Loading...
TR9303-CS 930405 NICHOLS, JACKSON, KIRK & DILLARD, L.L.P. LAWRENCE w. JACKSON Attorneys & Counselors at Law JOHN F. ROEHM III TIM KIRK 1800 Lincoln Plaza CHRISTINA A. MELTON ROBERT L. DILLARD III 500 North Akard PETER (3. SMITH Dallas, Texas 75201 DAVID m. BERMAN (214) 954-3333 H. LOUIS NICHOLS BRUCE A. STOCK^RD Facsimile (214) 954-3884 oF COUNSEL April 5, 1993 Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin FACSIMILE TO 393-0948 City Engineer City of Coppell P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Proposed Perimeter Facility Agreement Dear Ken: Pursuant to your request, the undersigned reviewed the proposed Perimeter Facility Agreement and provide the following opinion. It is our opinion that the proposed Perimeter Facility Agreement is unenforceable since it seeks to indirectly collect the substandard roadway fees prohibited by Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. First, the preamble of the proposed Agreement improperly attempts to make the construction of the proposed improvement a prerequisite to the approval of the plat. As we previously advised, the City should not withhold the plat for filing until the substandard roadway fees are paid. There is simply no consideration for the Agreement since the City may not require the owner to construct the improvements or pay the substandard roadway fees, and thus the recital that the developer is relieved of the responsibility of the immediate construction is of no legal effect. More importantly, agreeing to construct the road or to pay the City a sum of money equal to the proposed construction cost is the same as the assessment of an impact fee, which the City may not lawfully require, since the substandard roadway fee ordinance is not in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Delaying the requirement until the roadway is improved does not in any way lessen the illegality of the collection of the substandard roadway fee. Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin April 5, 1993 Page 2 In summary we do not recommend the City use the proposed Perimeter Facility Agreement since it is not supported by consideration and seeks to indirectly impose an unlawful impact fee. If you have any questions in this regard please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, NICHOLS, JACKSON, KIRK & DILLARD PGS\mts AGGO3E18