disoun~.siou t:o be bort ut:ilired as single ? hviiily, low domaity, renldont'ial di.rt:rict, 1 1 Thh owner °Y.en{,clentn are itt `favor of a c1r11114it;y nimi.lar to nncl compotihlu to that aron lctlown au' Ru ch 13statcfs. 1 1 l . 1 , I t t ~ t, 1 1 I f I 1 1 f [ ff{I~,j' 1:+:drsl3 ,.,~w•.~,rN+aa.-..., .r.4vv,.ra..v::•.w.r r, i. , r. .~..•r..`7' 4.. - r_. _~yp i T! li 1 it 1 3 • 1, G n~f lye - ♦r' it / / y , 1r 1 1.2 all- PaA 4 'L k ~(~Gd rWl X [ N (.f t+tA~A~ . E S ~.~~rj~yJ c~~<y ~44 s le) ---1 , , .y -0 1 t f n 14 1 r, . / ~-.~'T", ~fjy`''t~. . ~~~r~.~~y..+vi"/ / ~~1 :...~r~ .'N'1.7 /w✓ 1 f 1' 1"1~`