Vistas of C 1stP-CS 960418SENT BY:HUGHE$&LUCE, L,L,P, ; 4-18-98 ;11:1§AM ; COPY CENTER~ 21A 304 35?0;# 2
HUGHES & LUCE,
Suite 2800
Texas 75201
214/~39-~465
VIA FACSIMILE 965-0010
ApHl18,1996
Other Of~lce~
Fort We,rrb
Pete Smith
Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Haggar & Smith, L.L.P.
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N. Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Development Agreements for Drainage, Sewer, and Water Improvements
Dem' Pete;
I have reviewed your proposed revisions to the various development agreements.
Attached are redlined documents reflecting the changes I have made. I did not, however, make
the following changes:
a) I did not make the quitclaim deed subject to matters of record that are
"satisfactory to the City." Title is what it is. Moreover, as a practical matter, I
don't know how to determine all "matters of record" so that the City could make a
determination of what is satisfactory.
b) I kept the language in paragraph 4 which provides that the City will not
assess a drainage fee against any "successor owner or owners" of the Benefited
Property. They should be entitled to the same benefit.
c) I did not provide that upon Vista's assignment of the "Credits" there
would be a "separate" express waiver "satisfactory to the City." The assignment
process should be simple and not subject to other conditions "satisfactory to the
City."
d) I did not make the City's $10,000 payment subject to the City's
"satisfactory acceptance" of the drainage improvements. When the quitclaim
07095.0207:0158277,01
~.I~,~§Y:HU~HE$&LUCE, L,L,P, ; 4-18-96 ;ll:I?AM ; ¢0PY.{~J~.NTER~ 214 304 3570;~ 3
,-.-..,,
HuoI- .$ & LUCE,
April 18, 1996
Page 2
deed is delivered, Vista will have fulfilled its obligations. In addition, it has
always been Visa's understanding that thc payment would be made immediately.
2. Sanitary ,Sewer A_~xeem~nt:
a) I did not make the quitclaim deed subject to mat~ers of record that are
"satisfactory to the Cit~" (for the same reasons discussed above).
b) I did not provide for a "separate" express waiver "satisfactory to the City"
(for the same reasons discussed above).
3. Water A_~r{~ment:
a) I did not mak~ the quitclaim deed subject to matlers of record that are
"satisfactory to the Ci~j" (for the same reasons discussed above).
b) I did not provide for a "separate" express waiver "satisfactory'to the CRy"
(for the same reasons discussed above).
c) I did not add the provision requirin~ Vista to provide evidence that the
State of Texas claims no right, rifle or interest in and to ~ waterline. Vista will
continue to work with the CRy and TXDOT, as reasonably required; however, a
quit claim by the state should not be part of the agreement.
Dennis is out of the office mos~ of the morning, ~erefore, I have not discussed lt~ese
issues with him in deiail. Consequently, he may have additional questions' or comments. I
expect to talk to him around 1:00 p.m. this afternoon. Please call me this morning (or page me at
344-0983) as soon as possible. I understand we are trying to finaliz~ all three agreements and
prepare exectnion copies by the end of the day.
Very truly yours,
Dwight A. Shupe
07095.0207i01 $g277.01
SENT §Y:HU~HE$&LUCE, L, L, P, ;
HUGHES & LUCE, ~,.~,.~,.
4-18-g8 ;11:1?AM ;
COPY,j~NTER~
214 304 35?0;# 4
April 18, 1996
Page 3
DAS/m
Enclosures
cc: Ken Griffin (via facsimile 304-3570 w/encl.)
Dennis Winzeler (via facsimile 360-1507 w/encl.)
07093.0207:01 ~$277.01