Chambers-CS 930318March 18. 1993
Mr. Pete Smith
Nicholas, Jackson, Kirk & Dillard
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N. Akard St.
Dallas, TX 75201
RE: Substandard Roadway Fees
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have received and reviewed the letter dated March 8th, 1993, reference Substandard Roadway
Fees and the letter dated March llth, 1993, reference Chambers Addition. I had originally
asked your opinion as to whether the city could lawfully withhold the signing of a plat for filing
with the county until escrow tees had been collected. The two aforementioned letters both
reference Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Your conclusion appears to be that the
city cannot lawfully enforce the collection of the tees and therefore, your opinion of the
Chambers Addition ,,,,'as that you do not recommend holding the plat for filing until the fees are
paid. Under that scenario, is it your intention that the city cease and desist in the collection of
any escrow fees for adjacent roadways to platted property? If that is your opinion, what would
you recommend in the interim period concerning the collection of some type of fee to offset the
adjacent properties share of the construction of the roadway?
In reading your letter, you state that Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code states that an)'
fee collection greater than 10% over what the allowable fee is under Chapter 395 of the Local
Government Code could subject the city to refunding two times the difference between the
allowable impact fee and the actual escrow imposed, plus any reasonable attorneys fees and cost.
If the city chooses to proceed with the collection of the fee, on the assumption that the lees
collected would not be greater than 10% of the impact fee, could the city then lawfully and
legally withhold the signing of any plats for filing with the county until the fee was collected
i.e., could the city take the risk of enforcing a collection even without an impact fee ordinance?
I pose this question based on a survey of impact fees in the Dallas area dated February, 1992,
that showed the City's of Frisco, Garland, Grand Prairie and Rowlett with roadway impact fees
at that time. The average maximum allowable roadway impact fee was $1,034.52. However.
the actual amount assessed against the development was S426.44. This is an assessed rate of
only 41% of the maxin-lum allowable. Also, of the cities shown in this su~'ev, the r!qaxJlp, tlln
amount collected by any city was Garland with a 50% collection rate.
The bottom line is: can the city legally require the escrow be paid and if not, should the city
discontinue the requirement that fees be paid for roadways and proceed with the necessary
process to implement a roadway impact lee ordinance.'?
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
CC: Alan Ratliff, City Manager
Alan Johnson, Interim Finance Director
file/rdwayfee
Mr. Pete Smith
Nicholas, Jackson, Kirk & Dill~d MAR i 9 1993
1800 Lincoln Plaza
D~las, TX 75201
RE: Substandard Roadway Fees
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have received and reviewed the letter dated March 8th, 1993, reference Substandard Roadway
Fees and the letter dated March l lth, 1993, reference Chambers Addition. I had originally
asked your opinion as to whether the city could lawfully withhold the signing of a plat for filing
with the county until escrow fees had been collected. The two aforementioned letters both
reference Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Your conclusion appears to be that the
city cannot lawfully enforce the collection of the fees and therefore, your opinion of the
Chambers Addition was that you do not recommend holding the plat for filing until the fees are
paid. Under that scenario, is it your intention that the city cease and desist in the collection of
any escrow fees for adjacent roadways to platted property? If that is your opinion, what would
you recommend in the interim period concerning the collection of some type of fee to offset the
adjacent properties share of the construction of the roadway?
In reading your letter, you state that Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code states that any
fee collection greater than 10% over what the allowable fee is under Chapter 395 of the Local
Government Code could subject the city to refunding two times the difference between the
allowable impact fee and the actual escrow imposed, plus any reasonable attorneys fees and cost.
If the city chooses to proceed with the collection of the fee, on the assumption that the fees
collected would not be greater than 10% of the impact fee, could the city then lawfully and
legally withhold the signing of any plats for filing with the county until the fee was collected
i.e., could the city take the risk of enforcing a collection even without an impact fee ordinance?
I pose this question based on a survey of impact fees in the Dallas area dated February, 1992,
that showed the City's of Frisco, Garland, Grand Prairie and Rowlett with roadway impact fees
at that time. The average maximum allowable roadway impact fee was $1,034.52. However,
March 18, 1993
:. :~ '~ :'.'..'.. :~.L~ ..,,~m ~ ~ ~:~,
Mr. Pete Smith ~--
Nicholas, Jackson, Kirk & Dill~d MAR 9 1993
1800 Lincoln Plea
D~las, TX 75201
RE: Substandard Roadway Fees
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have received and reviewed the letter dated March 8th, 1993, reference Substandard Roadway
Fees and the letter dated March l lth, 1993, reference Chambers Addition. I had originally
asked your opinion as to whether the city could lawfully withhold the signing of a plat for filing
with the county until escrow fees had been collected. The two aforementioned letters both
reference Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Your conclusion appears to be that the
city cannot lawfully enforce the collection of the fees and therefore, your opinion of the
Chambers Addition was that you do not recommend holding the plat for filing until the fees are
paid. Under that scenario, is it your intention that the city cease and desist in the collection of
any escrow fees for adjacent roadways to platted property? If that is your opinion, what would
you recommend in the interim period concerning the collection of some type of fee to offset the
adjacent properties share of the construction of the roadway?
In reading your letter, you state that Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code states that any
fee collection greater than 10% over what the allowable fee is under Chapter 395 of the Local
Government Code could subject the city to refunding two times the difference between the
allowable impact fee and the actual escrow imposed, plus any reasonable attorneys fees and cost.
If the city chooses to proceed with the collection of the fee, on the assumption that the fees
collected would not be greater than 10% of the impact fee, could the city then lawfully and
legally withhold the signing of any plats for filing with the county until the fee was collected
i.e., could the city take the risk of enforcing a collection even without an impact fee ordinance?
I pose this question based on a survey of impact fees in the Dallas area dated February, 1992,
that showed the City's of Frisco, Garland, Grand Prairie and Rowlett with roadway impact fees
at that time. The average maximum allowable roadway impact fee was $1,034.52. However,