Coppell Church-AG 910312 (2)~ Request of Copwn C~m~ of ~ to waive watew impact fees iu the ~motmt
of $6~600.00, *M sewew impact fees M the ~,~eamt of SZ,110.00, fc~ a new Church b~l~bo~ bekg coB-
OTHER I~P.:
DATE:
structed at 111 Samuel Boulevard.
SUBMFI'rKD BY:
At the January 22 Council meeting, City Council discussed the issue of waiviag development fees.
It was the cc~sens~ of the Council to set a g~neral policy of not waivi~ fees. In deliberation regardi~
thl. issue, however, Council stated that it would Consider, oo a case-by-case basis any request fc~
fee waiver initiated by a potential development in the City. The attached letter from the C~ppell
C'nurch of C~ist is the first of these requests.
AMT +/- BUDGET FINANCIAL REVIE~V BY -r~ ~
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION FOR AGENDA ITEM
I. Item # 16
City Council Aaenda Qated: 3/12/91
II.
Comments/Recommendation:
We concur with the recommendation of the City Council Finance
Committee and believe that waiver of these impact fees is not
in the best interest of the city and is not consistent with
heretofore established practices. In the past, only street
assessment fees have been waived. Our opinion is that this
is, in effect, a donation of City funds to a specific
religious sect or church. If you determine that you want to
do this, we reco~umend the City Council establish a policy
which can be applied equally and uniformly. We would
recommend denial of this request.
Coppell ///U~-..~ '199t
Church of Christ
728 South Coppell Road
Coppell, Texas 75019
February 5, 1991
City Council
City of Coppell
Coppell, Texas
Dear Sirs:
In a recent City Council meeting a report on waiving fees was considered. While
establishing a general policy against waiving fees, It was suggested that the church
submit a special request to the city council if we desired Impact fees connected with
our building project to be waived.
We request that the council dismiss all Impact fees for both water and sewer. We
make no request for waMng Inspections fees, water tap fees, or street light fees. We
offer the following arguments for your consideration.
The Coppell Church of Christ is a tax exempt Institution. Unlike Inspection fees,
water tap fees, and utility service, no service or commodity Is provided In exchange
for the Impact fees. These fees are city taxes to provide for flJture development. This
was explained by a member of the council In public meeting. Therefore, as a tax
exempt church, we ask to be exempt from this tax assessment as we are from all
city, state, county, and federal taxes.
PrecederR for dismissing esesesments for churches was cited by a member of the city
council during discussion In council meeting. It was stated that the city has not and
does not collect street assessment agalnat churches. The First Baptist Church was
cited as an example. The Impact assessment is a different assessment, but It
demonstrates that the city recognizes the exceptional status of a church in regard to
such assessments. The same reasons for dismissing street assessment argue for
dismissing Impact fees.
The Impact fees for the Thacker company have been waived. This sets precedent that
impact fees can under seine circumstances be waived. It seemed to be understood by
council members that some kind of Incentive would regularly be offered to such
companies. Whether the Incentive Is In waiving Impact fees or In abating taxes,
ordinary assessments are not collected. It seems that public esrvices provided by a
church In the community should be es great an incentive for waMng Impact fees as
attracting new business.
Unlike precedent for waiving fees In commercial situations, waMng Impact fees for a
church has s very limited precedent application. There are about ten churches In
Coppell w~thout church buildings. Assuming that all of them eventually construct a
building In Coppell, waiving Impact fees for the Coppell Church of Christ cannot
Influence more than these ten situations. If other churches have the same Impact fees,
the total precedent consideration could never total more than $87,000. It would be
expected that this total waiving of fees would be scattered over several years. The
city would be little Influenced by waiving these fees; churches trying to build in a
very expensive environment would be significantly Influenced by having to pay them.
Precedent for waMng fees for commercial companies has unlimited implica~ons in
both number of appllcetions and in amount of money Involved.
Fur~ermore, Coppell Church of Christ Is not impacting the system. The church has
been In this community for 35 ysara, and for many years has bccn fled into the city
utility system. No addItional demands will be made on the city utility system. When
the new building is completed, the old building will be moved away, and that service
permanently dlecontlnued. The church Is simply changing the location of Its utility
service.
Joe Fitch
DATE:
To=
From=
COPPELL PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
October 16, 1990
File/Church of Christ -
Samuel Boulevard
Public Works Staff
Wastewater Impact Fee
1 1/2" Domestic Meter =
Total ESU's TM
Coppell Church of Christ Development Fees
Water Im act Fee ($660/ESU~ ~ ~ ~00
1 1/2" Domestic Meter = 5 ESU's P
1 1/2" Irrigation Meter = 5 ESU's
Total ESU's = 10
10 ESU's @ $6.60 each $6,600.00
($422/ESU) ' ~/~'~
5
5
5 ESU's @ $422 each
Water Tap Fee (Inspection)
2 Taps @ $100 each
- Inspection Fee -
(2% X Estimated Contract Cost)
$2,110.00
$200.00
To be determined prior to
pre-construction meeting
- Street and Signs $292.60.
Street Light Assessment
The following assessment is l)eing made in accordance with· the
City of Coppell. Subdivision Ordinance Appendix A Chapter VI,
D. The following figures were supplied by T.P. & L. for
estimating this assessment.
$292.60 per-light for'every 200 feet of roadway.
You ar~ being assessed for /~) ft. of roadway, which totals
to[ light~.
$292.60 x [ lights
*Be}ore lights a're,installed contact Public Works
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works or Per Birdsall,
to have ligbting plan approved.
Street Foreman
PUBLIC WORK~
MEMOP~%NDUM
Maroh 19, 1991
To: eputy city Manager w°t
based on Council
following:
provided me from City staff and
direction of March 12, 1991, I recommend the
- Reimburse Water Impact Fees of $3.300.00
- Reimburse Wastewater Impact Fees of $2.110.00
Reimburse cost differential of 1 1/2" to 1" irrigation and
domestic meters in the amount of $182.80
Construction permit fee ($100.00) has not been paid.
Therefore, the total reimbursement should reflect $100.00 less
than the above three figures.
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT: $5.492.80
I have attempted to contact Mr. Joe Fitch concerning the
reimbursement, but have been unable to reach him today. Last week,
I spoke with him and indicated the reimbursement would probably be
provided Friday of this week.
If you would like my assistance in helping you bring forward the
necessary agreement with the Municipal Utilities District
concerning Wastewater Impact Fees, please let me know. I think I
can help you expedite this matter.
SGG/sm
cc: Larry Davis, Construction Inspector
Howard Pafford, Water Superintendent
Councilman Weaver moved to approve authorizing Ginn & Case, Inc. to provide a design
engineering, contract administration and construction review services for branches I and II of
the Grapevine Creek Sewer Trunk Main. Councilman Nelson seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4-3 with Councilmen Weaver, Cowman, Robertson and Nelson voting in favor of the
motion and Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon and Councilmen Thomas and Morton voting against
the motion.
Item 15
Consideration of authorizing Ginn & Case, Inc., to provide professional services
in the amount not to exceed $12,500.00 to re-evaluate the Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees.
Councilman Weaver moved to approve Ginn & Case, Inc. to provide professional services in
the amount not to exceed $12,500 to re-evaiuate the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
Councilman Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3 with Councilman Weaver,
Cowman, Robertson and Nelson voting in favor of the motion and Mayor Pro Tern Smothermon
and Councilmen Thomas and Morton voting against the motion.
Item 16
Request of Coppell Church of Christ to waive water impact fees in the amount
of $6,600.00 and sewer impact fees in the amount of $2,110.00 for a new Church
building being constructed at 111 Samuel Boulevard.
Joe Fitch of 732 S. Coppoll Road, the applicant, made the presentation to the Council. Council
pointed out that the $2,110 sewer impact fee is a fee which falls under the MUD (Municipal
Utility District); therefore, it would not be requested that this fee be paid at this time. It was
pointed out, however, that these fees have already been paid to the City. Council pointed out
the $6,600 is for a 1 1/2~ line, with most other churches having a 1" line. The l~ line charge
is $3,300. There was some discossion about the church having the contractor change the line
back to a 1" line. Mayor Pro Tern Smothermon stated that other churches which have come on
line in the past have paid the impact for water and sewer services. Mayor Pro Tern Smothermon
moved that the City of Coppell reimburse the Coppell Church of Christ the amount of $2,110.
which it has already paid because the City does not at this point in time have a right to charge
that fee and that the City is in no way waiving the right of the MUD if they so desire to assess
that fee, further that the City Staff refund $3,300 of the water impact fee, providing that a way
is found to reduce the size of service meter to 1~ rather than I I/2% Councilman Morton
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1, with Mayo~ Pro Tern Smothermon and
Councilmen Weaver, Thomas, Morton, Robertson and Nelson voting in favor of the motion and
Councilman Cowman voting against the motion.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
Item 5-ES A.
Article 6252-17, Section 2(e) and Senate Concurrent Resolution Number
83, discussion with City Attorney concerning matter involving privileged
communications between attorney and client.
The Council conveued into Executive Session at 8:47 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 1991 as
allowed under the above stated articles. Mayor Wolfe adjourned the Executive Session and
opeued the Regular Session at 9:06 p.m.
REG LAR I (Open to the Public)
Item 17 PUBLIC HEARING: To review the Texas Waste Management Franchise