Loading...
Sand Point-AG 920811p~Q„~ AGENDA REQUEST FORM-~' Tha cn,~ ~m A eo~~l~n, ~. QTY COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 1992 ITEM ~~_~~_ ITEM CAPTION: _,~ Citizen's Appearance by Frank Bamberg to discuss fees assessed to Sand Point Estates A ~ , -- SUBMITTED BY: ~ riffin. P.E. irector's ign e) DATE: A1lgusr 5. 1992 Addition. / `J~~`` ~ 1 ~/ ~ pJ" ~ r ,`~, r r N 0 , • On July 16, 1992, I met with Frank Bamburg concerning the escrow for Sand Point Estates. During the meeting with Mr. Bamburg, I told him the amount of the escrow due and also discussed with him the City of Coppell escrow policy. (A copy of that escrow policy is attached to this agenda report.) The policy is found in the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Coppell (Ordinance No. 341) as adopted on October 9, 1985. The portion of the escrow policy that was discussed with Mr. Bamburg was Section 1A-17-b of Appendix A, entitled "Specific Requirements and Design Criteria" of the City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance. That section states that when it's not feasible to reconstruct a substandard road at the time of the development of the subdivision, the developer may pay into escrow an amount equal to the developer's share of the cost of said improvements. The escrow amount is determined by a pro rata charge. The pro rata charge is the developer's cost of what it would cost to reconstruct the road. Escrow is a requirement of subdividing the land and is required to be paid prior to Bnal approval of the subdivision. At the July 16th meeting, I explained this to Mr. Bamburg and presented him with copies of the section of the ordinance that deals with escrow for adjacent streets. Recently, Mr. Bamburg has written a letter to the City of Coppell concerning the escrow for Sand Point Estates. Mr. Bamburg's letter talks specifically about assessments for Sand Point Estates as opposed to escrow or pro rata. At this point, the distinction between escrow and assessments (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) BUDGET AMT. ~/~ •4- AMT +/- BUDGET AMT. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL REVIEW BY '~" STAFF REP: Kenneth M. G ~~-.__ City Engineer OTHER REP.- LEGAL REVIEW BY: REVIEWED BY CM: AGENDA REQUEST FOR1[ AEVLSED 1/91 PAGE 2 (BAMBURG'S LETTER ON THE ESCROW FOR SAND POINT ESTATES) should be explained. An escrow is a pro rata charge for the construction of a street paid during the subdivision of a property when it's not feasible to actually construct the street. The following cities: Lewisville, Euless, Flower Mound, Carrollton, Grapevine, Farmers Branch were contacted about their escrow policy. Each of the cities have an escrow policy that mandates that the developer build the street and escrow the funds (see notes attached). An assessment is a charge or lien against a parcel of property when a street is being constructed. The assessment process determines the enhanced value of the property due to the construction of the street. It is based on the actual construction cost of the street and it has specific guidelines in the state statues on how to calculate and assess the cost. Several of Mr. Bamburgs' points in his letter are actually correct when dealing with assessments. However, it should be clearly understood that what we are dealing with is escrowing funds as part of a subdivision of a parcel of property, not an assessment against a parcel of property. Mr. Bamburg makes a statement in his letter that because he has dedicated 25 foot of land for Sandy Lake Road that any additional assessment for road improvements would be a double assessment. In actuality, the developer of a subdivision is required to provide right-of--way for existing or future streets, utilities, public works, etc. shown on the City of Coppell Thoroughfare Plan during the subdivision of the land, as noted in Appendix A, Specific Requirements and Design Criteria of the City of Coppell's Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1-A-16. The dedication of the right-of--way in no way alleviates the responsibility of the developer to also pay his fair share of escrow for the adjacent street. In summary, concerning the letter from Mr. Bamburg, the most important thing to consider is the fact the Mr. Bamburg continually discusses assessments in his letter, when, in actuality, we are discussing the escrow of monies for street improvements as part of a requirement of the subdivision of the land, not as a lien against the property after the street has been constructed. Mr. Bamburg also requests that an amount of $6,075.00 be reimbursed. He had paid this amount under protest for Wastewater Impact Fee. His reasoning for the request for reimbursement is based on the fact that he also had to pay $15,140.00 to the Municipal Utility District #1 to tie into their lines. He states that paying both of them would be a double assessment. The $6,075.00 was calculated from the Impact Fee Analysis, which states that the Wastewater customers in the MUD district pay only $225.00 per equivalent service unit. If this property were not in the MUD district, then the charge would be $450.00 per equivalent service unit. The major project considered in the calculation of the Impact Fees for customers who are in the MUD district is the TRA Central Plan Expansion. The estimated cost of that expansion is 3.1 million dollars. Mr. Bamburg makes a recommendation that he pay a one time fee of $17,260.17 for improvements of Sandy Lake Road and that the City of Coppell reimburse him $6,075.00. There were no calculations provided with Mr. Bamburgs letter, so at this time I am unsure how he arrived at the cost of $17,260.17 for improvements of Sandy Lake Road. Staff will be available to answer any questions concerning this issue at the City Council meeting. Ke v. 4 -24 -89 pORT DOCUMENTATION FOR AGENDA ITEM STAMP RECF.IVID BY CITY ~`.ANAGER'S OFFICE: SUPPORT DOCUI~NTATION SUBMITTED WITH AGENDA ITEM: MEMOS/LETTERS/REPORTS/BILLS/MI ES: CO` _F.?.CT/AGF.EEMEfiT .................. C.Z.P. CONTFcACT ...................... CHANGE ORDERS .... ................... ORDI:DANCE ...........................: CAPTION------------------------------ RESOLUTION ........................... PROCLAMATION ........................: BZL .................................. LOCATION MAPS .......................: ZONING PLANS ........................: PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLATS .............: SITE PLANS ..........................: LANDSCAPE PLANS .................. ... ARCHITECTiIRAL RENDERINGS ............: DATE PUBLISHED IN THE CITIZENS+ADVOCATE: NOTIFICATION T0: DATE/?iETHOD OF CONTACT: _ _ NOTES N0. OF ORIGINALS REQOIRED `_ 1~% ~~' L 3 originals for signature 6 originals for signature _ 3 originals for signature 1 blueback for signature + 3 copies 1 blueback for signature + 3 copies 2 bluebacks for signature + 1 copy 2 bluebacks for signature + I copy 1 each 12 12 12 12 12 12 '"~~ SP.EET.0588DS August 7, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager FROM Frank Trando, Deputy City Manager/ Finance Director SUBJECT Meeting with Frank Bamburg on August 6, 1992 The purpose of this memo is to inform you that I had a meeting with Mr. Frank Bamburg concerning the escrow agreement on Sand Point Estates to review the escrow agreement that we had verbally agreed upon, for him to have a chance to look at it and see if it was what he had remembered that we had agreed to. During the conversation he said that he did not have a problem with the escrow agreement, but there would not be a need for the agreement. This was because he was making a presentation to the Council concerning the street pro rata, and that if the Council denied him his request, he would immediately pay the fees under protest and at some point would file suit against the City to have these fees returned to him. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. /dkz '7 FRANC. BA1I~BURG '~ r ~. ,~. ' BUILDi{~IG COMPANY 743 Kings Lane ~~~~ CG' ~~, ~i k ~ _--~ -..., paSntn TPY~c 7~1 ~fi {214) 223-4261 ~a ~f,~,.~~ .~,~ a '.~ ~ .~ ~~~.~,. E214) 39~-488' "` ~: ";~ ~ 3 ~~~~,~~, July 27, 199'2 Mr. Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager City of Coppell P. Q. Box 478 ~ _ Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Request to appear before the City Council on August 11, 1.992, to dscus& fees assessed to Sand Point Estates Addition, Coppell, Teas. Dear Mr. Ratliff: I am enclosing, along with this request, a detailed letter outlining my contentions and proposals concerning these assessments. I will gladly get copies to all Councilmen and the Mayor_if you sti©;:k:Id. want me to. Otherwise, I will assume that ycsn will make copies ~va3lable = to the Mayor and the Councilmen in due time so that they will..~have hack time,.., to review them in detail prior to the August Tlth City Cour~~i~`~et~g~, ` F Sxncerel~',; q; ~~r /T 4 ~'rc1211C'-$318t7k1L'g /// ~ .. ~; FRANK BAMBURG BUILDING COMPANY {214) 223-4261 743 Kings Lane Desoto, Texas 75115 (214 ~3~88~, July 27, 1992 City of Coppell Mr. .Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager Honorable Mark Wolf, Mayor A1.I City Councilmen (7) P. ~~. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Sand Point Estates Road Assessment Gentlemen: In connection with your request for me to deposit the sum of $64,801.42 into a "road escrow" account with the City of Coppell for Sandy Lake Road, I ?~ereby submit to you the following: I first protest the assessment for the reason that no actual wank has 'aeen performed to improve Sandy Lake Road. It is my position that any assessment by the City cannot be made until such time as the actual improve- meats are made, and the actual amount of the assessment is determined. Additionally, the amount of $64,801.42 is to me an arbitrary figure. I further contend that any assessment on Sand Point Estates can only be fo,r an amount not to exceed any enhanced value to the property as improved. .Since Sand Point Estates has no direct outlet to Sandy Lake Road, it will gain nothing from any improvements. Due to the increased noise level it would, in fact, be an encumbrance to the adjoining lots. It is my contention that the City of Coppell has. already set a precedent as tc Sandy Lake Road assessments. This being the. fact that no road 1:mpr.ovement ~3s:~essments were made on the ad_~oining subdivision to the West of Sand Point Estates. In the process of platting Sand Paint Estates, City staff ad~YSeitt'~e it would be mandatory to dedicate a 25 foot strip of Tand along Sandy Lake Road for future Road improvements before any subdivision plat could b`e aeceptetl. It is my contention that an additional assessment for road improvements would be a double assessment, and that this requirement should be set aside-as an invalid assessment. Additionally, the fact that Sand .aoint Estates does not have a street L~at connects directly to Sandy Lake Road will mean a sa5.rings to the Gty of ~evera_s thousand dollars in impri}vements, since no left turn relief lane will ~.~ .-equired. (2) In regards to another matter concerning Sand .Point Estates, I am making a final request that the amount of $6,075.00 assessed and paid by me (under protest) be reimbursed to me. I have paid to Municipal Utility District No. 1 $15,140.00 to tie onto their line and the fee of $6,075.00 would be a double assessment. Without admitting that I am actually liable for any additional fees, other than those already paid, and in order to bring this entire matter to a final conclusion, I am offering to the City of Coppell, in addition to the ~5 foot strip of land along Sandy Lake Road that has already been dedicated and platted as per Sand Paint Estates final plat; the following: 1. Pay a one time fee of $17,260.17 for improvements to Sandy Lake Road. 2. The City of Coppell reimburse to me the amount of $6,075.00 previously paid, under protest, that was assessed for sewer availability. As a footnote, I would like to emphasize Che fact that upon initiation of this project, Mr. Tommy Cansler, Vice President, C. C. M. Engineering, Mr. Johnny Thompson, and myself sat with Mr. Gary L.. Sieb at a preliminary meeting and were advised, by him, that no road assessment would be charged along Sandy Lake Road due to the fact that it was a Bond project. I then had an informal meeting with Councilman Ron Roberts- concerning assessments along Sandy Lake Road, After conferring with City Manager, Alan Ratliff, his statement was that Mr. Ratliff advised that no assessments would be made against residential property. At another time, I asked for and was granted a meeting with Mayor Mark Wolf. His statements were, that to the best of his knowledge, no residential` property was to be assessed for road improvements along Sandy Lake Road:. Gentlemen, hopefully this matter can come to a negotiated settlement and at will nat he necessary to involve litigation. If any person (s} of authority should. care to discuss this matter, I would make myself available at any time. requested. You may contact me at (214) 223-4261. $ii~c~e~~t~y . ~Zr~ Frank Bamburg 17. tat Escrows for Adyacent Streets. When a proposed subdivision of land abuts on both sides of an existing substandard road according to the then existing current City of Coppell standards, the Developer shall be required to improve the existing road to bring the same to the City of - Coppell standards. Any reimbursement, if due, to the Developer by the City will be made when funds become available. 17 . t b I If the proposed subdivision is located along only one side of a substandard road, and when in the City Council's Sudgment, it is not feasible to reconstruct said :ubstandnrd road nt the time of development of said subdivision, th• City Council may permit the Developer to pay into escrow an amount equal to the Developer'c share of the cost of said improvements as a condition for the approval of the final plot of the subdivision. The amount of escrow shall bs as determined by a 'pro rain' charge ns prescribed by the Pro Rnta Ordinance of th• City and shall be _ payable prior to approval of plans by th• City -- Engineer. 1? . l c 1 Mhen funds have been provided and placed in escrow with the City of Coppell for the development of a Appendix A substandard road and the road is reconstructed by others at no cost to the City, the escrowed funds and accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to the Developer after completion and acceptance of the improvements. In the event that a~portion of the cost is borne by the City, the difference between the Developer's actual proportionate cost and the escrowed funds, including accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to the Developer after completion and acceptance of the improvements. 17. ldl Whenever under any of the provisions of this section, funds are required to be escrowed for the cost of future improvements to substandard roads, the form of such escrow shall be cash or its equivalent. 6,__Engineering_Design The engineering design of streets in the City of Coppell shall conform to the Geometric Design Standards for Thoroughfares. Appendix A 5 10. Alleys are required in all residential subdivisions. Alleys shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 15 feet. 11. Blocks should be platted to allow two tiers of lots. 12. Lots shall be so arranged that there will be no direct accass from residential lots to collectors and arterials. 13. All lots shall be ad3acent to a dedicated street to which access is allowed. Where a tract of land is subdivided into parcels that are larger than normal building lots, cuch parcels chall be arranged to permit the opening of future streets and a logical ultimate resubdivision. The proposed location of future streets shall be shown on the construction i~ plans. 14. Block lengths, generally, should not exceed 1,200 feet in length as measured from street centerlines. 15. Alleys, or loading courts, of a minimum width of 24 feet of paved surface or, in lieu thereof, adequate offstreet loading space shall be provided in business blocks. 16. In platting the subdivision, the Developer shall provide additional right-of-way rsquired for existing or future streets, utilities, or public works as shown in the City of Coppell Thoroughfare Plan, or other plan approved by the City Council. '-~'` Appends x A 3 " ~ ~.ew~so ~~1e. Z i q - 3~oc~ _ -- ___ _ - -_ ~~~s ._ . _ (-~,~ - Cvnni~ -~~tl _Ca-1I__m~--_ __ /L ~~ QOi,~ -~- . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~~~ c. - .1 m P r0 U e rYF2Yl i ? . _ - ~ ~ _ 7~7~t~ LJ4117" G~ (2Q l rrl i I - ~o Pao- _ l l~O~o ~}~ --_.U~u2 , _ ~~ . ~~rlroven~i7J'~S - ~~,~-tt,R~1 _ _ __ _ .BSc RO w _ _ h1 u,S _ _ (Y~.~ a2e S'~. ~ScROI~ C~~ . ~i22PS - Mtr(~2.v~ -~ !'AAQ-__ T'wZCOCR:~+~ . C~J-~--` ~c~S _ .r ~~`~-y -_WRi veS__~.r/e,eARQ~ __ ----- --- _ ~ro~.~c~- ~v2~oPek--c,~a~ yes-_ r~-~~_._____ _ _- --- - _ _ __ No ~hQn9~s __----~ _ _ _ _ - -- ------ g~ -l;c~tRRo~I~oN-- _ ~4tnlo-3c~ ___'::_~nc~~neeR~r~_.- ---~~~~ --(.cam-~h~ ---'-------- ----____-. --_ ---- - - - ---- - - G~~ l~,vQs _ov.Q..~~ _---------- ____ ------- -------- - ---- - - i vo --~~ ~~----- ` _ -------- -- .- . Nod-.__escRoW---- -~-------_.__-_ __----------- -- ' __.--- -- _ _ _- _--_~a~~ec~---- _ 2r~eR.U_ ~Q~__-~~e.------- ~-- - _- ------ - _ -- - .. - -- __ __ ~ti~ ~o~R.~s_~-~•e___`~--~.r~ f_ ------ ---- __-- ____ _ ~ ~. - -- _-.~-~ ~~-re~~ __1 s_ `no~ --~ ~M.`J mUQc~-=--~ ~--- o~C~~-i ~ar2S-_.- e~I_- - _ _ ~"`( . ---- _ _ - ---~ ~ - ~~ ~-~e ___.-.---------__._------=---..____-----------_-------.___.._ _._ '- --- _ _ C ~. ~o._`~.-es--w.~. _ -_ - - --- Nom- ~i~r~~-_. ~ /~'e~P~ ___ _ __--- __- --------:._----_ _ ~- 9 (a,~n~,es . ~~~eh - ~yiuN _ ~n/1i~ Q ~ 9 - as 98 ~~~.~~b~~ coy-~~-~~~„~ ~~~~„~ ~~a~SJ ~~~u<<~~ ~ ~ w~e-n inuo~ced LA,s4Q11~ lal~en CanS~c ~ioN is corn p ~2-~. __ ~~ec~ ~JRp~rs~ onl ... _ 1 ~~~~oFoR.D _ .9~a-aioo ~eoTr /~RRn~ 4~' _._ _ _ _ ~~Gta-~e.R ~o~s~-.,,~~ C~oc~ o~ escRoW ~i,~ncls ~o~, ~~-~ ~or~~ct~c~~, n-,en~- VY~~S+ b2 f~'1Qtle r~o~2 ~-o ~e. ~ S~ ~Juc Ic~1 ~. eRm~~- tsSUe~. _ C ~~., R~.~ ins , n~R~~~ ~+z ~~-~oQe~ ~, A ~ ves 7~eF~-~.N ~ ~ ~~~ w a tiv-es ~ue~~ ~G~% m~ ~-ge /,e. S~ ~ i~ e - ~ ~Glu dPS ~.c~~~ scctp r n~ , Q~C. 7. Approval of Minutes: July 22, 1992 July 28, 1992 Councilman Morton moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 1992 as submitted and July 28, 1992 with revisions. Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 and Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon, Councilmen Weaver, Thomas, Morton, Mayo, Robertson and Garrison voting in favor of the motion. 8. Citizens Appearances Al Godwin spoke about the section of Coppell Road from the intersection of Ruby and Plantation north to the intersection of Sandy Lake and Thweatt, right in front of the Wilson Elementary School. Children crossing the street to get to the bus will face certain dangers: the school has no school zone signs, no warning signs or restricted speed limit signs. He asked that sidewalks be installed for the children to safely get to the bus. Oscar Jones, 213 Park Meadow, Coppell, Texas, requested 10 more days to be granted concerning the dog barking incident. 9. Consideration of a resolution to reconsider the Council's resolution directing publication of notice of intention to issue Certificates of Obligation, Series 1992. Following discussion, Councilman Morton moved to reconsider this item, and Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon, Councilmen Weaver, Thomas, Morton, Mayo, Robertson, and Garrison in favor of the motion. Following further discussion of several motions, which died for lack of a second, Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon moved to leave the resolution as approved at the July 28, 1992 meeting. Councilman Robertson seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3 with Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon, Councilmen Morton, Robertson, and Garrison voting in favor of the motion, with Councilmen Weaver, Thomas, and Mayo voting against the motion. 10. Discussion and consideration for directing staff to prepare an- official statement, notice of sale, and negotiation and instructions for the issuance for refunding $8,495,000 of General Obligation Bonds. Frank Trando, Deputy City Manager/Finance Director, made a presentation to the Council and advised Council that by this refunding, Council will save the City approximately $411,000 in interest payments. Following further discussion, Councilman Morton moved to approve the preparation of the official statement, notice of sale, and negotiation and instructions for the issuance for refunding $8,495,000 of General Obligation Bonds. Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon and Councilmen Weaver, Thomas, Morton, Mayo, Robertson, and Garrison voting in favor of the motion. 11. Citizen's Appearance by Frank Bamburg to discuss fees assessed to Sand Point Estates Addition. Frank Bamburg, 743 Kings Lane, Desoto, Texas, protested the payment of the escrow amount. He did not believe the property should be assessed for anymore than it is enhanced, and he did not believe the road enhances the subdivision. However he plans to pay the required funds in order to continue development of the subdivision. Steve Lawton, 633 Raven, Coppell, Texas, objected to what he feels is an "assessment" to this property. CM081192 Page 2 of 7