Sand Point-AG 920811 (2) II
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
~ crr~ com~cn. ~-wrmG A~ il, iOgZ
~ ~.k 'J~'~'~9 - ' ~ '-:~- :'~ :':. :.-e. ~-~- :J.~ ·
ITEM CAPTION:
Citi[en's A~mce b~ ~k ~b~ to ~ fees ~~ to ~-~ ~o~t ~tates
>.o-~ ,.~ ':[- .... '~- ~ '-~' ~ ~'~ '~'~ ~;~ .... ~. ~.t ~_. ..... ~ ,, ~ ~ .~.~.. ~ . .~.~ ...... .:> ...-.zr ./
· .~ ~..~ - ~-.:~ ~ ~.~: . - -..~ I '-¥'-'- ', --
. - .... ~ ......... ~. ~-. ,.~J.
~~ ~: ~ ~F ~.: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
~~~e) City Engineer
OTHER
EVAI.UATION OF ITEM: DA~: A,~,,~t 5.
On July 16, 1992, I met ~ Fr~k B~burg concerning ~e ~crow for S~d Point Es~tes.
Dudn~ ~e meeting ~ ~. B~bur~, I told him ~e ~o~t of ~e e~row due ~d
· scussed ~ him ~e Ci~ of Coppell escrow polio. (A copy of ~at ~crow poli~ is aRached
to ~is agenda repo,.) ~e ~li~ is fo~d in ~e Subdivision Ordin~ce of ~e Ci~ of Coppell
(Ordin~ce No. 341) ~ adopted on October 9, 1985. ~e po~on of~e ~crow poli~ ~at
discussed ~ ~. B~burg w~ Section 1A-17-b of Appendix A, entitled "Specific
Requiremen~ ~d De~ C~te~a" of the Ci~ of Coppeli Subdi~sion Or~n~ce. ~at section
~ates ~at ~en it's not legible to reenact a sub~d~d ro~ at ~e time of ~e development
of ~e subdivision, ~e developer may pay into ~crow ~ ~o~t equ~ to ~e developer's shoe
of ~e co~ of ~d improvement. ~e escrow ~o~t is dete~in~ by a pro rata ch~ge. ~e
pro ram ch~ge is ~e developer's cost of what it would co~ to reenact ~e road. Escrow is
a requirement of subdividing ~e l~d ~d is required to be p~d p~or
subdi~sion. At ~e ~uly 16~ meefin~ I expl~ned ~is to ~. B~burg ~d printed him'~
~pies of ~e section of ~e ordin~ce that de~s ~ escrow for adjac~t ~ee~.
Recently, ~. B~bur8 h~ ~en a le,er to ~e Ci~ of Coppeil ~nceming ~e ~crow for ~d
Point Estates. ~. B~burg's le,er t~ks specific~ly ~out ~men~ for S~d Point E~tes
~ opposed ~ ~crow or pro r~ At ~is ~in~ ~e dis~nc6on ~en ~zow ~d'~m~
(CO~D ON PA~ 2)
'AMT +/- BUDGET F[N~C~ ~~
COMMENTS:
LEGAL REVIEW BY: REVIEWED BY CM:
AGENDA it~QUL~T ~ ~
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 Coppeli Thoroughfare
Plan during the subdivision of the [and, as noted in Appendix A, Specific Requirements and
Design Criteria of the City of Coppell's Subdivision Ordinance, Section l-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 $22:5.00 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 Coppoll reimburse him $6,0'/5.00. There
were no calculations provided with Mr. Bamburg's letter, so at this time I am unsure how he
arrived at the cost of $1'/,260.17 for improvements of Sandy Lake Road.
Staff will be available to answer any questions concerning this issue at the City Council meeting.
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
FRANK BAMBURG K. .--_- '
BUILDING COMpANy . ~'
. i~-:~ ~'~ ~ ,m,:- ~ ..... DeSoto, Texas 75115
Mr. Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager . -.
City of Coppell : ...~ :.'
P O. Box 478 "'"
-5~-
. - ... ~.. '/...,.~.
.
Coppell, Texas 75019 .--. . ...... . . .'.".
Re: Request to appear before the City Council on ~gust 11, 1992,'to discuss .... '~'
fees assessed to Sand Point Esta-tes Addition; Coppell, Text.? '. .... - ........ :~'
;_~./.-. ~'...: -...>......-,-<.-~
.... ,.... ..
Dear Mr. Ratlzff: t: -. '.-~ '.. '.. '-'..-/' -...':';.;¢~,
..."'. . · ~ ':. .~ , ...;~ .... ,..k~:.
. ...... ~. .-'.;.:~....'-.~., :>.~,.~, ..-.j~;
I am enclosing, along with this request,.a'detaited l~tter...~tlining.'!: .?-.; -..:~:~
. :. (,_-- .-...-
. ' ' · '. - -'- .... "--~ '- ; ' -~-'" ' · " - '-j"~ . ~ .... -" , -. '~ "~'~:~.~':~' '.'2 '"-;%.~...'
- .. . . -.~..~ . .: ~ ~..,. .- · ~TS~,~ .,.~ ~ .... ,, -~..,~..~
.... .... : -....~.-. .... : ~~ · . ....~
.,_-. ,..- .....- . -...
. · :'.-: ~.~ -:'}-.. ~..: .
..: ,}'"~ .-
--~ . .-'>,~.. ~
. .'7: . '¢.-?'
FRANK BAMBURG· .... .
' i".e?_ -
· : ..';.
BUILDING COMPANY .':. .....-...-
743 Kings Lane . '
DeSoto, Texas 75115 . · -, .-...:~{.
(214) 223-4261 (214) 393-0889,
Jul>' 27, 1992
City of Coppell
Mr. Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
Honorable Mark Wolf, Mayor .
All City Councilmen (7)
P. O. 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 Coppel.1 for Sandy Lake Road,
I hereby submit to you the following:
I first protest the assessment for the re.ascm-tha~.no actual work .fins .:
been performed to improve Sandy Lake Road. It is' ~y position that: any
assessment by the City cannot be made until such t~e-as the actual."' ~mProve-"-- -. .{:-.
ments are made, and the actual amount of the a~sessme~t is determined,'"'- ..: · .-.
· ..., ._'- :..-'-' .
Additionally, the amount of $64,801.42 'is to-me:~n ar~i~ra, ry.i"f'~gU~e-. ,.-:-...'..' .. ~'::-'
I further contend that any assessment .on Sand Poin~':~Es~&t~s :c'an' ~..be.'::fOr:~ ~ .' '.'-:' .- -'-:'
Sand Point Estates has no direct outlet' to Sa~d~"~a~e,.~ad., it'"~fll~'~'.+-~' '.-.:~2.c,' .'. ......... '
. ..-..'-- ....... .: .... ..-.:. . .~ ......'.':'~..-.:-';~'..~ ..:~e,::.._.-..:~.¢~,~-
be
Additionally, the fact that Sand Point· Es~ateS-'does' ~ot h~.af~e~J~;?"~ ..' .?.-
several thousand dollars ~n ~prove~ents, s~ne~'no left 'turn~-r~e~%~n~
In regards Co another matter concerning Sand Point Estates, I am making
a f~na~ request chac the ~mounc o~ ~6,075.00 assessed and pa~d by me (under
protest) be reimbursed Co me. ~ have pa~d Co Mun~c~pa~ Ot~l~ty D~str~ct ~o.
~15,~h0.00 to C~e ouCo their l~ne and the ~ee o~ ~6,075.00 ~ou~d be ~ 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
25 foot strip of land along Sandy Lake Road that has already been dedicated
and platted as per Sand Point 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 Coppeil reimburse to me the amount of $6,075.00 previously
paid, under protest, that was assessed for sewer availability.
As a footnote, I would like to emphasize the fact that upon initiation
of this project, Mr. To~y Cansler, Vice President, C, C. M. Engineering,
Mr. Johnny Thompson, and myself sat with Mr'. Gary- L.. Steb at a preliminary
meeting and were advised, by him, that no ro~ asmessment wo~ld be charged
along Sandy Lake Road due to the fact that it. wms a-'.Bo~ project.
I then had an infor~l meeting with .C~n~il~ :~n. ~berta concerting
assessments along Sandy Lake Road. After con~erring-'wit~ City ~mager,. ~'.
Ratliff, his statement was that Mr. Ratliff advised, that'no'_a~ents would' ..'- . .--:-~:'
be made against residential property. .: - -'-. : '- ....
At another time, I asked for and was granted: a'meett~g~with~:~yor Mark-':.~''~. '. ~:'~:"/
Wolf. His statements were, that to the bes~' of.)hi~:. ~ieage, :~3res~iden~iL~i..~ ' ~' i?'".
property was to be assessed for road .improve~:.along"~Sa~ ~a~:~5~..-: -?..';: ' .. ~._.
Gentlemen, hopefully this ~tter can co~ .~o)a'.-negd~.~t~d' ~a~tI~emt-a~a ': "' -' ' '"'.
If any person (s) of authoritY shoul~ '~ar~:~-'dis~s~. thi~.'~tter, I' -- . :.
~?. {al Esc=ous fo= Ad)acent
~hen a p=oposed subdivision of ]and abuts on both
s~des of an ex~$t~ng substandard toad according to
the ~hen ex~sttng current City o¢ Coppel! ~tand~ds,
the Develope~ 5ha~l be zequized to lmpzove the
existing zood to b~tng the same to the City of
'~ Coppe]! standards. Any ~eimbuzsement, if due, to the
Deve]ope~ by the City v[]] be mode when funds become
]f the p~oposed subdivision is located along only one
side of a substandard =amd, and ~hen in the City
Council's ~udgment, it ts not feasible to =econst~uct
~ said substandard ~oad at the time of development of
said subdivision, the City Council may pemit the
Deve]ope~ to pay into esc=ow on ~mount equal to the
Developer's sha=e of the cost of sold
a condition fo~ the approval of the Cirri plot of the
subdivision. ~he ~ount of e~c~o~ ~hall
detemined by o "p=o ~to" cha=ge as p=e~c~lbed by
the P~o Rote O~dl~nce of the City and ~hall be
_ payable p~lo~ to approval of p]an~ by the City
Enginee~.
~hen funds hove been p~ovided and
vith the City of Coppel] [o~ the develo~nt
~ ~pendlx I
substandard ~oad and ~he ~oad ~s ~econst~uc~ed by
oLhe=s at no cost to the City, the escrowed funds and
acc=ued Jnte=est, ~f any, shall be =efunded to the
Dave]ope= alta= comp]etlon and acceptance of the
improvements. In the event that a'po=tJon of the
cost Js bo=ne by the City, the dSffe~ence between the
Deve]ope='s actual p=opo=t~onate cost and the
ese=owed funds, Lnc]ud~ng acc=ued lnte=est, tf any,
sha]! be =efunded to the Dave]ope= afte~ completion
and acceptance o¢ the tmp=ovements.
17. Id}
Wheneve= unde~ any of the p=ovisJons of this section,
funds a=e =equ~=ed to be ese=owed ¢o= the cost of
futu=e ~mp~ovemenLs to substandard =oads, the fo~m of
such ese=ow shall be cash o~ its equivalent.
The engtnee=~ng design of mt=eats ~n the C~ty of Coppe]]
she]] confom to the
~ho~oughfo=es.
Appendix A 5
~0. Alleys a~e ~equt~ed in all ~estdenttal subdivisions.
Alleys shall have a minimum eight-of-way width of 15
feet.
11. Blocks should be platted to allow two tie=s of lots.
12. Lots shall be so arranged that the~e will be no
direct access from residential lots to collectors and
arterials.
13. All lots shall be ad)acent to a dedicated street to
which access is allowed. Where a tract of land is
subdivided into parcels that a~e la~ge~ than no~-mol
building lots, such parcels shall be a~anged to
permit the opening of future streets and a logical
ultimate resubdtvJsion. The pEoposed location of
future streets shall be shown on the construction
plans.
Block lengths, generally, should not exceed
feet in length as meosu=ed f=om st=est cents=lines.
15. Alleys, o= loading courts, of a minimum width of
feet of paved surface o=, in lieu the=eof, adequate
offst=eet loading space shall be p=ovided in business
blocks.
]n platting the subdivision, the Develops= sho]l
p=ovtde additional =lght-of-~ay =equ~=ed fo=
V
o= futu=e st=eels, utilities, o= pub]Sc ~=ks
shown Ln the City of Coppe]] Tho=oughfa=e Plan,
o~he= plan ~p=oved by the CLty
Council.
Appendix A 3
............................ /~?~ ~o~ ~Se ~,~
.- ~ ....~ .......... . ._
....................................
.................. ~--~ ' . .... :. ...................
..................................................................................
................... ~ ..... ..~ .... ~ ..........................
............ C~¢-l ~.-a.,o~ _.bo.~a~t~~ ..................................... : ...........................
........ ~~ .... t~,,~.__~,~ ~ .................................
........................... .~.o._0_~~:_ .................................................
.... ~) ~~ o,~ ....... 4~-~8 ....... ~.~,~,~ ...... ;U~. Z~sree ..........
.................. No{-.__ e_~c a ~,_,~..._ ;~_x.o_.~ ...............................................................
.. eo~/~ ..... t**,~?_~?~- ..... F.~ .........................................
i.'":.-'.".'-'_. ~m. ¢~----~~-a--®°--~a~ws---~-~-/*'*/.,..~x'~/
........... C,¼ -,~.~_ ~,,___.,.,,,.~,-~ ....................
............... '~-'~ %¥~-v..~ ~_,~ob._~.m ~rc~_4_:.:.;, r~_.. ~o~e~:_._O-~~ ......
.............. Ao_.~_ o-~- ~ ~~-: ..... -~o~ .~-,..,-,,~J.-.--~.. o~~
............ va ~&,. _. ~ ~.k-~ ~_' ........................................................
................. q~ ~o._,,~_,~__~,c~ .....................................
........-"",~,,._,.~.,::,,o~,~ _. ~,~__.9.&,.,..,,a ..........................
........... d~ ~<,~,~" .... -'-~',~-, ~.- .......................... . ....