Loading...
ST9304-CS 870520GENESIS LAND GROUP, INC. FILE COPY 9901 VA[,I~Y RANCH PKWY · SUITE 1~0 · IR~NG, TX ~063 · (214) 401-1155 May 20, 1987 ~ TO: Mr. Alan Ratliff, City Mang~~ City of Coppell, Te~ ~ FROM: Tim Hous~ ~ The purpose of this memo is to describe the referenced proposal and its merits. As you know, this issue became very controversial in its previous consideration, and it became very difficult to determine the true costs and benefits of the two alternatives. I believe strongly, however, that the realignment would provide some distinct benefits for the City of Coppell. These are described as follows, with additional documentation referenced and provided as available. PROPOSED REALIGNMENT: While the exact alignment has not been established, the concept is to move the road about 400' to the south. Except for the specific areas discussed later, all land on both sides of the realigned road would be in the City of Coppell. COST COMPARISON: (Gtnn, Inc. May 27, 1986) Construction Cost County Funding Gross Cost to City Recoverable Assessments Net Cost to City Note: Existing Aliqnment $5,931,000 lt483tO00 4,448,000 1,641~000 $2,807,000 If Riverchase volunteers assessment Proposed Realignment 84,225,000 1~497t000 2,728,000 2~106~000 $ 622,000 of $782,600, then net cost to the City on the exlsting alignment would be reduced to $2,024,400. GOUNTY'S POSITION: The County's official position on this issue is to leave it to the Gity to decide. It is my understanding that the Gounty feels the Gity has the legal right to choose either road alignment and use the bond monies accordingly. The Public Works Department supports the relocation (see Memo dated March 20, 1986). My feeling is that Gommissioner Jackson favors the relocation for reasons of cost savings and safety (see letter dated January 17, 1986). It should also be noted that the railroad company is on record as supporting the relocation, because it increases the ability to coordinate with traffic flow and signalization. EGONOMIG DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: The landowners on the south side of existing Belt Line support the proposed relocation because it enhances the development potential of their properties. This is true for three basic reasons: (1) It enables both sides of the road to be utilized for development frontage; (2) It eliminates the "front door view" of the railroad tracks, thus removing a significant deterrent to quality development; (3) In the case of the Crow / Billingsley tract, it greatly reduces the negative impact of the DP&L right-of-way, which under the present alignment virtually eliminates developable frontage for a large portion of the tract. The City would obviously realize substantial benefits from the enhanced economic development potential of this land. According to an assessment prepared by George McElroy a Associates, Inc. (letter dated December 9, 1985), 100 acres developed for warehouse uses in this area would generate about $500,000 annually to the Gity in property tax revenues at the present tax rate. The same 100 acres, if developed for office uses, would generate annual tax revenues of over $7 million, an increase of $6.5 million annually. This comparison probably represents an extreme example, but it clearly illustrates the significant tax benefits that can accrue from an upgraded development. In addition, the City would probably realize greater sales tax revenues due to the increased business activity along the relocated road. CITY BOUNDARY / ANNEXATION ISSUES: The accompanying maps delineate those areas which should ideally be made available for annexation by Coppell with the realigned road. These areas are approximately 10 acres from the City of Irving (located on the Crow / Billingsley tract) and §6 acres from Dallas (located on the DP&L North Lake tract). Please note that any potential benefits which would accrue from this land would be pure "gravy", above and beyond the financial impacts already described. TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE DURING CONSTRUCTION: I have no documents to reference in support of this section, but I believe my positions to be true based on my own experiences and observations of road construction in Coppell during the past two years. I believe that construction activities are generally very disruptive to traffic movement, and the busier the road, the greater the inconvenience. Stop and go traffic, weaving in and out of barricades, conflict with construction vehicles, and general time delays can turn routine trips into frustrating daily experiences. It unquestionably creates traffic hazards that are a threat to public safety. In most cases, such inconvenience and safety hazards must be accepted as necessary to accomplish the long-term goal of a better, safer roadway. In this case, however, the City has the unique opportunity to build a new road without hindering the operation of the existing facility. In addition, the new road will be available for use sooner because of the reduced construction time. I have heard several of my Coppell neighbors say that they would like to Just "wake up one day and find all the road construction completed". Such a dream is obviously not realistic, but the separation of construction and traffic activities on this section of Belt Line would be a clear step in that direction. r0 DEVELOPERS' PROPOSAL: I have checked with all three of the development entities with projects on the south side of Belt Line, and all agree that if approval can be realized expeditiously, then the proposal Jointly put forth last year is still applicable. (*Please see note on following page.) In essence, the terms of that proposal are as follows: (1) The developers will voluntarily pay the assessments required for both sides of the road, if computed according to the formula described in the Ginn report referenced earlier. This assurance will be made tn some form of up-front commitment, so that certificates of obligation burdening the general tax base will not be required for this portion of the costs. (2) The developers will voluntarily dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the realigned road. In exchange, the existing road right-of-way will be abandoned to the developers upon the completion of the new road. (3) In order to assure continued access to properties north of the railroad tracks, connections between realigned Belt Line and existing north-south roads, e.g., Moore and Mockingbird, will be constructed at the developers~ expense. SUMMARY: The City of Coppell appears to be in a financial catch-22; it would like to attract economic development to share in the tax burden, but needs improved roads to enhance its ability to attract such; it can not construct new roads without further burdening the existing tax base. The proposal to realign Belt Line provides the most efficient solution to this dilemma, in that it enables the creation of a new development corridor without a large commitment of City funds. In Commissioner Jackson's letter previously referenced, he stresses that the question of the road's location should be decided on the basis of public benefit. Based on the accompanying reports and letters, the proposed realignment provides the following public benefits: (1) Enhanced economic development potential, which translates to greater tax revenues for the City; (2) Construction cost savings to the City of $1.4 to 2.2 million, depending on the $800,000 voluntary payment by Riverchase; (3) More convenient and safer traffic flow during construction; (4) Shorter construction period; (5) Ability to construct the road without a substantial commitment of City funds. It appears that even if the construction costs for the two alternatives were equal, the other public benefits favor the relocation. When you add in the cost savings factor, the choice becomes even clearer. And finally, the City's current budget constraints may essentially eliminate the feasibility of constructing the road in its present alignment. Your consideration of this issue is greatly appreciated. I wlll be happy to respond to any questions you may have. It should be emphasized here that I am only authorized to represent the position of the Crow / Btlltngsley property. It is my understanding that the Triland / Dunning venture, which owns the two corners at the MacArthur / Belt Line intersection, has Grown very concerned that its planned development schedule may not allow the time it would take to approve the realignment. This topic should obviously require direct discussion with and representation by that group.