HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgendas I
jab i/J/14
eAKrivr
1V5 March 23, 2006
l"
/�,e S Workshop Agenda Item #
�b '
61aReview of Annexation Policy
f '
To: Glenn Brown, Interim City Manager
From: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding annexation
policies of the City of College Station.
Recommendation(s): The Annexation Team recommends that the City Council consider
Summary: The most recent City initiated annexation took place in 2002. In 2004, 6.8 acres
were annexed by petition of two property owners. The City Council adopted
Budget & Financial Summary: Not applicable at this time; however, a fiscal impact
analysis would be made for any area(s) subject to annexation proceedings or included in an
amendment to the City's Annexation Plan.
Attachments:
1.
September 2, 2003 • Annexation 2004 A-Team mtg.
Petition - Turkey Creek (FEB area) about 8 acres (9-23 CC mtg.)
1 . Exempt areas
• HW30 - 470 ac. / 79 properties
• Turkey Creek (FEB) - 110 ac. / 13 properties
• Sweetwater - 100 ac. / 35 properties
• South Oaks - 125 ac. / 34 properties
• Speedway - 880 ac. / 35 properties
• Harvey (small area) - 22 ac. / 9 properties
2. Non-exempt areas (have to amend the plan to annex in 3 years)
• Harvey Hillsides (larger area) - 280 ac. / 82 properties
• Woodlake - 425 ac. / 151 properties
• Nantucket - 495 ac. / 204 properties
3. CCN areas:
4. Current Land Uses:
5. Land Use Plan shows:
• FEtB - working on one now
• Harvey area - not included in current comp plan - will be doing t-fare
update next fiscal year.
• SH30 area - not included in current comp plan - will be included in t-
fare update
• Speedway area - Rural densities with commercial at the intersection
• Remaining areas are developed at rural residential densities
6. Service Impacts
Fire
• Insufficient hydrant distribution and water pressures will cause SOP to
be modified. Rely on mutual aid with volunteer depts. Will negatively
affect ISO rating.
• Wildland fire fighting will have to rely on mutual aid agreements.
• Response times not affected by addition of FEtB, Harvey areas or South
Oaks. Other areas will require additional substation to maintain service
levels. (total costs - 4,350,000). (New station already in long range plan
but this may push it up)
Police
• Last annexation was absorbed w/o additional personnel/equipment due
to being sparsely populated, low number of road miles and commercial
HoustonChronicle.com - Houston growing with use of municipal utility districts Page 1 of 4
HoustonChronicle.com
F Y
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com I Section: Local & State
June 14, 2004, 2:30AM
Houston growing with use of MUDs
City, utility districts gain from agreements
By RON NISSIMOV
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Since Houston's acrimonious annexation of Kingwood in 1996, the city has ANNEXATIONS VS.
pursued a gentler approach to expanding its borders. PARTNERSHIPS
It doesn't bringthe cityas much land or revenue as the annexations byCreated by the Legislature in 1995,
strategic partnerships differ from standard
which Houston gobbled up unincorporated areas and grew for most of its annexations in several ways:
history.
•The city can annex any municipal utility
district within its extraterritorial
But the new form of annexation -- "strategic partnership agreements" -- has jurisdiction without the MUD's consent,
become so popular that surrounding communities are now asking the city to all termstofea trategic partnershipr a to
annex part of their territories, something inconceivable just a few years ago. either case,though, the MUD must be
within the city's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, which extends five miles
The partnerships work, officials say, because the city and adjacent beyond the city's borders.
unincorporated areas receive additional money without the usual costs of
annexation. The city does not have to provide services such as water, fire or •The city must annex an entire MUD, and
police, while the suburban residents are typically guaranteed that they will Act srtecqoumpmly ewnittsh tedteael VaontnineaRtigohnts
not be annexed for at least 30 years. does not dilute minority voting rights.This
has not been an issue in the partnerships
because the city has deliberately annexed
But customers of retail businesses affected have to pay additional sales tax. only commercial areas.
And some regional planning advocates argue that the agreements may
benefit small areas to the detriment of wider interests. •The city must provide basic services to
annexed areas. Because strategic
partnerships generate less revenue, the
Under the agreements, the city annexes only commercial strips within city is not required to provide services
with the partnership territories.
municipal utility districts (MUDs), quasi-governmental entities entrusted
with providing water and sewer services in unincorporated areas. The city RESOURCES
then adds its 1-cent sales tax to the 7.25-cent tax already levied by other . Graphic: Houston Area Annexation
entities, and the new revenue is split evenly between the city and the MUD
that entered into the agreement.
MUDs do not have the authority to impose sales taxes, so the extra money is helping some lower property taxes,
build recreational facilities or improve security.
"It's a win-win situation for both the city and MUDs," said Merry Leonard, executive director of the Association
of Water Board Directors-Texas, a nonprofit group representing MUDs and other water districts.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/2625502 6/14/2004
HoustonChronicle.com - Houston growing with use of municipal utility districts Page 2 of 4
, Although residents of a MUD do not vote directly on a strategic partnership agreement, it must be approved by
the MUD's elected board.
After a tentative start with the formation of three partnerships in 2000 and 2001, the level of cooperation
between the city and local MUDs has mushroomed.
Twenty more partnerships were formed in 2002, and 29 in 2003. On Wednesday, City Council will be asked to
approve 14 more agreements, which would bring the total to 66.
There are several hundred eligible MUDs, creating the potential for many more agreements.
"It's evolved from us making the initial contact to the point that I'm now getting calls every week from a MUD
that's interested in this," said Margaret Wallace, senior staff analyst for the city's planning and development
department.
Under the partnership agreements, MUDs continue collecting the property tax from both the annexed and
unannexed portions.
In the last two years, the city earned $3.5 million annually from the partnerships, Wallace, said, but that amount
is projected to increase to $9.1 million this fiscal year, which ends June 30. This would be about 3 percent of
the city's projected 2004 sales tax revenue of$346 million.
Depending on the number and types of retail stores within their borders, MUDs earn $2,500 to more than
$100,000 a month from the partnerships, said Mark W. Brooks, a lawyer who has represented about 10 MUDs
that have formed partnerships with the city.
Brooks said Fry Road MUD, which has formed a partnership with the city and has a busy retail strip along
Interstate 10, plans to build a hiking and biking trial with its additional revenue, as well as hire more deputies to
patrol its neighborhoods and stores.
Tim Austin, a partner with the law firm of Allen, Boone and Humphries that specializes in representing MUDs,
said some MUDs are considering lowering property taxes by as much as 50 percent because of the extra money
they are receiving from the agreements. He declined to name these MUDs, saying he did not want to put undue
pressure on their elected directors.
According to the Texas Comptroller's Office, Houston by far has the largest number of agreements. Only three
other cities have formed partnerships. Pearland has three, and Austin and Galveston each have one.
Some officials worry that the increasing use of partnerships will hamper efforts to promote regional approaches
to development outside the city.
For example, the Cy-Fair Houston Chamber of Commerce last year attempted to create an improvement district
in the northwest Harris County area that would have increased sales taxes by one percent. Soon after voters
overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, the city increased the sales tax in many of the commercial areas anyway
by forming strategic partnerships with various MUDs.
"We would like to see a more regional approach to the area to deal with mobility, beautification and flooding
issues," said Darcy Mingoia, president of the Cy-Fair Houston Chamber of Commerce.
Wallace and Robert Litke, director of Houston's planning and development department, said the city pursued a
hands-off policy in the region until after the November election. They said MUDs from the area approached the
city to form the partnerships.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/2625502 6/14/2004
HoustonChronicle.com - Houston growing with use of municipal utility districts Page 3 of 4
Some business owners said they were confused about what tax rate they were supposed to charge because
officials had not properly notified them.
Stephanie Karimaghaei said she and her husband were shocked to receive a tax bill at the end of 2002 asking
them to pay an 8.25 percent tax rate for their Fry Road pizza shop.
"We had to pay $12,000 out of pocket," she said. "We had to take a second mortgage on our house to pay the
taxes."
Just north of I-10 and and east of Fry Road, one large retailer charges a 7.25 percent sales tax rate, while the
other stores in the same strip center charge 8.25 percent.
Wallace and Litke said all business in that area should be charging the higher rate. Officials of the retailer
charging the lower tax did not return a Chronicle call.
An official with the state comptroller's office said all business in affected areas are notified in writing.
Largely because of the outcry generated by the Kingwood annexation, the state Legislature in 1999 made it
tougher for Houston to annex. Although the city retained authority to annex areas without the consent of
residents within the annexation, the new restrictions -- such as a three-year notification period and arbitration to
resolve disputes --made the partnership alternative more attractive. The Legislature created strategic
partnerships in 1995.
Wallace said most partnership agreements are for 30 years. She said at the end of that period,the city can
consider annexing the entire MUD and collect property taxes, renegotiate another strategic partnership or
simply "walk away" from the MUD.
Some Kingwood residents asked the city to form a partnership rather than annex the north Houston subdivision.
Then-Mayor Bob Lanier balked because partnership negotiations would have forced the city to wait at least two
years before annexing.
Mayor Lee Brown opted to pursue strategic partnerships rather than risk angering more suburban residents
through forced annexations. The only areas the city has fully annexed since Kingwood are small developments
in which the developers requested full annexation, Wallace said.
Mayor Bill White has no plans to fully annex any areas unless developers and residents request annexation,
Litke said.
But some residents of nearby MUDs are not convinced, and therefore are drawn to the partnerships, which at a
minimum postpone full annexation.
Austin said MUD residents may resist full annexation because they often pay lower property taxes than city
residents and may pay less for water. Some also feel a sense of community and don't want to become part of the
larger city.
Hearing Care
STANDARD SHOES r:
Center WAREHOUSE " ' `sem
'STATE
FHE ARS SCE GE f a:�_ , Mutual Inc.®
HEARING WHEW
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/2625502 6/14/2004
HoustonChronicle.com - Houston growing with use of municipal utility districts Page 4 of 4
HoustonChronicle.com_--http//wwwHoustonChronicle.com I Section: Local & State
This article is http://www chro n com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan'2625502
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/2625502 6/14/2004
250000000000000000
co 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 — 0 0 0
Un Z O O O O O O O O O CO O U CO CO O
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~• c T T T >, >, T >, >, T T >, >, >, >+ >,
0000000005O .0000 -6
0 °
c " .
E E E E a
Q- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 'C .0 01
• o W OL L L .0 L .0 L U - c 'CO 'a D
75 OO0000OCoU) U) o
a)
O 0_ co
O t-
o
o _0 a)
Z L . L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Q T
CL) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 as >.
• CD a) () (I) a) a) (1) a) a) (1) a) (1) (1) a) a) a) = o.
> 0 W W 0 0 CO W W W 0 W W W W W 0 o 0
CO < O
N CO N O O O CO 6 I"- O CO N 6 't O) O CO
d N CO N CO CO GD N 6) O 4 N o) O O O CO
CS)CO d M 00 1: O Eri O N (Ni in U) '- 0D O O O
N CO 6 N 00 O N 4 CO N N N O N- 0) CO O
- 1- CO .- .- c- "C". 1".. N e- N'' 1... ''
U N
Q
a)
Z
1� (o0) co000Orn Oaoo) M N.
Y C N N r- LO 0 6) M M O O Q) O
O O CO CO N- 4 O 6 00 6 0> CO CO CO N CO 6L)
d — N L N N �- N 1- r CO N CO N
V V o r N
7 o C
O• � to 0
a) a)
C Q
Co .,- 1- It) CO O O CD O = O O O 01 N N 3 U
CD CO O CO O CO CO O O O O O O O M O 00 O >
7o +� r4orio000o (. 006466 a)
ca Cl) N O) O) .c-- u) CO CO CO N 6) 00 -Op
'0Wv = m 03
3 ca Q O
D Q t co
.,- r
O) d- N CO O O <t O O CO 6) O CO M
U) O N CO CO CO O O CO O) N O N CO N O 0)
'N
U N V' N <-- N 4 GD O 6) O O O) 6) O O e-
A a)co 00 N 4 Co up co GD O O co MCO N CO
N 6 N N ,- .- e-- CO N CO v-
a a IN
0
47,0-
,_
o a)T
_a c E Y
Q a) o- o
C N O
o ❑- a) o c
0pU aa) U
co
Z1 > 0 , c c- co ca=
C1) a`) is0 cp O0 as o E
01 C o 0_ 03 0- 0 .-'a) 03 ate)
Cr) r -c
a) _ o O U7 0 _ E a o
0 o O N0 >,U � /) > c .a) LL
> (YO
a� 0 0 c > J
c a) .c 0, L - a) p o c n. a) N
E Q o C _c 3 0 >,ij o f — Q
�— H
0 c a) E Qin -oaO oD aICD �, 5O
U/) < Cl_ HOW > W CO H W 00 * # --) * I-
� \ moo'
Agenda
Long Range Planning Meeting
3 May 2005
1. Discuss planning group performance measures
2. Discuss Comprehensive Plan SLA and overall process for staff involvement
3. Discuss P&Z Plan of Work implementation
4. Discuss Wellborn Corridor Plan time line / scope
5. Discuss Annexation Plan SLA and overall process for staff involvement
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING SERVICES
Description&Budget Explanation:
The Planning Services function is multifaceted, responsible for maintaining, monitoring and implementing the City's Comprehensive
Plan, as well as having project management functions for the thorough and efficient review of platting,zoning and other development
cases.
FY 04 FY 05 FY 06
Actual Proposed Proposed
Budget Summary $446,761 $466,020
Position Summary 5.5 7 9
Program Name: Planning
Service Level: Provide thorough and efficient review of zoning,development proposals,and project review.
Performance Measures: FY 04 FY 05 FY 06
Actual Proposed Proposed
Effectiveness
• Percent of development plans reviewed within five(5)working days. 94% 90% 90%
• Percent of staff participating in professional training. 95% 90% 100%
• Percent of pre-application conferences(PACs)held within ten(10)working days of 92% 90% 90%
request.
Efficiency
• Development cases processed per planner 104 80 48
• Pre-application meetings conducted per planner 32 50 30
• Staff reports/coversheets prepared per planner 36 50 30
• Number of projects supported per planner 1.7 1.6
• Plans/studies/updates completed per planner 2.5 2.4
Output
• Development cases processed per year 312 300
• Staff reports/coversheets prepared per year 224 125
• Pre-application conference held per year 134 140
• Board,Commission and other committee meetings held 89 65
• Number of plans/studies/updates completed
• Educational outreach per staff member 16 12 2.4
Input
• Number of staff. 6 5 9*
• Professional training seminars attended. 2 6 9
*9 reflects Planning Manager,TF,KF,LBB,JP,JR,MH and two additional staff planner positions
FY 06 Service Level Adjustment
Increased Service Level X City Rank:
Decreased Service Level Department Rank:
Maintenance of Service Level Division Rank:
Department&Division: 4360-571 Request Total: $150,000.00
Activity Center: 41-90 Less Savings:
Prepared By: Lance Simms Net Effect on Budget: $150,000.00
Proposed Project or Program
Retain the services of a consulting firm to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Our current Comprehensive
Plan was adopted in 1997 and has been revised several times via small area plans, neighborhood interest
plans and comprehensive plan amendments. Given the time that has lapsed since the adoption of the plan,
the number of interim changes undertaken, and the sustained rate of development, staff believes it is time for
a major"tune-up"of the plan. A renewed comprehensive planning exercise would place the City in a position
to address several local and regional issues such as annexation policies,water/wastewater extensions, ETJ
development, and redevelopment trends.
Council Vision Statement Addressed
Planning &Development-We will promote a well-planned community.
Impact Service Level
Current Service Level: Proposed Service Level:
Impact on Performance Indicators
Current Performance Indicator: Proposed Performance Indicator:
Detailed Explanation of Costs and Savings
Consulting firm fee to perform Comprehensive Plan update-$150,000.00
10:09 AM 5/3/2005
FY 2005-2006 Service Level Adjustment Total Requested $150,000
Cost Breakdown Worksheet SLA Description Comp. Plan
1000's SALARY& BENEFITS 5000's PROPERTY SERVICES
Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs
Sub-Total $0 $0 Sub-Total $0 $0
SUB-TOTAL $0 SUB-TOTAL $0
2000's SUPPLIES 6000's OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES
Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs
Sub-Total $0 $0 Sub-Total $0 $0
SUB-TOTAL $0 SUB-TOTAL $0
3000's MAINTENANCE 7000's CAPITAL OUTLAY
Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs
Sub-Total $0 $0 Sub-Total $0 $0
SUB-TOTAL $0 SUB-TOTAL $0
4000's PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST SUMMARY
Object Code One-Time Cost Reoccurring Costs
41-90 $150,000 One-Time Costs $150,000
Reoccurring Costs $0
TOTAL $150,000
Sub-Total $150,000 $0
SUB-TOTAL $150,000
10:09 AM 5/3/2005
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 2 of 8
2/2/2005
Review item.The proposed draft Plan of Work being considered by you also includes provisions for
joint meetings with City Council as well as the City of Bryan's Planning&Zoning Commission.
The purpose of the following is to illustrate some key forces affecting the growth and development
of College Station and should be integrated into ongoing and future comprehensive planning efforts.
The Plan originally proposed three alternative growth and development scenarios resulting in a
preferred scenario which became the basis for the new land use plan.Alternative thoroughfare plan
scenarios were also considered. The land use plan scenarios included:
• Scenario#1 represented a`concentric-circle'approach growth and density with higher
densities proposed closer to the University,with medium and lower densities occurring as
development moves (south) along SH 6 further away from the developed`core'area.
• Scenario#2 represented a`linear-band'approach urili7ing SH 6 as the spine for a
development corridor and dissipate medium and low density development along the
corridor. It generally represented an extension of the community's development pattern over
the past 20 years (1975-1995).
• Scenario#3 combined an increase in University-area density and redevelopment with a
`dispersed village/neighborhood'style of development in the area between SH 6 and
Wellborn Road.
• The Preferred Scenario was described as an overall preference for#2,with some aspects of
#3.
In 2003,long range planning staff completed a"Growth Study"of College Station that analyzed
extensive demographic,land use data,and historical growth patterns to initiate dialogue related to the
City's annexation policies future options to accommodate anticipated population growth.This study
also considered various growth and development scenarios.With current and anticipated platting
activity occurring in the City Limits and in the ETJ,concerns arose regarding a greater need to
consider infill development and weigh-in on attitudes about developing in a denser pattern.This
issue remains as a work item on the Council's Strategic Plan for our department and has substantial
funding($60,000) associated with it for land surveying and property owner notifications as necessary.
In 2003,the U.S. Census Bureau reevaluated MSA or Metropolitan Statistical Area boundaries.
College Station's continued progression toward serving the Brazos Valley as a regional hub was
recognized by renaming the one-county Bryan-College Station MSA as the College Station-Bryan
MSA and adding Burleson and Robertson counties.This is generally based on the fact that College
Station population surpassed that of Bryan,and commuting patterns indicating economic interaction.
A renewed comprehensive planning exercise would enable the City to begin to address a myriad of
community-wide,if not regional,issues that are before us,including but not limited to the following:
• Annexation policies and growth form(density)
• Water/waste-water extensions
• ETJ Development Pressure
• Direction for Redevelopment land use designations on the Land Use Plan along Texas
Avenue
• Simplification of the land use plan resulting in emphasis on the Plan's text(goals,objectives,
policies;i.e. the plan would not identify parcels.
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 3 of 8
2/2/2005
• Ability (or inability) to address multi-modal transportation opportunities through land use
planning
• Emphasis on nodal,or transit-oriented,development
• Development of indicators to regularly measure progress of plan implementation
• Relationships of enrollments and related growth at TAMU and Blinn College as well as
effects of related housing,parking and transportation policies upon the City
Given the time that has lapsed since the adoption of the existing Comprehensive Plan,the number of
interim changes undertaken,sustained medium to high rates of population growth and related
indicators,staff believes the needs and merits for a fully revised comprehensive plan are apparent and
steps to proceed with the development of a request for qualifications process should be initiated
soon.By doing so,we can dovetail with the upcoming City Council retreat to review the Strategic
Plan and consider future fiscal obligations that would be incurred on the front end of the City's
budget planning process for FY 2005-2006.
For your reference, a sample of data has been assembled on the following pages and includes the
figures and tables showing population,employment,and development activity.
C
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 4 of 8
2/2/2005
Table 2: Bryan-College Station MSA Population Overview(1990-2004)
As of 2003, College Station-Bryan MSA now includes three counties, Brazos, Burleson and Robertson.
College Station appears to be on a path of continuing to be the largest city in the region. Our success also
seems to propel regional growth as the CS-B MSA population grew over 50% since 1990.
Population(1) Population Percent Share 1990-2000
Estimate(2)
Geography 2000 1990 Jan.04 2004 2000 1990 Growth
Brazos County 152,415 121,862 161,779 82.90% 82.44% 100.00% 25.07%
Bryan 65,660 55,002 69,146 35.43% 35.51% 45.13% 19.38%
College Station 67,890 52,456 73,691 37.76% 36.72% 43.05% 29.42%
Kurten 227 NA 233 0.12% 0.12% #VALUE! NA
Millican 108 NA 110 0.06% 0.06% #VALUE! NA
Wixon Valley 235 186 229 0.12% 0.13% 0.15% 26.34%
Burleson County 16,470 13,625 17,615 9.03% 8.91% NA 20.88%
Caldwell 3,449 3,181 3,664 1.88% 1.87% NA 8.43%
Snook 568 489 569 0.29% 0.31% NA 16.16%
Somerville 1,704 1,542 1,704 0.87% 0.92% NA 10.51%
Robertson County 16,000 15,511 15,747 8.07% 8.65% NA 3.15%
Bremond 876 1,110 864 0.44% 0.47% NA -21.08%
Calvert 1,426 1,536 1,390 0.71% 0.77% NA -7.16%
Franklin 1,470 1,336 1,478 0.76% 0.80% NA 10.03%
Hearne 4,690 5,132 4,460 2.29% 2.54% NA -8.61%
Incorporated Population 148,076 107,644 157,538 80.73% 80.09% 88.33% 37.56%
Unincorporated Population 22,409 14,218 37,603 19.27% 12.12% 11.67% 57.61%
Total MSA Population 184,885 121,862 195,141 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 51.72%
Notes
1.Source:U.S.Census Bureau http://www.census.gov
2.Source:Texas State Data Center http://txsdc.tamu.edu
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 5 of 8
2/2/2005
Table 3: HOK Population Projections
Population projections generated by the consultant
preparing the Comprehensive Plan in the mid 1990s
estimated College Station's population to be
approximately 58,000, and projected the 2000 Census to
be between 64,000-70,500. Our 2000 Census population
registered 67,890, narrowly surpassing the 3% projection.
According to our most recent population estimate for the
end of 2004 (80,214), we are on target for the 3 to 4
percent range.
Year Low(2%) Mid(3%) High(4%)
1995 58,000 58,000 58,000
2000 64,000 67,200 70,500
2005 70,700 78,000 85,800
2010 78,000 90,400 104,400
2015 86,200 104,700 127,000
Figure 1: College Station Population Projections
We project College Station's population to be between 83,000 and 102,000 in 2010.
110,000
100,000
x
90,000
p 80,000
n
a 70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Recorded Growth -a-2000-2003 growth 1990-2000 growth -"--1990-2003 growth
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 6 of 8
2/2/2005
Table 4: Historical Employment Growth (1990-2004)
According to the Texas Workforce Commission, Brazos
County has experienced each year since 1990.
Historic Employment Growth (1990-2004)
B/CS MSA Collese Station
Number %Growth Number %Growth
2004 83,575 3.2% 33,249 3.2%
2003 80,965 3.0% 32,210 3,0%
2002 78,603 2.2% 31,271 2.2%
2001 76,928 1.1% 30,605 1.1%
2000 76,091 2.1% 30,271 2.1%
1999 74,513 2.3% 29,644 2.3%
1998 72,813 5.1% 28,968 5.1%
1997 69,281 2.6% 27,562 2.6%
1996 67,528 0.9% 26,865 0.9%
1995 66,951 0.3% 26,635 0.3%
1994 66,774 3.1% 26,565 3.1%
1993 64,740 3.9% 25,756 3.9%
1992 62,299 3.5% 24,785 3.5%
1991 60,219 3.3% 23,957 3.3%
1990 58,314 NA 23,199 NA
Notes:
1.Source:Texas Workforce Commission
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 7 of 8
2/2/2005
Figure 2: Platting Activity (2000-2004)
Increasing numbers of platted lots have been occurring in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
Total Plats
1200
1000
98
128 240 259
800
R _
CL
600
44
400
200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
®City Plats •ETJ Plats
Planning&Zoning Commission
Page 8of8
2/2/2005
Figure 3: Single-family Permits, 1980-2004
Since 1992, College Station has permitted at least 300 new single-family dwellings each year. Since the current
plan's adoption in 1997, 3,921 single-family homes have been permitted. Much of this development has occurred in
southern College Station between Wellborn Road and SH 6 and along Greens Prairie Road.
800 80%
bit ' ,r,
" ro. . " O F a ' s-. a F' M
60%700 ri - �
a
600P. % 40%
tO
s * . �' AVVcex in
500 „:. 4,,,w,q k -, s t.t,lritp = 20%
M '` n ._ (0
400 4 ,, � M el V I
300 �'r' '' ch - . r M M co N ! -20%
W) 0 M c
s N - �r .` _ th co
.174
•
200 -40%
1lk"'" -1';74:IT
CO � w. n Cop
100 1 N � t M M `� 60%
e- 011 T.
cocrs
O)
0 ( . -80%
b0 0Nb`l' �'b �� 0° RSO (k 4 b �0 �� bN o'1 00 0C Co000 Co�'\ �) 0Co0ON 01 Ong 0�`
, N N N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N N0 N N0 N N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 '1,0 f0 q0 rP 19.
Single Family Homes Percent Growth
June 22, 2006
Workshop Agenda
Review of Annexation Policy
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding annexation
policies of the City of College Station, in joint session with the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Recommendation(s): Following a presentation by staff, consider and discuss annexation
policies and development trends in joint session with the Planning & Zoning Commission,
and provide policy direction to staff. Staff perceives there to be several policy directions that
may be considered, including:
a. Do nothing at this time
b. Do nothing pending the outcome and direction arising from the Comprehensive Plan
update
c. Direct staff to propose one or more annexation areas that are "exempt"
d. Direct staff to propose amendments to the 3-year Annexation Plan
e. Direct staff to propose a combination of the latter two options (c and d above)
Summary: The purpose of this item is to review and assess the City's existing annexation
policy and seek direction from the Council with input from the Planning & Zoning
Commission for future annexation activities. According to A Guide to Urban Planning in
Texas (2002), "Annexation is the process by which a city extends its municipal services,
regulations, voting privileges and taxing authority to new territory. Cities annex territory to
provide urbanizing areas with municipal services and to exercise regulatory authority
necessary to protect public health and safety. Annexation is also a means of ensuring that
residents and business outside a city's corporate limits who benefit from access to the city's
facilities and services share the tax burden associated with constructing and maintaining
those facilities and services. Annexation and the imposition of land use controls may also be
used as a growth management technique to implement a comprehensive plan."
Recently the Council amended its policy with regard to the extension of utilities in
the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and therein established an annexation policy
and program to incorporate affected areas in a manner that sufficiently addresses
planning and development issues for the extended utility systems. Additional
information is contained within the Item Background (attached).
Budget & Financial Summary: Not applicable at this time; however, a fiscal impact
analysis would be made for any area(s) subject to annexation proceedings or included in an
amendment to the City's Annexation Plan.
Attachments:
1. Item Background
2. Annexation Plan
3. Map of the College Station City Limits and Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
4. Map of College Station Existing Water CCN
5. Map of College Station Proposed Sewer CCN
6. Summary of ETJ development trends
March 23, 2006
Workshop Agenda Item #
Annexation Policy
To: Glenn Brown, Interim City Manager
From: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding annexation
policies of the City of College Station.
Recommendation(s):
Summary: The most recent City initiated annexation took place in 2002. In 2004, 6.8 acres
were annexed by petition of two property owners. The City Council adopted
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1.