Northlake WE P10B-CS 930401To: Frank Trando, Acting City Manager
Fwm: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer ~
RE: Grapevine Creek Sewer Truck ~lAin/Nottllbke Woo'~n~i- ~ lO]Mar~
Date: April 1, 1993
For some time now I have been speaking with Steve Parsons, who is acting on behalf of Troft
Enterprises, Inc., S.E. Parsons, Inc. and Lerman Investments, Inc., concerning the acquisition
of an easement for the Grapevine Creek Sewer Trunk Main Project. This easement is essential
for the City to start the C~'apevine Creek Sewer Trunk Main Project. The total square footage
of the permanent easement the City is attempting to acquire is .818 acres (315,639 square feet)
and the temporary construction easement is 1.526 acres (66,471 square feet).
In attempting to acquire this easement from Mr. Parsons, he has made reference to a
clarification on fees that he paid in the mid-1980's on Northlalce Woodlands Phase 10B.
Essentially, the subdivision of Northlake Woodlands Phase 10 was preliminary phtted and then
final platted as Phase A and Phase B. However, Phase B was never filed with the county,
therefore, it expired and is no longer a valid plat. To get approval for his preliminary platting,
Mr. Parsons was required all development fees for both Phases. Since that time, the City has
adopted impact fees that have superseded the water and sewer avaihbility fees in effect at the
time the property was preliminary platted.
To obtain an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Parson's would need to pay the new impact fees
when he final phts Phase 10B, the City obtained a legal opinion from Mr. Ronald Clark of the
finn Henderson, Bryant and Wolfe LLP Attorneys and Councelors. The summary of Mr.
Clark's opinion states that the applicant would be required to pay the full amount of the impact
fee, however, he would be entitled to a credit for sums already paid. The summary goes on to
state that the City has a legal power to negotiate for the easement as part of the consideration
on the fees. However, Mr. Clark cautions that this could cost some appraisal and evaluation
problems. His recommendation was that it would be cleaner to have the full fee paid and then
have the City cut a separate check to pay for the easement.
Mr. Parsons contacted me on March 31, 1993, concerning the acquisition of the easement. He
indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Bill Troth concerning what it would take to acquire this
easement. He stated that they would like to have $152,000 for the acquisition of the easement.
This will breaks down to about $1.00 a square foot for the permanent easement and $0.215 a
square foot for the temporary easement. In addition, he stated that they would like to have
interest applied to the fees that were paid in the mid-1950's for the portion of the subdivision
that was never constructed. My calculations show that approximately $130,000 of the $252,476
paid in fees in the mid-1980's went to Phase 10B. I spoke with Alan Johnson concerning the
ability of the City to apply interest to the fees. After speaking with Mr. Johnson, I understood
that the fees are considered as revenue in the year they are collected and applied toward water
and sewer dept service. Therefore, they are not set aside'in escrow account to collect interest.
Knowing that the City did not pay interest on the fees collected, I countered to Mr. Parsons
whether or not he would grant the easement to the City if the City, in consideration for the
easement, stated that no additional fees would be necessary for Phase 10B, with the exception
of inspection fees. Mr. Parsons said that would be an acceptable arrangement to him and that
they would sign the easement immediately if the City agreed to those conditions.
By my rough calculations the additional increase in fees would be in the range of 115,000 plus
street sign fees, street light fees and irrigation fees. If the City were to consider no additional
fees to be collected for Phase 10B, then in essence the City would be granting in the
neighborhood of $115,000 difference in fees. However, no money would acually change hands
and there is no guarantee when or if Phase 10B will be developed. There is also a concern
expressed by Mr. Parsons that it's his opinion that when he did not final plat Phase 10B he was
told that when he did plat in the future no additional fees would be required. Obviously, this
is in conflict with our Subdivision Ordinance and the opinion of the attorney.
At this point, I am seeking direction on how to proceed with this issue. It is imperative and
critical that the city obtain this easement from Mr. Parsons in a timely fashion. Mr. Parsons has
indicated to the city for quite some time that it would be no problem to obtain the easement and
has only recently muddied the issue with the Northlake Woodlands Phase 10B fee issue.
The City awarded the contract to construct the Grapevine Creek Sewer Trunk Main on
December 8th, 1992. Due to other priorities of the contractor, he has been unable to start the
project. However, he is now in a position to begin work. It is the City's intention to issue a
notice to proceed on or around April 15th, 1993. I would like to schedule a time to sit down
and talk about this with you and if you deem it necessary I would like to pursue this through
City Council at the April 13, 1993 City Council meeting. If you have any questions I would
be happy to answer those.
file/ss93-Ol.ltr