ST0502A-ES110722
Page 1 of 1
Keith Marvin - 288 Freeport Parkway
From: Michael Garza
To: henrytate@hotmail.com
Date:7/22/2011 1:34 PM
Subject:288 Freeport Parkway
CC: Keith Marvin
Mr. Tate,
Thank you for meeting with Keith and I earlier this week. I received the letter you sent to Keith. I will double
check the mineral rights issue but I do not see that to be a problem. I will have a letter written up that includes
all that we talked about and I will also include a drawing showing your driveway and parking lot with retaining
wall locations. I hope to have that to you some time next week.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
Mike
Michael Garza
Engineering Dept.
City of Coppell
Office: 972-304-7019
Fax: 972-304-3570
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
file://C:\Documents and Settings\radloo\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E297C62City_of...8/5/2011
Page 1 of 1
Keith Marvin - Please
From: Henry Tate <henrytate@hotmail.com>
To: "Keith Marvin, P.E." <kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 7/22/2011 1:17 PM
Subject: Please
Attachments: Letter to Keith Marvin about well.doc
Keith please fwd the attached to Mike Garza. I did not get his email when you fwd my last communication to
you. Maybe he will email me this time. Enjoyed meeting with 'yall Wednesday.
HHT
file://C:\Documents and Settings\radloo\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E297858City_of...8/5/2011
Mr. Keith Marvin, R.P.E. February 25, 2009
Project Engineer Re: 228 S. Freeport Pkwy
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Tx 75019
Mr. Marvin:
In January we met and discussed the various aspects of widening Freeport Pkwy as
pertains to 288 S. Freeport Pkwy. We touched on the following:
1 The reimbursement for the actual square footage of land that the city would need. I
agreed that the price offered by the city was fair.
2 The replacement of the parking space lost. You said that the city could replace this at a
much lower cost than I could. You also said that the parking would have to be raised by
about 4/5 feet above its current elevation so as not to pose a danger of ingress and egress.
I agreed and we said that we could deal with the particulars at a later date. I will show
you my thoughts as soon as I shoot a few elevations and discuss how it was done when
elevating East Sandy Lake Rd.
3 The razing of the building in the front of the property. You said that the city would
need to reimburse me for the loss of the building but that you had not yet researched the
value. I did some very shallow research at Home Depot and am sending you the
enclosed brochure. They show a 20 X 20 garage for $8,359 or $21 psf. This is without a
concrete foundation, no electrical, no plumbing. The front building on Freeport is 21 X
22 or 460 sf.
It has a very good concrete foundation and the roof is supported by 6” dia steel pipes put
deep into the ground. (I know, I dug the holes and set them myself.) It also has both
electricity and water. It also has 2 sky lights. Itemizing, using the above figures as
guidelines—
A Structure $9,660
B Foundation 1,500
C Sky lights 280
D Electricity 600
E Water 200
_____
Total $12,240
The above gives us a starting point for discussion.
4 The problem of the existing water well being on the ROW. You said that there are two
possibilities- A The city would want to buy it outright at replacement cost, or B the city
would pay to raise the well head to compensate for the raised elevation of the road, re-
plumb above ground and build another well house.
I called the drilling company that installed the well 40 years ago (Madewell Drilling,
Krum, TX). Madewell’s son, Mark, is carrying on the business now. Like his father, his
son seems very honest and aboveboard. Here are the figures he gave me.
A The replacement cost for the well would be $32 to $35 per foot depth. This depends
on how large the pump is. I feel that it would be the lower figure since a large pump was
not required because the aquifer rose over a hundred feet. The depth of the well is 310
feet. Using $32 per foot that comes out to $9920 – replacement cost.
B The cost for raising the head and attendant work would be $1000 plus or minus two
hundred dollars. This may be what the city wants to go with since it will save them a lot
of bucks. If they do this I understand that there will have to be legal documents written
up that say that if the well is ever inoperative, then the deal is off. It has been an excellent
well for 40 years. Like you, I would prefer that the city just “buy” the well from me and
make a clean break of it.
5 My retention of mineral rights. You said that you didn’t know about this and would
have to contact the City Attorney.
I have done some research and found the following. It is the most recent information I
could find concerning property rights that are “not condemnable”, i.e. taking the mineral
rights when the only thing that is needed is the surface right of way. It deals with the
Trans Texas Corridor which is no longer a viable project. Nevertheless, it is the most
recent ruling on the taking of mineral rights.
“When entering any deed in lieu of condemnation, property owners must remember that
any property rights owned and not reserved are automatically conveyed to TTC.
Consequently, they should always reserve property rights that cannot be condemned. For
example, Chapter 203 prohibits “… condemnation of oil, gas and sulphur that can be
removed from beneath the real property” (Section 203.051[d]).””
I would really like to retain mineral rights.
I am back in Dallas now. I will be happy to meet and have further discussions anytime
you deem appropriate.
Yours truly,
Henry H. Tate
214-686-8530 cell
henrytate@hotmail.com
I
\--STRUCTURE TO
BE REMOVED 74.0'
PROPOSED
EXIST PROP ROW & RETAIN
LINE WALL
PROP CUR
�� 3 PARK SP
10' RADIUS
-- ---> 10%
V 1 4%
--).
\\(.....,
8' RADIUS
EXIST PROP
LINE
0
4.5' 35.5' 59.0' 78.5
> > > >
6'
3'
2'
Existing Grade 0'