Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2012 - Regular Minutes City Council MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION JULY 12, 2012 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry Council: Blanche Brick Jess Fields Karl Mooney Katy -Marie Lyles Julie Schultz Dave Ruesink City Staff: David Neeley, City Manager Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager Carla Robinson, City Attorney Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Regular Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 7:04 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request. Citizen Comments Gary Ives, 3943 Blue Jay Court, President of the Springbrook HOA, spoke on behalf of the board. He thanked the Council for the postponement of the Public Hearing about the Lick Creek Trail project. They wish to reconcile the conflicting viewpoints within the HOA before the Council considers this. The board found the proposal from the Concerned Springbrook Homeowners to be inadequate to protect the interests of the neighborhood and to be divisive. The board's response was to unanimously reject the settlement proposal. They believe the trail RM071212 Minutes Page 1 project proposed by the City to offer a greater overall benefit to all members of the association. L i Also, the board does not feel they can entrust the maintenance of the creek area to eleven lot owners. He provided to the Council a copy of the board's mailout to the membership. They are currently preparing their final report and anticipate delivering it prior to the sixty -day postponement. He stated the accusation border on the libelous and their basis for litigation to be frivolous. He expressed the board's commitment to be faithful to the mandate of the majority of the membership. Jerry Brown, 3802 Gold Finch Circle, reported that he has acted as a legal advisor to the Springbrook board. He came to refute the statement made by Brian Leschber at the June 28 meeting where he stated the board did not go into the mediation process in good faith. At the June 4 meeting, the 11 Concerned Homeowners group did not provide a written proposal and only gave a single settlement offer despite saying they had other ideas. The group wanted the board to accept an offer of $5,000 as fair compensation to give up a $1.1 million recreation trail. On June 25, the group submitted a written offer that only repeated what had been discussed three weeks prior. Also, they neglected to fully address the key issues identified by the board. The board responded on June 27, giving specific reasons why the offer was inadequate. To date, the group has not attempted to address the reasons the offer was rejected, nor has it submitted another proposal. Felix Munguia III, 1743 Purple Martin, chair of the Architecture Committee for Springbrook, stated there are only two facts: 1) countless hours of information have been provided to association members; and 2) the HOA membership voted for the nature trail, with 58.8% in favor. Marcy Halterman-Cox, 1807 Springbrook Estates, stated she was one of the group that sought to keep the HOA from giving away the property. The group has hired an attorney. They believe there are problems with the vote that violated state law. Additionally, the bylaws have two conflicting terms. One is to keep the creek natural, and secondly, the HOA has the authority to dispose of property as they deem necessary. CONSENT AGENDA 2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for: • June 28,20 12 Workshop • June 28, 2012 Regular Council Meeting 2b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on consideration of Ordinance 2012 -3424 amending Chapter 10, Section 2F, of the College Station Code of Ordinances regarding the Traffic Control Device Inventory, Schedule V (School Zones). 2c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the consideration of Ordinance 2012- 3425, amending Chapter 10, "Traffic Code," Section 2.0 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station changing the traffic control at the intersection of Southern Plantation and Newport from one -way stop controlled operation to three -way stop controlled. ilwr RM071212 Minutes Page 2 2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding ratification of Contract Amendment 2 to Contract 11 -350 between the City of College Station and Bryan Texas Utilities (BTU) extending the term of the contract to allow BTU to continue its temporary operation of College Station's electric transmission system until July 3 1, 2012. 2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Resolution 07- 12- 12 -2e, regarding the application and acceptance of an Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant. 2f. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding Resolution 07- 12- 12 -2f approving an Interlocal Agreement and resolution accepting from Texas A &M University the sum of $196,200 for providing Fire Protection to Easterwood Airport. 2g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 07- 12- 12 -2g, approving the construction contract (Contract 12 -240) with Kieschnick General Contractors in the amount of $899,122.00, for the construction of the Wolf Pen Creek Festival Area project (WP 0901). Marc Chaloupka, 7805 Stonewall, spoke on item 2g. He has been involved with the project for a number of years. The goal was to deal with drainage issues and to create a cultural area and draw visitors. The vision led to a master plan which had a list of top ten items. A festival site was one of those top ten items from the very beginning. He recommended Council approve this contract to complete what was put in place in 1987. No items were pulled for a separate vote. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Public Hearing, presentation and discussion to receive comments regarding the proposed amendments to the City Charter. At approximately 7:18 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. 2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2012- 3426, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning of approximately 1.2 acres from A -0 Agricultural Open with OV Corridor Overlay to C -1 General Commercial with OV Corridor Overlay located at 950 William D Fitch Parkway, generally located at the comer of William D Fitch Parkway and State Highway 6 South. RM071212 Minutes Page 3 C iw Councilmember Schultz recused herself. At approximately 7:23 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember Ruesink, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, with Councilmember Schultz having recused herself, to adopt Ordinance 2012 -3426, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning of approximately 1.2 acres from A -0 Agricultural Open with OV Corridor Overlay to C -1 General Commercial with OV Corridor Overlay located at 950 William D Fitch Parkway, generally located at the comer of William D Fitch Parkway and State Highway 6 South. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2012- 3427, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning approximately 7.547 acres located at 4080 State Highway 6 S, generally located south of the SecurCare Self Storage on the frontage road, from A -0 Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District. t ar Councilmember Schultz recused herself. At approximately 7:27 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. Joe Schultz, 2730 Longmire, asked the Council to approve the P &Z's recommendations. Kyle J. Incardona, 2301 E. 29 said Hillier Funeral Home has been around since 1918. They are ready to come into College Station. John Clark, 504 Crescent, stated it is a great project. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Ruesink, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, with Councilmember Schultz having recused herself, to adopt Ordinance 2012 -3427, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning approximately 7.547 acres located at 4080 State Highway 6 S, generally located south of the SecurCare Self Storage on the frontage road, from A -0 Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2012- 3428, approving a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 12, "Unified Development RM071212 Minutes Page 4 Ordinance ", Section 3.15, "Development Review Procedures, Conditional Use Permit ", of .• the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, for the property located at 1915 Dartmouth Street on 4.06 acres zoned Wolf Pen Creek to permit multi - family residential development on the ground floor. At approximately 7:32 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2012- 3428, approving a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 3.15, "Development Review Procedures, Conditional Use Permit ", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, for the property located at 1915 Dartmouth Street on 4.06 acres zoned Wolf Pen Creek to permit multi - family residential development on the ground floor. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2012- 3429, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 5.6 "Design Districts, B " Northgate Districts ", 2 "Additional Use Standards ", c "NG -3 Residential Northgate" and Section 5.7 "Design District Dimensional Standards" of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College Station, Texas. At approximately 7:35 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2012- 3429, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance ", Section 5.6 "Design Districts, B "Northgate Districts ", 2 "Additional Use Standards ", c "NG -3 Residential Northgate" and Section 5.7 "Design District Dimensional Standards" of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College Station, Texas. The motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2012- 3430, amending Chapter 7, Health and Sanitation, of the Code of Ordinances, adding a new Section 13 "Stormwater Protection" to regulate discharges into the City stormwater system and to provide for associated enforcement and penalties procedures; and Ordinance 2012 -3431, amending Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), of the Code of Ordinances renaming Article 7, General Development Standards, Section 7.8 as "Flood Hazard Protection" to be consistent with other Code provisions; adding a new Section 7.13 "Drainage and Stormwater Management" to regulate discharges into the stormwater system associated with construction or industrial activity; and adding a new Section 10.6 "Specific Enforcement and Penalties for Drainage and Stormwater Management" to regulate discharges into the City stormwater system. L RM071212 Minutes Page 5 At approximately 7:44 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Schultz and a second by Councilmember Brick, the City Council voted six (6) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields voting against, to adopt Ordinance 2012 -3430, amending Chapter 7, Health and Sanitation, of the Code of Ordinances, adding a new Section 13 "Stormwater Protection" to regulate discharges into the City stormwater system and to provide for associated enforcement and penalties procedures; and Ordinance 2012 -3431, amending Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), of the Code of Ordinances renaming Article 7, General Development Standards, Section 7.8 as "Flood Hazard Protection" to be consistent with other Code provisions; adding a new Section 7.13 "Drainage and Stormwater Management" to regulate discharges into the stormwater system associated with construction or industrial activity; and adding a new Section 10.6 "Specific Enforcement and Penalties for Drainage and Stormwater Management" to regulate discharges into the City stormwater system. The motion carried. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of a Contract for Sale of Real Estate, for the sale of real property located at North Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818), to Ashraf Lakhani in the amount of $211,000.00. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve a Contract for Sale of Real Estate, for the sale of real property located at North Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818), to Ashraf Lakhani in the amount of $211,000.00. The motion carried unanimously. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on regarding appointments to the following Boards and Commissions: • B /CS Library Committee • Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board • Construction Board of Adjustments • Design Review Board • Historic Preservation Committee • Landmark Commission • Parks & Recreation Board • Planning & Zoning Commission • Zoning Board of Adjustments MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the names as read by the City Secretary. The motion carried unanimously. • B /CS Library Committee: Don Hellriegel; Diane Rektorik • Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board: Jean Gould (F); Philip Lasley (D) • Construction Board of Adjustments: Regular members: Marc Chaloupka; Oran Mikael; c oy Arthur Pinto. Alternates: Johnny Burns; Rene Ramirez RM071212 Minutes Page 6 • Design Review Board: Hunter Goodwin (B); Don Hellriegel (A) • Historic Preservation Committee: Kelly Bunch; E.E. Burns; Patricia Cleere; Joel Mitchell; Libby Vastano. Linda Harvell was named Chair. • Landmark Commission: Linda Harvell; Gail MacMillan; Robert McGeachin • Parks & Recreation Board: Sherry Ellison; Louis Hodges; David Ohendalski; Debe Shafer • Planning & Zoning Commission: Craig Hall; Bo Miles; Jodi Warner • Zoning Board of Adjustments: Regular members: Jim Davis; Hunter Goodwin; Marsha Sanford. Alternates: Gary Erwin; Scott Simpson. Hunter Goodwin was named Chair. 9. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the citizen appointment to the Research Valley Partnership Board of Directors. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Tedi Ellison to the Research Valley Partnership Board of Directors. The motion carried unanimously. 10. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a City of College Station Councilmember to be appointed to the CEOC Policy Advisory Board. Mayor Berry expressed her desire to serve on the CEOS Policy Advisory Board. Council consensus was to appoint her. 11. Adjournment. MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 8:48 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, 2012. v Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: ? Sherry Ma burn, City Secretary s glar RM071212 Minutes Page 7 AFFIDAVIT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS I, EGA 1 A P Q '� > as a member of the City of 0, e,5 4" C o e. i \ make this affidavit and hereby, on oath, state the following: I, and /or a person or persons related to me, have a substantial interest in a business entity that would be peculiarly affected by a vote or decision of the City 45c • 9.03 as those terms are defined in Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code. The business entity is: 5 c . A L, . z E YNcy rv2ca..r; in I U.L (have/has) a substantial interest in this business entity for the following reasons: (Check all that are applicable.) Ti own 10% or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity; n 1 own either 10% or more or $5,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity; ❑ Funds received by me from the business entity exceed 10% of my gross income for the previous year; n Real property is involved and (I /we) have an equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of $2,500 or more; ❑ A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or property that would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member. Upon the filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on any decision involving this business entity and from any further participation on this matter whatsoever. Signed this 1 day of tj,/ , 20 12 411, i , % I , t .k►.aY.Py's� FAYE SCOTT Sig .ture of Official 4 ?` I Notary Public. State of Texas ■ 4 *' = ' My Commission Expires i C%-4 R/ 2 D WV\C .► AQ�,,�. i OCTOBER 4, 2014 t Title BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared + , who after being by me duly sworn and on his oath dep i t4'f___ ed and says that hat e has ready the above and foregoing and that every statement contained therein is with his/her personal knowledge and is true and correct. , fl, ,Y - tt Notary Public, S '. to of Texas .-+ ) B. D. GRIFFIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 2040 N. Loop 336 W., Commonwealth Centre, Suite 314, Conroe, Texas 77304 Telephone: 936 -539 -6936 / 281- 367 -2393 / 936 -441 -1671 Metro Metro Fax: 936 -441 -9088 www.grifrelaw.com B. D. Griffm Attorney at Law Betty Hernandez Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization Legal Assistant In Commercial Real Estate Law & Residential Real Estate Law May 21, 2012 via email to garv- w- ives @tamu.edu and via certified mail, return receipt requested Gary W. Ives, President Springbrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. P.O. Box 9337 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Concerned Springbrook Homeowners /Lick Creek Springbrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. ( "Springbrook HOA') Dear Mr. Ives: I represent several homeowners in the Springbrook subdivision(s) in College Station, Texas concerning the Springbrook HOA's plans to divest the HOA and the homeowners of the Lick Creek common areas and/or allow the City of College Station to construct hike and bike trails and other public recreational facilities along Lick Creek in the Springbrook subdivisions. I know that there has been prior litigation in the Justice Court and several meetings and civic hearings on this matter. As you are aware, my clients would be the ones most affected by the proposed transaction; and in my clients' opinion, adversely affected. As a last resort prior to the initiation of litigation, my clients propose a settlement conference with the Springbrook HOA representatives and its counsel, a representative group of my clients with my attendance, and representatives of the City of College Station (the "City "). As my clients feel that time is of the essence considering the announced proposal, it would be beneficial to have the settlement conference soon. The proposed meeting could be scheduled less hastily, however, if the Springbrook HOA would agree that it would take no further steps toward transferring the Lick Creek areas to the City until a reasonable time after the proposed meeting with my clients and me. If I do not receive a positive response to this letter upon your receipt, my clients intend to proceed quickly with the litigation against the Springbrook HOA and/or the City as they feel they must in order to protect their property rights and the values of their homes. Letter to Gary W. Ives May 21, 2012 Page 2 Please contact me to discuss this matter. If the Springbrook HOA is represented by an attorney on this matter, please have the HOA's attorney contact me. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, B. D. G'" BDG/ cc: Patrick N. Smith, Esq. Ramsey & Murray, P.C. 1500 City West Blvd., Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77042 via facsimile to 713 613 5414 Marcy Halterman -Cox ring Homeowner's Association May 22, 2012 B.D. Griffm, Attorney at Law, P.C. 2040 N. Loop 336 W. Commonwealth Centre, Suite 314 Conroe, TX 77304 Dear Mr. Griffin, I am in receipt of your letter dated May 21, 2012, and am writing in reply on behalf of the Board of the SpringBrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. As you may know, the College Station City Council has its regular meeting this coming Thursday evening, May 24, 2012. On the agenda is a public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the Lick Creek Trail Project. (See page 3 of the agenda at http: / /agenda.cstx.gov /2012/C ity %20Counci l %20Regul ar%20Meet ing %20Agenda %20Packet %2020 1 2 - 05 -24 %2019- 00.pdf.) At that meeting, we will be representing the mandate of a majority of our membership in support of a conditional dedication of our portion of the Lick Creek drainage area to the City for the purpose of building the trail. Simultaneously, then and throughout the process to follow, we will be advocating on behalf of those homeowners who may be adversely affected on the issues of privacy, safety and security, flooding, and the preservation of our greenbelt as a natural area. This has been our commitment from the beginning of this process: to be faithful to the wishes of the majority of our membership as determined by a quorum -based vote, while also advocating for those who may be most directly affected. As to your request to hold a settlement conference, we will take this request under advisement until we have had an opportunity to tender your letter to the Board's insurer so it can assign an attorney to represent the Board —while it may be Patrick Smith, there is no guarantee he will receive the assignment. As soon as the Board has counseled with its attorney, you will receive a response to your request. Your clients' claim that time is of the essence is somewhat specious given the lawsuit in small claims court was dismissed on May 1st. I hope they will grant the Board the courtesy of retaining counsel and allowing time for consultation prior to demanding a commitment. Be regards, G Ives, sident -.,--1---L " SpringBrook Homeowner's Association, Inc PO Box 9337 College Station, TX 77842 Home: 3943 Blue Jay Court College Station, TX 77845 979 - 690 -7870 Proposal from Concerned Springbrook Property Owners to Springbrook Homeowners Association, Inc. June 25, 2012 PROPOSAL FROM CONCERNED SPRINGBROOK PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP The following is a proposal from the Concerned Springbrook Property Owners group ( "CSPO ") for the purchase and transfer of the Lick Creek Common Area ( "LCCA ") from the Springbrook Homeowners Association, Inc ( "SHOA "). Outline/Synopsis The major components and points of the proposal are as follows: 1. Purchase of the Lick Creek Common Area ( "LCCA ") for the sum of Five Thousand and no /100 ($5,000.00) dollars in cash or cash equivalent (cashiers checks). COMMENT: This allows the SHOA to receive value and consideration for the transfer of the LCCA which it will not receive under the proposal to donate the LCCA to the City. It also reimburses the approximate cost of last year's maintenance expenditures on Lick Creek. 2. Formation of an additional but separate (from SHOA) non - profit corporation to own and control the LCCA (for purposes of discussion to be called Lick Creek POA). COMMENT: The Lick Creek POA will be subject to the laws and restrictions regarding non - profits and property owners associations. Property owners in the subdivision whose lots adjoin Lick Creek will have the opportunity to "opt in" and become involved in the management of the LCCA but will not and cannot be forced to join the new POA. 3. Imposition of restrictive covenants upon the LCCA in the transfer from the SHOA and the creation of access rights for current and future members of SHOA. COMMENT: The use of restrictive covenants prevents the group from selling the property for some commercial use or use that would change the character of the property. 4. All current and future owners of property in the Springbrook subdivision(s) (SHOA members) will have equivalent access to the LCCA as currently exists. COMMENT: This can be accomplished in one or a combination of several ways. The current SHOA members would see little or no change in their use and access. The positive change for the non -creek backing owners would be that their SHOA dues would • not be subject to including the cost of maintaining and insuring the LCCA which could result in a reduction of the SHOA assessments 5. Release of SHOA and all officers, directors, agents and related parties and individuals from any and all claims previously asserted or that could have been asserted regarding the LCCA. COMMENT: This resolves any potential litigation and saves the SHOA costs and potential risks. Additional points and material terms A. It is the intention of the CSPO to leave the LCCA in as natural state as possible. B. Acceptance of the proposal means that he SHOA members would have their neighbors in control of the LCCA and not the City of College Station. It would not be a "public" park or property rightfully accessed by the general public at large. Being private property, access could be restricted, but the City police jurisdiction and protection and other municipal services would still extend to the LCCA. Do the members really want a public access trail with the potential/probability of non - residents using it at their whim for whatever purposes (legal and illegal) that they desire? C. Should the SHOA Board decide to make the decision subject to a member vote, the CSPO must have input on the ballot, the communication to the members, the means of tabulating the vote, etc... We suggest that if the proposal is placed before the members for a vote, then the parties jointly prepare the ballots, notices, minimum quorum or votes needed for decision, etc... and agree on some "ground rules" for communicating the proposal to the members. Conclusion While we believe that this proposal addresses the expressed and anticipated concerns of the SHOA and its members, the CSPO welcomes the opportunity to address any additional Proposal from Concerned Springbrook Property Owners page - 2 - concerns, comments, suggestions or counter - proposals. As the SHOA knows, the fate of the Lick Creek Common Area is of utmost important to the CSPO. The CSPO, however, feels that the proposal set forth above serves the best interests of the members of the SHOA as well as protects the property rights and expectations of the owners of property adjoining Lick Creek. Proposal from Concerned Springbrook Property Owners page - 3 - RAMSEY & MURRAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 CITYWEST, SUITE 1000 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042 -2354 (713) 013-5400 FAX: (713) 013-5414 June 27, 2012 psmith @ ramseyandmurray. com writer's direct: (713) 361 -2806 Via e-mail: bdg @consolidated.net Mr. B.D. Griffin Attorney At Law 2040 N. Loop 335 W. Commonwealth Centre, Suite 314 Conroe, Texas 77304 Re: Concerned Springbrook Homeowners /Lick Creek Springbrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. Dear Mr. Griffin: Please accept this response to your clients' June 25 settlement proposal. The board has considered the proposal in light of what is in the best interest of the entire association membership. The board has unanimously rejected the settlement proposal. The basis for its decision is two -fold. First, the trail project proposed by the city offers a greater overall benefit to all members of the association. Second, the board cannot entrust the maintenance of the creek area to 11 lot owners when historically all 196 lot owners have had a difficult time adequately maintaining the creek area. Of course, the board will continue to work with all members of the association, and your clients in particular, to ensure the trail project proceeds in a way that is most beneficial to the entire neighborhood. I look forward to visiting with you again soon. Until then, I remain, Very truly yours, RAMSEY & MURRAY, P.C. Patrick N. Smith cc: Gary Ives Noel Bauman Jerry Brown ( Proposal from Concerned Springbrook Property Owners to Springbrook Homeowners Association, Inc. June 25, 2012 PROPOSAL FROM CONCERNED SPRINGBROOK PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP The following is a proposal from the Concerned Springbrook Property Owners group ( "CSPO ") for the purchase and transfer of the Lick Creek Common Area ( "LCCA ") from the Springbrook Homeowners Association, Inc ( "SHOA "), Outline/Synopsis The major components and points of the proposal are as follows: 1. Purchase of the Lick Creek Common Area ("LCCA") for the suns of Five Thousand and no /100 ($5,000.00) dollars in cash or cash equivalent (cashiers checks). COMMENT: This allows the SHOA to receive value and consideration for the transfer of the LCCA which it will not receive under the proposal to donate the LCCA to the City. It also reimburses the approximate cost of last year's maintenance expenditures on Lick Creek. 2. Formation of an additional but separate (from SHOA) non - profit corporation to own and control the LCCA (for purposes of discussion to be called Lick Creek POA). COMMENT: The Lick Creek POA will be subject to the laws and restrictions regarding non - profits and property owners associations. Property owners in the subdivision whose lots adjoin Lick Creek will have the opportunity to "opt in" and become involved in the management of the LCCA but will not and cannot be forced to join the new POA. 3. Imposition of restrictive covenants upon the LCCA in the transfer from the SHOA and the creation of access rights for current and future members of SHOA. COMMENT: The use of restrictive covenants prevents the group from selling the property for some commercial use or use that would change the character of the property. 4. All current and future owners of property in the Springbrook subdivision(s) (SHOA members) will have equivalent access to the LCCA as currently exists. COMMENT: This can be accomplished in one or a combination of several ways. The current SHOA members would see little or no change in their use and access. The positive change for the non -creek backing owners would be that their SHOA dues would • not be subject to including the cost of maintaining and insuring the LCCA which could result in a reduction of the SHOA assessments 5. Release of SHOA and all officers, directors, agents and related parties and individuals from any and all claims previously asserted or that could have been asserted regarding the LCCA. COMMENT: This resolves any potential litigation and saves the SHOA costs and potential risks. Additional points and material terms A. It is the intention of the CSPO to leave the LCCA in as natural state as possible. B. Acceptance of the proposal means that he SHOA members would have their neighbors in control of the LCCA and not the City of College Station. It would not be a "public" park or property rightfully accessed by the general public at large. Being private property, access could be restricted, but the City police jurisdiction and protection and other municipal services would still extend to the LCCA. Do the members really want a public access trail with the potential /probability of non - residents using it at their whim for whatever purposes (legal and illegal) that they desire? C. Should the SHOA Board decide to make the decision subject to a member vote, the CSPO must have input on the ballot, the communication to the members, the means of tabulating the vote, etc... We suggest that if the proposal is placed before the members for a vote, then the parties jointly prepare the ballots, notices, minimum quorum or votes needed for decision, etc... and agree on some "ground rules" for communicating the proposal to the members. Conclusion While we believe that this proposal addresses the expressed and anticipated concerns of the SHOA and its members, the CSPO welcomes the opportunity to address any additional Proposal_ from Concerned Springbrook Property Owners page - 2 - concerns, comments, suggestions or counter - proposals. As the SHOA knows, the fate of the Lick Creek Common Area is of utmost important to the CSPO. The CSPO, however, feels that the proposal set forth above serves the best interests of the members of the SHOA as well as protects the property rights and expectations of the owners of property adjoining Lick Creek. Proposal from Concerned Springhrook Property Owners page - 3 - . RAMSEY & MURRAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 CITYWEST, SUITE 1000 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042 -2354 (713)513 -SAGO FAX: (713)!13 -5414 June 27, 2012 psmith@ramsevandmurray.com writer's direct: (713) 361 -2806 Via e-mail: bdR @consolidated.net Mr. B.D. Griffin Attorney At Law 2040 N. Loop 335 W. Commonwealth Centre, Suite 314 Conroe, Texas 77304 Re: Concerned Springbrook Homeowners /Lick Creek Springbrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. Dear Mr. Griffin: Please accept this response to your clients' June 25 settlement proposal. The board has considered the proposal in light of what is in the best interest of the entire association membership. The board has unanimously rejected the settlement proposal. The basis for its decision is two -fold. First, the trail project proposed by the city offers a greater overall benefit to all members of the association. Second, the board cannot entrust the maintenance of the creek area to 11 lot owners when historically all 196 lot owners have had a difficult time adequately maintaining the creek area. Of course, the board will continue to work with all members of the association, and your clients in particular, to ensure the trail project proceeds in a way that is most beneficial to the entire neighborhood. I look forward to visiting with you again soon. Until then, I remain, Very truly yours, RAMSEY & MURRAY, P.C. Patrick N. Smith cc: Gary Ives Noel Bauman Jerry Brown ( (