Alexander Ct-CS080205
Page 1 of 2
Ken Griffin - Re: Fwd:
Ken Griffin
From:
To:Clay Phillips
2/5/2008 10:26 AM
Date:
Subject:Re: Fwd:
Clay
The response looked ok to me. It was concise and to the point. On another note, I spoke to Glenn
Terrell today about the $1000 a day charge on not getting a permit. After he chuckled, he assured me
they were not charging a daily penalty to Mr. Hawkins for lack of a permit. He also reminded me that
he was a sub-contractor and if he demanded fees, he would probably be told where he could go. He did
say he would ask around his office to see if anybody else may had said that, but that it was highly
unlikely.
ken g
>>> Clay Phillips 2/5/2008 10:04 AM >>>
Would you review the attachment and let me know if you have a problem with any of the
info. Fairly short! Thanks.
clay
>>> "David T. Ritter" <dritter@toase.com> 2/4/2008 4:37 PM >>>
Mr. Phillips:
Per our telephone discussion of last Friday, attached in Word format are
the draft responses to Mira Mar's First Set of Interrogatories.
We formulated the City's answers based on the discovery documents
provided to us and the discussions at our discovery meeting. If the
answers are correct, please sign the verification and return the
original copy to us via overnight delivery or courier by Wednesday,
February 4, 2008. If any answers need to be corrected or amended,
please let me know and we will make the necessary changes.
Please do not hesitate to e-mail or call if you have any other
questions.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\radloo\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47A839D2City_...2/19/2010
Page 2 of 2
Thanks,
David
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and
as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\radloo\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47A839D2City_...2/19/2010
CAUSE NO. 07-1151
MIRA MAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
'
'
v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
'
'
ST
CITY OF COPPELL 101 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
'
________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
==
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
________________________________________________________________________
TO: Plaintiff, Mira Mar Development Corp. by and through its attorney of record, Walter W.
Leonard, One Summit Avenue, Suite 1010, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.
NOW COMES, Defendant City of Coppell, pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure files this Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and would show as follows:
=
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________________
CARVAN E. ADKINS
Texas Bar No. 00910990
WK.O
AYNE LSON
Texas Bar No. 15276900
DT.R
AVID ITTER
Texas Bar No. 24015151
Members of the Firm of:
TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA &
ELAM, L.L.P.
6000 Western Place, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
(817) 332-2580
FAX (817) 332-4740
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 1
==
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 2
==
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was
forwarded on the ____ day of February, 2008, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
following:
Walt Leonard
Attorney at Law
One Summit Avenue, Suite 1010
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
_____________________________________
David T. Ritter
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 3
==
INTERROGATORY NO.1:
What studies have ever been done by the City of Coppell to justify their
system of exactions and dedications of developers as part of any development requirements under
zoning, platting or other development standards? In answering this interrogatory please be sure to
include information with regards to any generalized studies on these matters which were developed by
the City of Coppell or by anyone else whom they had developed such for the City of Coppell.
ANSWER:
The City of Coppell objects to the chronological scope of this interrogatory as being overly broad
and unduly burdensome, as it asks for any studies “ever” done by the City of Coppell to justify their
system of exactions and dedications of developers….” The City of Coppell was formally
incorporated in 1955, and without a limitation on time that is relevant to the events pertinent to this
lawsuit, this interrogatory is unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d
813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (holding that a request for information made under former rule without
limitation as to time, place, or subject matter is overbroad). The City of Coppell also objects to this
interrogatory as compound and so internally contradictory as to render the production of a
meaningful answer unduly burdensome. In the first part of the interrogatory, the City is asked to
identify any study ever done by the city “to justify their system of exactions and dedications of
developers as part of any development requirements under zoning, platting or other development
standards.” However, in the second part of the interrogatory, the scope of the question is
significantly modified (and broadened) to include any “generalized studies on these matters ---
[presumably zoning, platting, or other development standards, but possibly any justification-specific
studies] --- which were developed by the City of Coppell or by anyone else whom they had
developed [sic] such for the City of Coppell.” As such, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous,
and requires respondent to subjectively interpret the interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the City of Coppell has never undertaken a study
with the express purpose of “justify[ing] their system of exactions and dedications of developers.”
Assuming (which is not clear from the ambiguous nature of the interrogatory) that Plaintiff is
seeking any studies dealing with zoning, platting, or other development standards, City of Coppell
responds as follows:
City-Wide Storm Water Management Study (City of Coppell), by Albert H. Halff
Associates, Inc., January 1991
The City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance, 1994
Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan – Water, Wastewater, and Roadway (City of
Coppell), by Fresse and Nichols, Inc., August 2005
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
With regards to the following specific items, please also give
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 4
==
information as to what specific studies, calculations or determinations were made with regards to the
need or justification for developer exactions or dedication requirements with regards to the following
and give a brief analysis of what the City believes to be their findings:
a. roads;
b. parks;
c. sewer;
d. tree mitigation;
e. sidewalks; and
f. extension of utilities with regards to developments.
In answering these questions please include, but do not be limited to, explaining any studies,
calculations either by the City or by outside parties that would tend to justify or show a necessity for
any such dedications or exactions and any indications of actual City cost to be associated with such
developments and the standards whereby the levels of dedications or exactions were determined.
ANSWER:
The City of Coppell objects to the chronological scope of this interrogatory as being overly broad and
unduly burdensome, as it asks for any “specific studies, calculations, or determinations….made with
regards to the need or justification for developer exactions or dedication requirements with regards
[to the enumerated areas].” Without limitation on time that is relevant to the events pertinent to this
lawsuit, this interrogatory is unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d
813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (holding that a request for information made under former rule without
limitation as to time, place or subject matter is overbroad.). The City of Coppell also objects to the
request to “give a brief analysis of what the City believes to be their findings,” as requiring a
marshalling of evidence beyond the authorized scope of Tex.R.Civ.P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, City of Coppell responds as follows:
a. Roads - Roadway Functional Classifications and Design Standards (City of Coppell)
by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., October 1990;
Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan – Water, Wastewater, and Roadway (City of
Coppell), by Fresse and Nichols, Inc., August 2005
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 5
==
b. Parks - the parks formula and calculation is based on the City of Coppell code of
ordinances.
c. Sewer - Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan --- Water, Wastewater, and Roadway
(City of Coppell), by Freese and Nichols, Inc., August 2005
d. Tree Mitigation – the tree mitigation formula and calculation is based on the City of
Coppell code of ordinances.
e. Sidewalks – November 12, 2007 City of Coppell Memo, re: Apportionment of Municipal
Infrastructure Costs per Texas Local Government Code Section 212.904 in Reference to
Sidewalk Construction Associated with the Development of Alexander Court
f. Extension of utilities with regard to development - City-Wide Storm Water Management
Study (City of Coppell), by Albert H. Halff Associates, Inc., January 1991
The City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance, 1994
Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan – Water, Wastewater, and Roadway (City of Coppell), by
Fresse and Nichols, Inc., August 2005
In addition to the above specific studies and documents, determinations are made by the
appropriate Engineering, Parks, and Planning personal in accordance with accepted practices,
applicable local ordinances and state statutes, and consideration of the impact of the proposed
development on the city infrastructure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 :
Please provide information as to what revenue the City has realized in
the last five (5) years from developer exactions and dedications of the type described above from not
only the Plaintiffs subdivision but all other subdivisions in the City and please differentiate them in
=
terms of what type and kind they were and whether they were according to the Citys normal
=
standards for such or requirements whether there were any exceptions and, if so, in which cases they
were applied and by what standard the City made any exceptions. Please also include in these figures
any computations of costs, now or anticipated, in such developmental cases and please specifically
include the Citys computations of costs, now or anticipated, from the installation of the Mira Mar
=
development and explain the correlation between them and the actual requirements imposed upon
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 6
==
Mira Mar. Please explain the basis by which the City reached these determinations and these
standards and please further explain who did these matters, when theses were computed and explain
the basis which was used by these parties, by the City or any outside parties in reaching these
standards and please explain the qualifications that justified the use of such parties in the se matters.
ANSWER:
The City of Coppell objects to the compound nature of this interrogator as being so overbroad as to
be unduly burdensome to answer. Plaintiff first asks for information on the revenue the City has
realized in the last five years from developer exactions for not only Plaintiff’s subdivision, but also for
all other subdivisions in the city. Plaintiff also then asks the City of Coppell to marshal its evidence
beyond the authorized scope of Tex.R.Civ.P. 197.1 when it requests differentiation “in terms of what
type and kind they were and whether they were according to the City’s normal standards for such or
requirements or whether there where any exceptions, and if so, in which cases they were applied and
by what standard the City made any exceptions.” Plaintiff also asks in the same interrogatory for (1)
computation of current costs for other subdivisions ; (2) computation of anticipated costs for other
subdivisions; (3) computation of current costs specific to Alexander Court; (4) computation of
anticipated costs specific to Alexander Court; (5) an analysis of the correlation between the current
Alexander costs and the requirements imposed upon Mira Mar; (6) an analysis of the correlation
between the anticipated Alexander Court costs and the requirements imposed upon Mira Mar; (7) the
basis by which the City made the determinations; (8) further explanation of how the City reached the
determinations; (9) further explanation of how the City reached the standards; (10) disclosure of who
made the calculation; (11) disclosure of when the calculations were made; (12) explanation of the
basis of the findings; and (13) the qualifications justifying the use of such parties. The result is a
single question of such complexity that it is vague and ambiguous and requires respondent to
subjectively interpret the interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, City of Coppell responds as follows:
In accordance with Tex.R.Civ.P. 197.2(c), because the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or
ascertained from public records and the City of Coppell’s business records and because the burden of
deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the requesting party as for the
responding party, in lieu of deriving or ascertaining the answer to the interrogatory, City of Coppell
refers Plaintiff to the documents which will be made available for inspection to Plaintiff at the offices
of City of Coppell’s counsel, Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, LLP, 6000 Western Place, Suite
200, Fort Worth, Texas 76107 at 10:00 a.m., on February 7, 2008, a time and place previously agreed
upon by counsel for Plaintiff and defendant. The specific documents that will be provided are as
follows:
Fee Assessment letters dated July 25, 2007 and August 17, 2007
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 7
==
City of Coppell Financial Reports, re: (1) Impact Fees; (2) Construction Inspection Fees; (3)
Roadway Impact; (4) Park Development Fees
In addition, information about other development projects currently ongoing in the City of Coppell
are available at the City of Coppell website: http://www.ci.coppell.tx.us.
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS
'
'
COUNTY OF DALLAS
'
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on
this day personally appeared Clay Phillips on behalf of the City of Coppell who after being by me duly
sworn, stated upon his oath that he has read the above and foregoing Defendants Response to
=
Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and that all statements contained in this document are true and
=
correct to the best of his knowledge.
________________________________
Clay Phillips
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this the day of February, 2008.
Notary Public in and for
[SEAL] The State of Texas
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 8
==