Loading...
Christ Church/FP-CS 901216 December 16, 1990 ,, , ' ~~ Mike Arthur, M. D. Coppell Church of Christ 728 S. Coppell Rd. Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Services City of Coppell Dear Sir: I am writing to you for your consideration of the impact fees being assessed against the Coppell Church of Christ. While I esteem the concern the city has for the future of Coppell and the resultant necessary tariffs that often must be imposed, I must respectfully ask that you reconsider the amounts levied against the church. First, the interest the city officials have shown in trying to maintain a well-rounded and goal-oriented plan for the growth of our city is well known. Therefore, it seems the exorbitant fees being required of the church are incompatible with that view. Churches are well recognized as being community oriented and sta- bilizing within a populace. Things seen in this perspective are gen,erally ~encouraged in their development by visionary cities like Coppell~. The newly approved fee schedules certainly cannot be described as encouraging. Although there are many churches to b~i:,~fo..~d, in town, only the smallest percentage of them currently own i~n8 or a permanent place of worship. The fees currently being_, quoted are assuredly not going to aid churches to find roots in Coppell. While these charges may be fair and proper for a ~.s!ness run for profit or one not particularly interested in the,,~elfare of the town, I submit that they are neither fair nor proper for churches since they inhibit and discourage their estab/-ishment. Secgndly, it seems as though these charges are very tariff-like. While the word "tax" is one that has been avoided in connection with these assessments, that is in essence what many of them represent. Churches, as you are well aware, are exempt from taxation. Why is that? It is so that their growth will not be stifled. These charges are decidedly stifling. Thirdly, a portion of these charges is regarded as "impact fees." It is especially distressing that we should be burdened with these charges since we will not be making any new impact on the city. We already own property and a bulldinE in town and have used it for years. We are simply movlnE from one location to another and therefore are not oreatlnE any "impact" on the City. For the reasons outlined above I am askinE that you reconsider the dollar amounts imposed on the Coppell Church of Christ as it seeks to construct a new bulldinE more in keepinE with the .style and Erowth of Coppell. In view of the fact that this is the first time that a church has been considered with respect to the new assessments, a precedent will be set with whatever decision the city makes. I encouraEe the city and its promoters to do the wisest thine available to them in this situation. I believe that declslon is one that will not be constrictlnE or suppressive to churches in our community. Therefore, I humbly request that these surcharEes not be levied aEalnst the Coppell Church of Christ. Sincerely, ~lke arthur, ~. D. cC: Mayor Wolfe Councilman Cowman Councilman Morton Councilman Nelson Councilman Robertson Councilman Smotherman Councilman Thomas Councilman Weaver Mr. Ratliff Mr. Goram