Villages C P3&4-CS 940713 LEONARD HURT TERRY & BLINN SUITE 128o
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 816 CONGRESS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 18701
ATTORNEYS AT LAW (512) 477-716i
SUITE 700 TELECOPY {SI2) ~76-i676
2OOI BRYAN TOWE~
DALLAS, TEXAS T5201-309~ 1221 McKi N NEY
(214) 954-6300 HOUSTON~ TEXAS
(7~3) 650-3900
TELECOPY {7~3) 650-36~9
SUITE II75
July 13, 1994 {~o~}~.-~oo
TELECOPY (202) 296-79~7
VIA FACSIMILE, 393-0948
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
City of Coppell
o.
Coppe11, Te×as 75019
RE: Grand Homes, Inc.
Dear Mr Griffin:
I was retained in ~9~2 by Grand Homes, Inc. to review the
situation re~ardin~ various impact fees related to the developments
in Villages of Coppell IIIA~ IIIB~ and I~. My records indicate
that the City was contemplating assessin~ certain fees at that time
and was withholdin~ building pe~its because the City believed that
the fees may have been owed by the developer in these subdivisions.
I discussed this issue with your City Attorney, Larry ~ackson, and
it was agreed that the City was studyin~ the situation and would
not hold up the building pe~its as they related to these issues.
M~ c%ient &~ee~ to meet wiLh the City to ~tte~t to ceso%ve Lhe
potential dispute when the City had completed its review.
My interpretation of your letter to
1994, is that you believe that the review has been completed, and
you are prepared to discuss the issues with my client. However, as
we stated durin~ the last discussions, we are not prepared to
discuss these issues with a "~un to our head" re~ardin~ the
issuance of additional buildin~ pe~its. This is not my client's
historical relationship with the City, nor do I suspect it is the
relationship either side desires.
In fact, I suspect that your ~uly 5, 1994, letter is intended
to simply re-open discussion to seek an ~icable resolution.
Therefore I would first request confi~ation that the letter is not
a final decision within the meanin~ of Section 1.15 of Ordinance
July 13, 1994
Page 2
No. 915331. If it is such a decision, this letter is an appeal of
that decision, since we do not want to miss the 30-day deadline for
an appeal and my client will need to make arrangements to obtain
permits in a timely manner.
Obviously, my client only desire to appeal if your letter is
a final decision. Assuming that the issues remain open for
discussion, I suggest that we agree upon a time line for
discussion. I recall that about a year and a half ago there
appeared to be some confusion in the City records as to the amount
of fees paid for these developments and the uses of the proceeds
from these fees. This confusion needs to be cleared up for the
benefit of both parties.
Also, was there ever a formal agreement between the MUD and
the City regarding impact fees? As you know, MUD taxes have been
assessed on my client's property for many years. These taxes paid
for the various MUD facilities obtained by the City. Has the City
calculated a credit to the impact fees related to the value of the
facilities obtained from the MUD? If not, we need to discuss the
appropriate credit.
I would appreciate your review of the City records to answer the
questions I have posed. My client will also review its records,
and perhaps the information can be exchanged within the next two
weeks. Following that exchange, I would suggest a meeting to see
if a prompt resolution or, at least, a framing of issues can be
obtained.
In the meantime, I suggest that we resolve the issue of
permits. My client is willing to support any reasonable schedule
suggested by the City, so long as the permits are issued as they
have historically been. Your willingness to continue issuing the
permits will help the progression toward a logical conclusion.
I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to
Larry Jackson as he was involved in the matter in 1992, and I look
forward to hearing from the City or Mr. Jackson as soon as possible
regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
JWH/be
cc: Lawrence W. Jackson (via facsimile 954-3334)
Ed Toole (via facsimile 750-6849)