HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreenway Easements, Aquisitions, StatusDevelopment Services Dedications
Note: These areas are in the greenway and may be parks, open space ,
greenbelt, detention or a combination.
Steeplechase Subdivision-Owner: Brazos Triod Land Development
Partnership. Dedication area is Public Pa rk, Stormwater Detention and Open
Space. Final Plat on Phase 1 of 4 on Master Plan .
8. 998 Acres South Fork tributary B, Bee Creek, Priority 3
2.097 Acres in Phase 7, listed as public access easement, public utility
easement and common area. Stormwater detention to be owned and
maintained by the HOA. ~ ~ s ~ClS-e lo D.0()(p a.ae pU€/Stor~i--~ VV"-Cl tlV\..e_,
Properties of Windham and Thurmond located off of Greens
Prairie Rd, Spring Creek -Priority 2
Pebble Hills Subdivision-Owner: Jerry Windham and Frank Thurmond.
Dedication areas are Public Park, Stormwater Detention and Greenbelt. Final
Plat on Phase 1 of Several on Master Plan.
Renamed Woodland .Hills -Garrett Engineering
Spring Creek, priority 2
13 . 91 acres of parkland dedication shown on the final plat. Parkland is part of
and/or contiguous to the greenway. Includes 20' park and emergency access
ROW dedication off Woodland Ridge Dr .
Spring Branch Subdivision
Final plats come in as Spring Meadows Subdivision
Actual "greenbelt dedication" and/or "detention area" 0.54 acres , 0.17
acres
Off of Greens Prairie Road -Spring Creek, Priority 2
Preliminary Plat shows unbuildable lots as "B" lots.
Design engineers -MDG -Thurmond & Windham owners
Properties of Edward Froehling, South Fork of Lick Creek, Priority 1
Alexandria Subdivision-Owner: Edward Froehling. Dedication area is
Greenway and Stormwater Detention. Master Preliminary Plat of 5 Phases .
McClure engineering.
f
South Fork of Lick Creek, Priority 1
16 acre proposed dedication, as of 9/6/03, the property has not been
dedicated and remains under the ownership of the Froehling's. The plats read
"proposed to be owned and maintained". The construction of Alexandria
Avenue appears to be the reason there was no dedication with any of the final
plats. The proposed greenway area does remain undeveloped and is in use for
the stormwater detention of the subdivision .
Cypress Meadows -Greenway owned and maintained by the HOA
South Fork of Lick Creek, Priority 1 , contiguous to Alexandria
Bridlegate -.6072 acres left undeveloped. Lick Creek, Priority 3.
Properties of Gary Seaback on Spring Creek Priority 3
Estates of Spring Creek-Owner: Gary Seaback. Dedication area is Stormwater
Drainage, Sanitary Sewer and Open Space Buffer. Park not determined yet.
Master Preliminary Plat of Future Phases. Original submission by McClure.
Spring Creek
Master Development Plan dated 1124/03
13.09 acres "Drainage Way"
Spring Creek, Priority 3
As of 9/8/03 -no action on this site. John Fedora presented another proposal
(Spring Creek Development). The Master Development Plan shows 13.09 acres
"Spring Creek Drainage Way". Ash & Browne design engineers.
Properties of Crowley and/or Wallace Phillips, Spring Creek Priority
2
Crowley/Castlegate -
Section 12:
. 77 acres of greenway
7.79 acres of common area w I drainage easement
3/23/03 Master Preliminary Plat, Castlegate Sections 11 ,12,13 -10.51 acres of
greenway shown as "Common Area". 8' concrete path proposed.
Spring Creek Townhomes -Final Plat submitted by TexCon 1 /2003 for
Wallace Phillips, Manager, common area #3 0.419 acres
Properties of Randy French located on South Fork of Lick Creek,
Priority 1
Westfield Addition Phase I (Final Plat)
Lick Creek, Priority 3
Designed by Riley Engineering
3.442 acres of flood area designated as Park
Westfield Addition (BCS Development Company/Randy French)
Designed by Mike McClure. Initial plans prepared by Riley Engineering Company
South Fork of Lick Creek, Priority 1
Sebienowitz (Lick Creek Development) sold Phase 3 to Randy French
Phase 1 -Parkland Dedication, Vol 3653, Pg. 246
Phase 2 -Drainage Control Structure in greenway (As per Morrisson Hydrology
Engineering Report Dated June 2000)
Phase 3 -Stormwater Detention and Greenway "Park and Greenbelt" 2. 77 acres
shown on Preliminary Plat
-(,-..ec """"':i/Oi/-01 ~ov-~ 2 .~S-Ac..
Westfield Village
Phases 1 thru 5
Phase 6, recorded at Vol 4444, pg 283 -2.45 acres of greenway contiguous to
parkland dedication. Misc. dedication of 0.039 acres parkland, 0.139 acres of
greenway, 0.202 acres of greenway, and 0.029 acres of greenway
\ Springbrook
South Fork of Lick Creek, set aside with HOA
Edelweiss Gartens
City Park and Stormwater Detention facility
7.743 acres
dedication recorded at Vol 5190, page 161
Graham Corner Plaza
Ted Whitmer
Contiguous to Bridlegate (private) & Lick Creek Subdivision Phase I
Lick Creek, priority 3
1.093 acres
Villas of Harvey
Presented to P&Z 9/11 /03
Designed by TexCon
Owned by
Not shown in the existing greenways master plan
Tributary of
Proposed acreage set asides:
4.25 acres of open space/drainage <::;.) A 7-1 .oS,. o'f -:: ;t\
10/37 acres of detention/retention i . 1;,,11 1 1.0 3_, .3~) 3. 4<./) z.sz =-
1. 39 acres of greenbelt/landscape .fSJ , 53 ~ 1, JS
5.86 acres of park s i,,q 1 ;2 7-.) ?:;-<;s
op"ri srttce/parf<:. , l -} 1 1-, 00 J • v -t -:: 2. qq
Shenandoah Subdivision
Owner -Ed Froehling
Design Engineer -Mike McClure
Spring Creek tributary C, priority 3
10. ~l
Prelim~nary Plat phases 6 -10, dated 6/01 shows 8.069 acre city park and storm
water detention facility with another proposed 4.208 acre parkland dedication.
Master Preliminary Plat dated 4/98 shows 12.097 acres of City Park. 8.069
acres recorded at Vol 3533, pg. 174.
Master Development Plan dated 3/10/03 shows additional park tracts and
stormwater detention
14.49 acres dedicated as City Park, a portion of which is in the 100 year flood
plain.
Aggieland Fitness Center
1 /15/03 submission
North Fork of Lick Creek, Priority 3.
.477 acres
Ritchey
The City has an outstanding offer to purchase 140.44 acres (approximately 85
acres in floodplain) out of the 341.60 acre tract.
A Master Development Plan was submitted by John Fedora dated 1127103
showing 41.878 acres of "Common Area Lick Creek Drainage Way".
Development Services staff did not support the plan as submitted.
~~cMltmk" -C.C (. 0LlW;v1-s.lnl\. .p,~:~cct-ToM S:iAll1vCf"'-J.ev1e-l 0ra · tV\.~,k.L{ -f Mc.'.:5" .,_,lLf
c\!(}VIC\ble width 5r-ee Y1v0~ JediCA1'VV-t~~>'lra_\ e~+ \j ~\.t(do f>C:jt,g3
lo+ (p
-lot 5 t 20 cktel'\.t-~ punJ -:> (~o•M.'-'>cd-e~) rv-i.va.'k-
2009
JANUARY
S M T W T F S
2 3
4 s 6 9 10
11 12 13 14 lS 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2S 26 27 28 29 30 31
FEBRUARY
S M T W T F S
1234567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
lS 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 2S 26 27 28
M ARCH
S M T W T F S
2 3 4 s 6 7
9 10 11 12 13 14
lS 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 2S 26 27 28
29 30 31
APRIL
SMTWTFS
I 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 lS 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 2S
26 27 28 29 30
MAY
S M T W T F S
1 2
4S6789
10 11 12 13 14 lS 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 2S 26 27 28 29 30
31
J UNE
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 s
8 9 10 11 12 13
14 IS 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 2S 26 27
28 29 30
J ULY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 IS 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 2S
26 27 28 29 30 31
AUGUST
SMTWTFS
1
2 3 4 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 lS
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 2S 26 27 28 29
30 31
S EPTEMBER
S M T W T F S
I 2 3 4 S
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 IS 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 2S 26
27 28 29 30
O CTOBER
S M T W T F S
2 3 s 6 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 lS 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2S 26 27 28 29 30 31
NOVEMBER
S M T W T F S
1234S6
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
lS 16 17 18 19 20 21
!2 23 24 25 26 27 28
?9 30
D ECEMBER
S M T W T F 5
1 2 3 4 s
7 8 9 10 11 12
l3 14 lS 16 17 18 19
lO 21 22 23 24 2S 26
~7 28 29 30 31
Newman Printing Company~ Inc.
. Or.~ ~tU--tle L~ w/olA...+ 11.~~!. -"1 . -. Re.sm~~ 3, ZfaC, A M\te.. , .
U.SlNl~ '1S. Ac.~ -h °""' v
1<n.I-(A...(. S-tlll 1,;i.~ '/-tS
lio ~S.f\l( ~II\. At~l~ ves.
~ n.-e.....~ds.
St.+ bPr():.. -p 11'~ •~ ,,.~
~· ~ , ,, '. _.
-__ J..J,...NJI-\
,f ~ ~oo...Q. . ~)IV'\"-.. UAhl. .\ \S 01U-U. c.. fl OV\. -~.--..J ., ' '-0' -~
I I
I -~l'(V\.~ I -
fJutrn <..p.YL t7'\.:h~'
~ I '--...... tM'Jrl.I A1'l hAtfui. -_. I
et.~ ... ~""JJ ·
v~ " . "~ f*IAC> ~ ,..nJ,--'--I
' . ~ 5 cn-.vi'l..v. wlla -. .., r
I
I
I -
By: Callegari H.B. No. 751
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1 AN ACT
2 relating to the liability of a public ut ility that allows
3 recreational use of land that the public u tility owns, occupies, or
4 leases.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
6 SECTION 1 . Chapter 75 , Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
7 amended by adding Section 75 . 0021 to read as follows :
8 Sec . 75 .0021. IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY OF A PUB LIC UTILITY.
9 (a) In thi s section :
10 ( 1) "Person" inc ludes an i ndividual as defined by
11 Section 71 .001 .
12 (2) "Publi c utility" means:
13 (A) an electr i c utility as defined by Secti on
14 31 .002 , Utilit i es Code ;
15 (B) a telecommunications p rovider as defined by
16 Section 51.002 , Utilities Code ;
17 (C) a cable service provider or v ideo service
18 provider as defined by Section 66.002, Utilities Code;
19 (D) a gas utility as defined by Section 101.003
20 or 121. 001, Utilities Code ; or
21 (E) a water and sewer utility as defined by
22 Section 13 .002 , Water Code .
23 (b ) A public utility t hat, as the owner , occupant, or lessee
24 of land , gives permission to a p erson to enter the premises f or
81R4 78 CAE -F 1
1
2
3
H.B. No. 751
recreation does not , by giving that permission :
(1) ensure that the premises are safe for recreation;
or
4 (2) assume responsibility or incur liability for any
5 bodily or other personal injury to , death of , or damage to the
6 p roperty of , a person who enters the p remises for recreation or
7 accompanies another person entering the p remises for recreation ,
8 including injury , death , or other damage arising from:
9 (A) an act of a third party that occurs on the
10 premises , regardless of whether the act i s intentional; or
11
12
13
lines or
fields.
(B) contact of a person or p rop erty with power
exposure of a person or prop erty to electromagnetic
14 ( c) A public utility that , as the owner , occupant , or
15 lessee of land , allows the use of the p remises for recreation shall
16 post and maintain a clearly readable s i gn in a clearly visible
17 location on or near the premises . The sign must contain the
18 following warning language:
19 UNDER TEXAS LAW (CHAPTER 75 , CIVI L PRACTICE AND REMEDIES
20 CODE) A PUBLIC UTILITY IS IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ARISING
21 FROM THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR RECREATI ONAL PURPOSES .
22 SECTION 2. This Act applies only to a cause of action that
23 accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. A cause of
24 action that accrues before the effective date of this Act is
25 governed by the law in effect immediate l y before that date , and that
26 law is continued in effect for that purpose .
27 SECTION 3 . This Act takes effect i mmediate l y if it receives
2
H.B. No. 751
1 a vote of two -thirds of all the members elected to each house , as
2 provided by Section 39 , Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
3 Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
4 Act takes effect September 1 , 2009.
3
' l • '
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
March 4, 2009
TO: Honorable Burt R. Solomons, Chair, House Committee on State Affairs
f'ROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB751 by Callegari (Relating to the liability of a public utility that allows recreational use of
land that the public utility owns, occupies, or leases.), As Introduced
No fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would amend the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to provide immunity from liability to
certain public utilities that, as the owner, occupant, or lessee of land, gives permission to a person to
enter the premises for recreation. The public utility would be required to post a sign warning that the
utility is immune from liability for damages arising from the use of the property for recreational
purposes. The bill would affect certain river authorities and counties.
Provisions of the bill would apply only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date
of the bill. The bill would talce effect immediately if it were to receive the required two-thirds vote in
each house of the legislature; otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2009.
Local Govcrnmmt Impact
Protection from liability could provide an unknown but possibly significant savings in the event
damages were to occur for which the utility would otherwise be liable for the costs to mitigate those
damages.
Source Agencies:
LBB Staff: JOB, KJG, DB
S.B. No . 18
1 AN ACT
2 relating to the use of eminent domain authority.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
4 SECTION 1 . Subsection (a), Section 11 .155 , Education Code ,
5 is amended to read as follows :
6 (a) An independent school district may , by the exercise of
7 the right of eminent domain , acquire the fee simple title to real
8 property [for the purpose of securing sites] on which to construct
9 s~hool buildings or for any other public use [purpose] necessary
10 for the district .
11 SECTION 2 . Chapter 2206 , Government Code, is amended to
12 read as follows:
13 CHAPTER 2206 . [ LIMITZ\TION£ ON U£E OF] EMINENT DOMAIN
14 SUB CHAPTER A . LIMITATIONS ON PURPOSE AND USE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED
15 THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN
16 Sec . 2206 .001 . LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES
17 OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. (a) This section applies to the use
18 of eminent domain under the laws of this state , including a local or
:]_9 special law, by any governmental or private entity, including:
20 (1) a state agency, including an institution of higher
21 education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code ;
22 (2) a political subdivision of this state ; or
23 (3) a corporation created by a governmental entity to
24 a-ct on behalf of the entity.
1
1 (b) A governmental or private entity may not take private
2 property through the use of eminent domain if the taking:
3 (1) confers a private benefit on a particular private
4 party through the use of the property;
5 (2) is for a public use that is merely a pretext to
6 confer a private benefit on a particular private party; [~]
7 (3) is for economic development purposes, unless the
8 economic development is a secondary purpose resulting from
9 municipal community development or municipal urban renewal
10 activities to eliminate an existing affirmative harm on society
11 from slum or blighted areas under:
12 (A) Chapter 373 or 374, Local Government Code,
13 other than an activity described by Section 373.002(b) (5), Local
14 Government Code; or
15
16
17
(B) Section 311.005(a) (1) (I), Tax Code~
( 4 ) is not for a pub 1 i c use .
(c) This section does not affect the authority of an entity
18 authorized by law to take private property through the use of
19 eminent domain for:
20 (1) transportation projects, including, but not
21 limited to, railroads, airports, or public roads or highways;
22 (2) entities authorized under Section 59, Article XVI,
23 Texas Constitution, including:
24
25
26
(A) port authorities;
(B) navigation districts; and
( C) any other conservation
27 districts that act as ports;
2
or reclamation
U . D . l\jV • ..LO
1 (3) water supply , wastewater , flood control , and
2 drainage projects;
3
4
5
( 4) public buildings, hos pi ta ls , and parks ;
( 5) the provision of utility services;
(6) a sports and community venue project approved by
6 voters at an election held on or before December 1 , 2005 , unde r
7 Chapter 334 or 335 , Local Government Code ;
8 (7) the operations of :
9 (A) a common carrier pipeline [subject to Chapter
10 111, Natural Resources Code, and Section B(3) (b), Article 2 .01 7
11 Te1cas Business Corporation .7\,ct J ; or
12 (B) an energy transporter , as that term is
13 defined by Section 186 .051 , Utilities c,ode ;
14 (8) a purpose authorized · by Chapter 181 , Utilities
15 Code ;
16 (9) underground storage operations subject to Chapter
17 91 , Natural Resources Code;
18 ( 10) a waste disposal project ; or
19 (11) a library , museum , or r elated facility and any
20 infrastructure related to the faci lity.
21 (d) This section does not affect the authority of a
22 governmental entity to condemn a leasehold estate on property owned
23 by the governmental entity .
24 (e) The determination by the governmental or private entity
25 proposing to take the property that the taking does not involve an
26 act or circumstance prohibited by Subsection (b) does not create a
27 presumption with respect to whether the taking involves that act or
3
1 circumstance .
2 Sec. 2206 . 002. LIMITATIONS ON EASEMENTS. (a) This section
3 applies only to an easement acquired by an entity for the purpose of
4 a pipeline to be used for oil or gas exploration or production
5 activities .
6 (b) A property owner whose property is acquired through the
7 use of eminent domain under Chapter 21, Property Code , for the
8 purpose of creating an easement through that owner 1 s property may
9 construct streets or roads, including gravel, asphalt, or concrete
10 streets or roads , at any locations above the easement that the
11 property owner chooses .
12 (c) The portion of a street or road constructed under this
13 section t h at is within the area covered by the easement:
14 _(_l_) __ m_u_s_t_c_r_o_s_s_t_h_e_e_a_s_e_m_e_n_t_a_t_o_r_n_e_a_r_9_0_d_e_g~r_e_e_s~;_a_n_d
15 ~(_2~)~_m_a~y~n_o_t_:
16 (A) exceed 40 feet in width;
17 (B) cause a violation of any applicable pipeline
18 regulation; or
19 ( c ) interfere with the operation and maintenance
20 of any pipeline.
21 (d) At least 30 days before the date on which construction
22 of an asphalt or concrete street or road that will be located wholly
23 or partly in an area covered by an easement used for a pipeline is
24 scheduled to begin, the property owner must submit plans for the
25 proposed construction to the owner of' the easement .
26 (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a
27 property owner and the owner of the easement may agree to terms
4
.:> • D • l\J U • .L Cl
1 other than those stated in Subsection ( c).
2 SUBCHAPTER B . PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO INITIATE
3 EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEE DINGS
4 Sec . 2206 . 051 . SHORT TITLE . This subchapter may be cited as
5 the Truth in Condemnation Procedures Act .
6 Sec . 2206 .052 . APPLICABILITY . The procedures in this
7 subchapter apply only to the use of eminent domain under the laws of
8 this state by a governmental entity .
9 Sec . 2206 . 053 . VOTE ON USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN . (a) Before a
10 governmental entity initiates a condemnation proceeding by filing a
11 petition under Section 21 . 012 , Property Code , the governmental
12 entity must:
13 (1) authorize the initiation of the condemnation
14 proceeding at a public meeting by a record vote ; and
15
16 required by
(2) include
Sub chapter
in the notice for the public meeting as
c , Chapter 55 1, in addition to other
17 information as required by that subchapter , the consideration of
18 the use of eminent domain to condemn property as an agenda item .
19 (b) A single ordinance , resolution , or order may be adopted
20 for all u nits of property to be condemned i f :
21 (1) the motion required by Subsection (e) indicates.
22 that the first record vote applies to all units of property to be
23 condemned ; and
24 ( 2) the minutes of the governmental entity ref le ct
25 that the first vote applies to all of those units .
26 (c) If more than one member of the governing body objects to
27 adopting a single ordinance , resolution , or order by a record vote
5
1 for all units of property for which condemnation proceedings are to
2 be initiated , a separate record vpte must be taken for each unit of
3 property .
4 (d) For the purposes of Subsections (a) and (c), if two or
5 more u nits of real property are owned by the same person , the
6 governmental entity may treat those units of property as one unit of
7 property.
8 (e) The motion to adopt an ordinance, resolution, or order
9 authorizing the initiation of condemnation proceedings under
10 Chapter 21 , Property Code , must be made in a form substantially
11 similar to the following: "I move that the (name of governmental
12 entity) authorize the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire
13 (describe the property) for (describe the public use)." The
14 description of the property required by this subsection is
15 sufficient if the description of the location of and interest in the
16 property that the governmental entity seeks to acquire is
17 substantially similar to the description that is or could properly
18 be used in a petition to condemn the property under Section 21.012,
19 Property Code.
20
21
22
(f) If a project for
2 2 0 6 . 0 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) w i 11 r e qui r e
multiple tracts or units of
a public use described by Section
a governmental entity to acquire
property to construct facilities
23 connecting one location to another location, the governing body of
24 the governmental entity may adopt a single ordinance , resolution,
25 or order by a record vote that delegates the authority to initiate
26 condemnation proceedings to the chief administrative official of
27 the governmental entity .
6
~ • b • 1\J 0 • J_ b
1 (g) An ordinance , resolution , or order adopted under
2 Subsection (f) is not required to identify specific properties that
3 the governmental entity will acquire . The ordin ance , resolution ,
4 or order must identify the general area to be covered by the project
5 or the general route that will be used by the governmental entity
6 for the project in a way that provides property owners in and around
7 t h e area or along the route reasonable notice that the owners '
8 propert i es may be sub j ect to condemnation proceedings dur ing the
9 planning or construction of the project .
10 SUBCHAPTER C. EXPIRATION OF CERTAIN EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY
11 Sec. 2206 .101. REPORT OF EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY ;
12 EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY . (a) This section does not apply to an
1 3 entity that was created or that acquired the power of eminent domain
14 on or after December 31 , 2012 .
15 (b ) Not later than December 31 , 201 2 , an e ntity , including a
16 pr ivate entity , authorized by the state by a general or special law
17 to exercise the power of eminent domain shall submit to the
18 comptroller a letter stating that the entity is authorized by the
19 state to exercise the power of eminent domain and identifying each
20 provision of law that grants the e ntity t hat authority. The entity
21 must send the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested .
22 (c) The authority of an entity to exercise the p ower of
23 eminent domain expires on September 1 , 2013 , unless the entity
24 submits a letter in accordance with Subsection (b).
25 (d) Not later t han March 1, 20 13, the comptroller shall
26 submit to the governor , the lieutenant governor , the speaker of the
27 house of representatives , the presiding off icers of the appropriate
7
1 standing committees of the senate and the house of representatives,
2 and the Texas Legislative Council a report that contains:
3 (1) the name of each entity that submitted a letter in
4 accordance with this section ; and
5 (2) a corresponding list of the provisions granting
6 eminent domain authority as identified by each entity that
7 submitted a letter .
8 (e) The Texas Legislative Council shall prepare for
9 consideration by the 84th Legislature, Regular Session , a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
nonsubstantive revision of the statutes of this state as necessary
to reflect the state of the law after the expiration of an entity's
eminent domain authority effective under Subsection ( c) .
SECTION 3 . Subsection (a), Section 251.001 , Local
Government Code , is amended to read as follows:
(a) When the governing body of a municipality considers it
necessary, the municipality may exercise the right of eminent
domain for a public use [purpose] to acquire public or private
property , whether located inside or outside the municipality, for
any of the following uses [purposes]:
(1) the providing, enlarging , or
municipally owned city hall ; police station;
improving of
jail or other
a
law
enforcement detention facility; fire station; library; school or
other educational f ac ili ty ; academy ; auditorium; hospital;
sanatorium; market house ; slaughterhouse ; warehouse; elevator;
railroad termin al ; airport; ferry; ferry landing ; pier ; wharf ; dock
or other shipping facility ; loading or unloading facility; alley,
street , or other roadway ; park , playground , or other recreational
8
U .LJ . l'IV • .LO
1 facility ; square ; water works system , including reservoirs , other
2 water supply sources , watersheds , and water storage , drainage ,
3 treatment , distribution , transmission , and emptying facilities ;
4 sewage system including sewage collection , drainage , treatment ,
5 disposal , and e mptying facilities ; electric or gas power system;
6 cemetery ; and crematory ;
7 (2) the determining of riparian rights relative to the
8 municipal water works ;
9 ( 3) the straightening or improving of the channel of
10 any stream, branch , or drain ;
11 (4) the straightening, widening , or extending of any
12 alley , street , or other roadway ; and
13 (5) [£.e..r] any other municipal public use [purpose] the
14 governing body considers advisable .
15 SECTION 4 . Subsection (a), Section 261.001 , Local
16 Government Code , is amended to read as follows :
17 (a) A county may exercise the right of eminent domain to
18 condemn and acquire land , an easement in land , or a right -of-way if
19 the acquisition is necessary for the construction of a jail,
20 courthouse, hospital , or librar y , or f or another public use
21 [purpose] authorized by law .
22 SECTION 5 . Subsection ( c), Section 263 . 201 , Local
2 3 Government Code , is amended to read as fol l ows :
24 ( c) The declaration of taking must contain :
25 (1) a declaration that the l and or interest in land
26 described in the original petition is taken for a public use
27 [p u rpose ] and for ultimate conveyance to the United States ;
9
1 ( 2) a description of the land sufficient for the
2 ident if icat ion of the land;
3 (3) a statement of the estat e or interest in the land
4 being taken ;
5
6 land;
7
8
(4) a statement of the public use to be made of the
(5) a plan showing the land being taken; and
( 6) a statement of the amount of damages awarded by the
9 special commissioners, or by the jury on appeal , for the taking of
10 the land .
11 SECTION 6 . Section 273 .002 , Local Government Code, is
.12 amended to read as fallows :
13 Sec . 273 . 002. CONDEMNATION . Condemnation of property under
14 this chapter shall be in accordance with state law relating to
15 eminent domain , which may be Chapter 21 , Property Code , or any other
16 state law governing and relating to the condemnation of land for
17 public use [purposes] by a municipality .
18 SECTION 7. Section 21. 0111, Property Code , is amended to
19 read as follows:
20 Sec . 21 .0111. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION REQUIREDL
21 INITIAL OFFER. (a) An [Z'. governmental] entity with eminent domain
22 authority that wants to acquire real property for a public use
23 shall , by certified mail, return receipt requested , disclose to the
24 property owner at the time an off er to purchase or lease the
25 property is made any and all [existing] appraisal reports produced
26 or acquired by the [governmental] entity relating specifically to
27 the owner's property and prepared in the 10 years preceding the date
10
u • LJ • 1\1 u • ..LO
1 of the [used in determining the final valuation] off er .
2 (b) A property owner shall disclose to the [acquiring
3 governmental] entity seeking to acquire the property any and all
4 current and existing appraisal reports produced or acquired by the
5 property owner relating specifically to the owner's property and
6 used in determining the owner's opinion of value . Such disclosure
7 shall take place not later than the ear lier of :
8 ( 1) the 10th day aft er the date [ r.Jithin 10 days] of
9 receipt of an appraisal report ; or
10 ( 2) the third business day before the date of a special
11 commissioner 's hearing if an appraisal report is to be used at the
12 [reports but no later than 10 days prior to the special
13 commissioner's] hearing.
14 ( c) An entity seeking to acquire property that the entity is
15 authorized to obtain through the use of eminent domain may not
16 include a confidentiality provision in an offer or agreement to
17 acquire the property . The entity shall inform the owner of the
18 property that the owner has the right to :
19 (1) discuss any offer or agreement regarding the
20 entity's acquisition of the property with others ; or
21 (2) keep the offer or agreement confidential , unless
22 the off er or agreement is subject to Chapter 552 , Government Code .
23 (d) A subsequent bona fide purchaser for value from the
24 acquiring [governmental] entity may conc l usively presume that the
25 requirement of this section has been met . This section does not
26 apply to acquisitions of real property for which an [a
27 governmental] entity does not have eminent domain authority .
11
1 SECTION 8 . Subchapter B, Chapter 21 , Property Code, is
2 amended by add ing Section 21. 0113 to read as follows:
3 Sec . 21. 0113. BONA FIDE OFFER REQUIRED. ( a ) An en t it y
4 with eminent domain authority that wants to acquire real property
r-'
5 for a pub l ic use must make a bona fide offer to acquire the property
6 from the property owner voluntarily.
7 (b) An entity with eminent domain authority has made a bona
8 fide offer if:
9 (1) an initial offer is made in writing to a property
10 owner;
11 (2) a final offer is made in writing to the property
12 owner ;
13 (3) the final offer is made on or after the 30th day
14 after the date on which the entity makes a written initial offer to
15 the property own er ;
16 (4) before making a final offer, the entity obtains a
17 written appraisal from a certified appraiser of the value of the
18 property being acquired and the damages, if any, to any of the
19 property owner 's remaining property ;
20 (5) the final offer is equal to o r greater than the
2 1 amount of the written appraisal obtained by the entity;
22 (6) the following items are included with the final
23 offer or have been previously provided to the owner by the entity:
24 (A) a copy of the written appraisal;
25 (B) a copy of the deed, easement , or other
26 instrument conveying the property sought to be acquired; and
27 (C) the landowner's bill of rights statement
12
u • .D . L~V • .LO
1 prescribed by Section 21 .0112; and
2 ( 7) the entity provides the property owner with at
3 least 14 days to respond to the final off er and the property owner
4 does not agree to the terms of the final off er within that period .
5 SECTION 9 . Sect ion 21. 012, Property Code , is amended to
6 read as follows:
7 Sec. 21 .012 . CONDEMNATION PETITION . (a) If an entity [.:E-fi-e.
8 United States 1 this state 1 a political subdivision of this state 1 a
9 corporation] with eminent domain authority[, or an irrigation,
10 water improvement , or 'dater po',rnr control district created by law]
11 wants to acquire real property for public u _se but is unable to agree
12 with the owner of the property on the amount of damages , the
13 [condemning] entity may begin a condemnation proceeding by filing a
14 petition in the proper court .
15 (b ) The petition must :
16 ( 1) describe the property to be condemned;
17 (2) state with specificity the public use [purpose]
18 for which the entity intends to acquire [~] the property;
19 (3) state the name of the owner of the property if the
20 owner is known ;
21 (4) state that the entity and the property owner are
22 unable to agree on the damages; [-aOO]
23 (5) if applicable , state that the entity provided the
24 property owner with the landowner's bill of rights statement in
2 5 accordance with Sect ion 2 1 . 0 112 ; and
26 (6) state that the entity made a bona fide offer to
27 acquire the property from the property owner voluntarily as
13
1 provided by Section 21. 0113.
2 (c) An entity that files a petition under this section must
3 provide a copy of the petition to the property owner by certified
4 mail , return receipt requested .
5 SECTION 10 . Subsection (a), Section 21 .0 14 , Property Code,
6 is amended to read as follows:
7 (a) The judge of a court in which a condemnation petition is
8 filed or to which an eminent domain case is assigned shall appoint
9 three disinterested real property owners [freeholders] who reside
10 in the county as special commissioners to assess the damages of the
11 owner of the property being condemned . The judge appointing the
12 special commissioners shall give preference to persons agreed on by
13 the parties. The judge shall provide each party a reasonable period
14 to strike one of the three commissioners appointed by the judge . If
15 a person f ails to serve as a commissioner or is struck by a party to
16 the suit , the judge shall [ffi-a¥] appoint a replacement.
17 SECTION 1 1. Subsection (a), Section 21 .015, Property Code,
18 is amended to read as follows :
19 (a) The special commissioners in an eminent domain
. 20 proceedin g shall promptly schedule a hearing for the parties at the
21 earliest practical time but may not schedule a hearing to assess
22 damages before the 20th day after the date the special
23 commissioners were appointed . The special commissioners shall
24 schedule a hearing for the parties [a-B4] at a place that is as near
25 as practical to the property being condemned or at the county seat
26 of the county in which the proceeding is being held .
27 SECTION 12 . Subsection (b), Section 21.016 , Property Code ,
14
0.D . l\JU • .LO
1 is amended to read as follows:
2 (b) Notice of the hearing must b e served on a party not later
3 than the 20th [~] day before the day set for the hearing . A
4 person competent to testify may serve the notice.
5 SECTION 13. Sect ion 21 . 02 3, Property Code, is amended to
6 read as follows :
7 Sec . 21 .023. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED AT TIME OF
8 ACQUISITION. An [A governmental] ent ity with emin ent domain
9 authority shall disclose in writing to the property owner , at the
10 time of acquisition of the property through eminent domain , that:
11 (1) the owner or the owner 's heirs , successors, or
12 assigns may be [a-r-e-] entitled to_:_
13 (A ) repurchase the property under Subchapter E
14 [if the public use for which the property was acquired through
15 eminent d omain is canceled before the 10th anniversary of the date
16 of acquisition]; or
17 (B) request from the entity certain information
18 relating to the use of the property and any actual progress made
19 towq:rd that use; and
20 ( 2) the repurchase pr ice is t h e pr ice paiq to the owner
21 by the entity at the time the entity acquired the property through
22 eminent domain [fair market value of the property at the time the
I 23 public use was canceled].
24 SECTION 14. Subchapter B, Chapter 21 , Property Code , is
25 amended by adding Section 2 1. 02 5 to read as follows :
26 Sec . 21 . 025 . PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION BY CERTAIN ENTITIES .
27 (a) Notwithstanding any other law , an entity that is not subject
15
1 to Chapter 552 , Government Code , and is authorized by law to acquire
2 private property through the use of eminent domain is required to
3 produce information as provided by this section if the information
4 is:
5 ( 1) requested by a person who owns property that is the
6 subject of a proposed or existing eminent domain proceeding; and
7 (2) related to the taking of the person's private
8 property by the entity through the use of eminent domain .
9 (b) An entity described by Subsection (a) is required under
10 this section only to produce information relating to the
11 condemnation of the specific property owned by the requestor as
12 described in the request'. A request under this section must contain
13 sufficient details to allow the entity to identify the specific
14 tract of land in relation to which the information is sought.
15 (c) The entity shall respond to a request in accordance with
16 the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as if the request was made in a
17 matter pending before a state district court.
18 (d) Exceptions to disclosure provided by this chapter and
19 the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the disclosure of
20 information under this section .
21 (e) Jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this section
22 resides in:
23
24 or
25
26 initiated:
27
(1) the court in which the condemnation was initiated;
( 2) if the condemnation proceeding has not been
(A) a court that would have jurisdiction over a
16
0.D . l\JU • .LO
1 proceeding to condemn the requestor 's property; or
2 ( B) a court with eminent domain jurisdiction in
3 the county in which the entity has its principal place of business .
4 ( f) If the entity refuses to produce information requested
5 in accordance with this section an d the court determines that the
6 refusal violates this section , the court may award the requestor 's
7 reasonable attorney's fees incurred to compel the production of the
8 information .
9 SECTION 15 . Subsection (d), Section 21 .042, Property Code ,
1 0 is amended to read as fol l ows :
11 ( d) In estimating injury or benefit under Subsection (c),
12 the special commissioners shall consider an injury or benefit that
13 is peculiar to the property owner and that relates to the property
14 owner's ownership , use , or enjoyment of the particular parcel of
15 real property , including a material impair ment of direct access on
16 o r off the remaining property that affects the market value of the
17 remaining property , but they may not consider an injury or benefit
18 that the property owner experiences in common with the general
19 community , including circuity of travel and diversion of traffic .
20 In this s u bsection , "direct access " means i ngress and egress on or
21 off a public road , street , or highway at a location where the
22 remaining property adjoins that road , street , or highway.
23 SECTION 16 . Subsections (a) and ( b) ' Section 2 1.046 ,
24 Property Code , are amended to read as follows :
25 (a) A department , agency , instr umentality , or political
26 subdivision of this state shall [ffia.¥] provi de a relocation advisory
27 service for an individual , a family , a business concern , a farming
17
1 or ranching operation, or a nonprofit organization that [if the
2 service] is compatible with the Federal Uniform Relocation
3 Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
4 [Advisory Program], 42 U.S .C .A. 4601 [23 U.S .C .lL 501], et seq .
5 (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state
6 shall [ffia¥], as a cost of acquiring real property ,. pay moving
7 expenses and rental supplements, make relocation payments , provide
'
8 financial assistance to acquire replacement housing , and
9 compensate for expenses incidental to the transfer of the property
10 if an individual, a family , the personal property of a business , a
11 farming or ranching operation, or a nonprofit organization is
12 displaced in connection with the acquisition .
13 SECTION 17. The heading to Section 21 .047 , Property Code ,
14 is amended to read as follows :
15 Sec . 21. 047 . ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND FEES .
16 SECTION 18 . Section 21.047 , Property Code , is amended by
17 adding Subsection ( d ) to read as follows :
18 (d) If a court hearing a suit under this chapter determines
19 that a condemnor did not make a bona fide offer to acquire the
20 property from the property owner voluntarily as required by Section
21 21.0113 , the court shall abate the suit , order the condemnor to make
22 a bona fide off er , and order the condemnor to pay :
23 (1) all costs as provided by Subsection (a); and
24 (2) any reasonable attorne y's fees and other
25 professional fees incurred by the property owner that are directly
26 related to the violation .
27 SECTION 19. Subchapter E, Chapter 21 , Property Code , is
18
;::i • Jj • l\J 0 • J_ t5
1 amended to read as follows:
2 SUBCHAPTER E. REPURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM CONDEMNING
3 [GOVERNMENTAL] ENTITY
4 Sec . 21.101. RIGHT OF REPURCHASE [APPLICABILITY]. (a) A
5 person from whom [EJccept as provided in £ubsection (b) / this
6 subchapter applies only to] a real property interest is acquired by
7 an [a governmental] entity through eminent domain for a public use.L
8 or that per son ' s heir s , s u cc es so r s , or assigns , is en t it 1 e d to
9 repurchase the property as provided by this subchapter if:
10 (1) the public use for which the property was acquired
11 through eminent domain is [that was] canceled before the property
12 is used for that public use ;
13 (2) no actual progress is made toward the public use
14 for which the property was acquired between the date of acquisition
1 5 and the 10th anniversary of that date ; or
16 (3) the property becomes unnecessary for the public
17 use for which the property was acquired, or a substantially similar
18 public use , before the 10th anniversary of the date of acquisition .
19 ( b) In this sect ion, 11 actual progress 11 means the comp let ion
20 of two or more of the following actions:
21 (1) the performance of a significant amount of labor
22 to develop the property or other property acquired for the same
23 public use project for which the property owner 's property was
24 acquired ;
25 (2) the provision of a significant amount of materials
26 to develop the property or other property acquired for the same
27 public use project for which the property owner 's property was
19
1 acquired;
2 (3) the hiring of and performance of a significant
3 amount of work by an architect, engineer, or surveyor to prepare a
4 plan or plat that includes the property or other property acquired
5 for the same public use project for which the property owner's
6 property was acquired;
7 (4) application for state or federal funds to develop
8 the property or other property acquired for the same public use
9 project for which the property owner's property was acquired;
10 (5) application for a state or federal permit to
11 develop t h e property or other property acquired for the same public
12 use projec t for which the property owner's property was acquired;
13 (6) the acquisition of a tract or parcel of real
14 property adjacent to the property for the same public use project
15 for which the owner's pr ope rty was acquired; or
16 (7) for a governmental entity, the adoption by a
17 majority of the entity's governing body at a public hearing of a
18 development plan for a public use project that indicates that the
19 entity will not complete more than one action described by
20 Subdivisions (1)-(6) before the 10th anniversary of the date of
21 acquisition of the property [This subchapter does not apply to a
22 right-of-r,,iay under the jurisdiction of:
23
24
25
[ ( 1)
[ ( 2 )
[ ( 3 )
a county,
a municipality; or
the Te2fas Department of Transportation].
26 (c ) A district court may determine all issues in any suit
27 regarding the repurchase of a real property interest acquired
20
U . l.J • l'\IU • ..LU
1 through eminent domain by the former property owner or the owner's
2 heirs, successors , or assigns .
3 Sec . 21 .102. NOTICE TO PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER REQUIRED [A!±!
4 TIMB OF CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC USB]. Not later than the 180th day
5 after the date an entity that acquired a real property interest
6 through eminent domain determines that the former property owner is
7 entitled to repurchase the property under Section 21 .101 [of the
8 cancellation of the public use for ~.1hich real property \,'as acquired
9 through eminent domain from a property owner under Subchapter B],
10 the [governmental] entity shall send by certified mail, return
11 receipt requested, to the property owner or the owner 's heirs,
12 successors , or assigns a notice containing:
13 (1) an identification , which is not required to be a
14 legal description , of the property that was acquired ;
15 (2) an identification of the public use for which the
16 property had been acquired and a statement that :
17 (A) the public use was [has been] canceled before
18 the property was used for the public use;
19 (B) no actual progress was made toward the public
20 use; or
21 (C) the property became unnecessary for the
22 public use , or a substantially similar public use , before the 10th
23 anniversary of the date of acquisition; and
24 ( 3) a description of the person's right under this
25 subchapter to r:epurchase the property .
26 Sec . 21 .1021 . REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING CONDEMNED
27 PROPERTY . (a) On or after the 10th anniversary of the date on
21
1 which real property was acquired by an entity through eminent
2 domain , a property owner or the owner's heirs , successors , or
3 assigns may :i;-equest that the condemning entity make a determination
4 and provide a statement and other relevant information regarding :
5 (1) whether the public use for which the property was
6 acquired was canceled before the property was used for the public
7 use;
8 (2) whether any actual progr ess was made toward the
9 public use between the date of acquisition and the 10th anniversary
10 of that date , including an itemized description of the progress
11 made , if applicable ; and
12 (3) whether the property became unnecessary for the
13 public use , or a substantially similar p ublic use, before the 10th
14 anniversary of the date of acquisition .
15 (b) A request under this sect i on must contain sufficient
16 detail to allow the entity to identify the specific tract of land in
17 relat i on to which the information is sought .
18 ( c) Not later than the 90th day fallowing the date of
19 receipt of the request for information, the entity shall send a
20 written respon se by certified mail, return receipt requested , to
21 the reguestor .
22 Sec. 21 .1022 . LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR REPURCHASE RIGHT .
23 Notwithstanding Section 21 .103, the right to repurchase provided by
24 this subchapter is extinguished on the first anniversary of the
. 25 expirat ion of the period for an entity to provide notice under
26 Section 21.102 if the entity :
27 (1) is required to provide notice under Section
22
;::; • .t\ • l\J 0 • J_ t)
1 21 .102;
2 (2) makes a good faith effort to locate and provide
3 notice to each person entitled to notice before the expiration of
4 the deadline for providing notice under that section ; and
5 ( 3) does not receive a response to any not ice provided
6 under that section in the period for response prescribed by Section
7 21.103 .
8 Sec. 21.103 . RESALE OF PROPERTY ; PRICE . (a) Not later
9 than the 180th day after the date of the postmark on ~ [~] notice
10 sent under Section 21 .102 or a response to a request made under
11 Section 21.1021 that indicates that the proper.ty owner , or the
12
13
owner's heirs, successors ,
the property interest in
or assigns, is entitled to repurchase
accordance with Section 21.101 , the
14 property owner or the owner's heirs , successors , or assigns must
15 notify the [governmental] entity of the person 's intent to
16 repurchase the property interest under this subchapter .
17 (b) As soon as practicable after receipt of a notice of
18 intent to repurchase [the notification] under Subsection (a), the
19 [governmental] entity shall offer to sell the property interest to
20 the person for the price paid to the owner by the entity at the time
21 the entity acquired the property through eminent domain [.f..a..i..r
22 market value of the property at the time the public use ~.'as
23 canceled ]. The person's right to repurchase the property expires
24 on the 90th day after the date on which the [governmental] entity
25 makes the off er .
26 SECTION 20 . Section 202 .021 , Transportation Code , is
27 amended by adding Subsection ( j) to read as follows :
23
1 (j) The standard for determination of the fair value of the
2 state 's interest in access rights to a highway right-of-way is the
3 same legal standard that is applied by the commission in the:
4 (1) acquisition of access rights under Subchapter D,
5 Chapter 203; and
6 (2) payment of damages in the exercise of the
7 authority, under Sub chapter C, Chapter 203 , for impairment of
8 highway access to or from real property where the real property
9 adjoins the highway.
10 SECTION 21 . Section 54 .209 , Water Code , is amended to read
11
12
13
14
as follows :
Sec . 54 .209 . LIMITATION ON USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN . A
district may not exercise the power of eminent domain outside the
district boundaries to acquire:
15 (1) a site for a water treatment plant, water storage
16 facility, wastewater treatment plant , or wastewater disposal
.17 plant;
18 (2) a site for a park , swimming pool, or other
19 recreational facility, as defined by Section 49 .462 [e2rnept a
20 trail] ;
21 ( 3 ) [a site for a trail on real property designated as
22 a homestead as defined by Section 41 . 002 / Property Code 1 or
23 [+4+] an exclusive easement through a county regional
24 parki.....2..!.
25 (4) a site or easement for a road project .
26 SECTION 22. Section 1, Chapter 178 (S.B. 289), Acts of the
27 56th Legislature, Regular Session , 1959 (Article 3183b-l, Vernon's
24
;::,.!). l\JO . 1-~
1 Texas Civil Statutes), is amended t o read as fallows :
2 Sec . 1 . Except as provi ded by this section, and
3 notwithstanding any other law , any [~] nonprofit corporation
4 i ncorporated under the laws of this state for purely charitable
5 purposes and which is directly affiliated or associated with a
6 medical center having a medical sch ool recognized by the Council on
7 Medical Education and Hospitals of the Ame r ican Medical Association
8 as an integral part of its establishment , and which has for a
9 purpose of its incorporation the provision or support of medical
10 f acilit i es or ser vices for the use and benef~t of the public , and
11 which is situated in any county of this state havin g a population i n
12 excess of six hundred thousand (600 ,000) inhabitants according to
13 the most recent Federal Census shall have the power of eminent
14 domain and condemnation for the purposes set forth in Section 2 and
15 Section 3 of this Act . A charitable corpo r ation described by this
16 section may not exercise the power of emin ent domain and
17 condemnation to acquire a detached , single-family residential
18 property or a mu l tifamily residential prop erty that contains eight
19 or f ewer dwelling units .
20 SEC TION 23 . (a) Section 552 .0037 , Government Code , is
21 repealed .
22 (b) Secti on 21.024 , Property Code , is repealed .
23 SECTION 24 . Section 11 .155 , Education Code , Chapter 2206 ,
24 Governmen t Code , Sections 251.001 , 261 .001, 263 .201 , and 273 .002 ,
25 Local Government Code , Chapter 2 1, Prope r ty Code , an d Sect ion 1 ,
26 Chapter 178 ( S . B . 289) , Acts of the 56th Legislature , Regular
27 Session, 1959 (Article 3183b-l , Vernon 's Texas Civil Statutes), as
25
1 amended by this Act, apply only to a condemnation proceeding in
2 which the petition is filed on or after the effective date of this
3 Act and to any property condemned through the proceeding. A
4 condemnation proceeding in which the petition is filed before the
5 effective date of this Act and any property condemned through the
6 proceeding are governed by the law in effect immediately before
7 that date, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
8 SECTION 25 . The change in law made by this Act to Section
9 202 .021, Transportation Code, applies only to a sale or transfer
10 under that section that occurs on or after the effective date of
11 this Act . A sale or transfer that occurs before the effective date
12 of this Act is governed by the law applicable to the sale or
13 transfer immediately before the effective date of this Act , and
14 that law is continued in effect for that purpose .
15 SECTION 26 . The changes in law made by this Act to Section
16 54 .209 , Water Code, apply only to a condemnation proceeding in
17 which the petition is filed on or after the effective date of this
18 Act . A condemnation proceeding in which the petition is filed
19 before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
20 effect on the date the petition was filed , and that law is continued
21 in effect for that purpose .
22 SECTION 27. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
26
•
President of the Senate
I hereby certify that
February 9 , 2011, by the
S.B. No. 18
Speaker of the House
S .B . No . 18 passed the Senate on
following vote : Yeas 31, Nays O;
April 19 , 2011 , Senate refused to concur in House amendments and
requested appointment of Conference Committee ; April 28 , 2011 ,
House granted request of the Senate ; May 6 , 2011 , Senate adopted
Conference Committee Report by the following vote: Yeas 30 ,
Nays 0.
Secretary of the Senate
I hereby certify that S .B . No . 18 passed the House, with
a mendments , on April 14 , 2011 , by the following vote : Yeas 144,
Nays 0, one present not voting; April 28 , 2011 , House granted
request of the Senate for appointment of Conference Committee;
May 5, 2011 , House adopted Conference Committee Report by the
fallowing vote : Yeas 145, Nays 0 , two present not voting .
Chief Clerk of the House
Approved :
Date
Governor
27
The City of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas A venue • College Station, TX 77842 •
www .ci.college-sta ti on. tx. us
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager
Roxanne Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney
Mark Smith, Public Works Director
From:
Subject:
Date:
Kelly Templin, Development Services Director
~ne Kee, City Planner
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
Judy Downs, Greenways Program Manager OOJ
Unified Development Ordinance 0 .,.._.,
Greenway Implementation Considerations
March 12, 2002
(979) 764-3500
Attached you will find a summary of greenway implementation consideratio~ as
discussed at our December 17 meeting. The summary includes the most stringent
exaction methodology, to our existing policy of accepting dedications. The second
attachment is Ted Mayo's considerations that he provided before he left. Since our
December meeting, I met with Roxanne to discuss the issues; and provided her with the
name of an attorney that was involved in these matters while employed by the City of
Denton. Additionally, I have piles of studies and reference materials, most of which were
referred to me by Bobby Hernandez with the EPA, but a lot of research was also
completed by Jennifer Mixon before my employment with the City.
I'm looking forward to meeting again so that we can put this matter to rest one
way or the other, and thought that we might meet once more before the joint City
Council/Commission meeting in April.
Attachments
Home of Texas A&M University
Implementation of Greenways
into the
Unified Development Code
Purpose: Specification of various methodologies to incorporate acquisition of
greenway properties into the Unified Development Ordinance.
Main points to relate:
1. Greenway issues should be separated from the parkland dedication
ordinance and be viewed in the context of flood control, water quality and
quality of life.
2. Greenways will relate to parkland in terms of linkages and connections.
3. The City of College Station has approximately 2200 acres in the FEMA
100-year flood plain, 800 acres of that are developable; approximately 600
acres are undeveloped.
4. The. City should be viewed under two separate conditions; the currently
developed stream channels in the northern part of the community, and the
mostly undeveloped southern part of the community. Future development
areas would also include areas proposed for annexation or located in the
ETJ.
The City can acquire the greenway in several ways. The following listing details the
methods from most stringent to our existing methodology.
Most stringent -Watershed-wide Base Flood Elevation (BFE): 100-year floodplain -
fully developed watershed land use.
Zero Rise through emctions similar to the method used by the City of Allen, Texas and
other municipalities within the Rowlett Creek watershed. The 100 year base flood
elevation (BFE) and floodplain used for design, planning and acquisition is evaluated
upon total storm water discharge characteristics that will, through continued urbanization,
be generated from a fully developed watershed.
The City of Allen has a floodplain dedication ordinance that requires the dedication of all
the 100-year floodplain area of primary creeks throughout the city. Dedication is
required at the time of final platting. The City views creekways as stormwater channels,
that serve additional dual purposes of offering open space and trail use. They also require
the developer to construct hike/bike trails along the full length of the greenways at no
cost to the City. The developers have constructed approximately 10 miles of trails, and
charge higher lot fees for all lots across from the trails system. The City believes this is a
part of infrastructure development. Furthermore, if the fully developed flood conditions
keep water within the banks of the creek, the City requires the developer to dedicate
enough land outside the floodplain to accommodate the trail; this provides a buffer from
creek bank erosion. They also require, where possible, that only single loaded streets be
constructed adjacent to greenways. This allows for unlimited access in times of floods,
.·'
and it opens this space up for all to enjoy. No floodplain filling is allowed on any of the
primary streams.
Zero rise through exactions can be less stringent than the methodology used by the City
of Allen which exacts based on ultimate development. The City of College Station
currently uses the FEMA l 00-year base floodplain and we could continue to use those to
avoid the expense of mapping the entire City. Flood plain areas within the City that are
currently unmapped would require the developer to provide the information if the
development is greater than 5 acres or 50 lots.
Moderately stringent control measures would utilize the previously proposed zero
rise ordinance language and incorporate the proposed riparian buffer ordinance.
This method of protecting the floodplain only allows reclamation if:
1. There is no rise in the 100-year base flood elevation
2. There is no increased flooding to other property
3. There is no increase in erosive water velocity .
4. There is no alteration of undeveloped portions of primary stream channels
A proposal and power point presentation were previously prepared and presented
detailing this method of floodplain/greenway protection.
The riparian (stream) buffer portion of this method would require developers to provide
buffers adjacent to stream systems which could be as small as 100 feet or could
encompass the entire 100-year floodplain. A proposed buffer ordinance is attached.
The least stringent method to acquire and protect floodplains and greenways would
be to continue as the City of College Station has. This involves volunteer greenway
dedications as new developments are brought into development services for review,
and/or the actual purchase of the 100-year floodplain with the use of greenway bond
funds. This method could be improved by requiring that the dedication occur when the
first plat is submitted rather than at the end, and through the enforcement of erosion and
sedimentation control measures before and during construction.
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF FLOODPLAIN/GREENWAY EXACTIONS
1. The developer would realize savings in stormwater retention/detention structures
as the preserved floodplain could accommodate much of this need. We
understand that the stormwater detention facility on the Crowley development
cost the developer approximately $500,000.
2. The City would realize savings in the operation and maintenance of drainage
facilities.
3. The state and federal permitting process for the development community would
be streamlined.
4. The City's long term liability may be reduced (i .e. San Antonio example).
5. Implementation of the City's requirements under Phase II of the clean water act
would begin through the establishment of riparian buffers (water quality
setbacks).
Jhere are many other cost/benefit factors that the community realizes through the
protection of these natural resources; they include neighborhood quality of life
improvements, habitat protection, and improved water quality.
Section I. Background
City of College Station, Texas
Stream Buffer Ordinance
DRAFT
Whereas, buffers adjacent to stream systems provide nwnerous environmental protection and resource
management benefits which can include the following:
a) restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the water
resources
b) removing pollutants delivered in urban stormwater
c) reducing erosion and controlling sedimentation
d) stabilizing stream banks
e) providing infiltration of stonnwater runoff
f) maintaining base flow of streams
g) contributing the organic matter that is a source of food and energy for the aquatic
ecosystem
h) providing tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic organisms
i) providing riparian wildlife habitat
j) furnishing scenic value and recreational opportunity
It is the desire of the City of College Station to protect and maintain the native vegetation in riparian and
wetland areas by implementing specifications for the establishment, protection and maintenance of
vegetation along all stream systems within our jurisdictional authority.
Section IL Intent
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimal acceptable requirements for the design of buffers to
protect the streams, wetlands and floodplains of the City of College Station, to protect the water quality of
watercourses and significant water resources within the City of College Station, to protect the City of
College Station's riparian and aquatic ecosystems; and to provide for the environmentally sound use of the
City of College Station's land resources.
Section ill. Definitions
Active Channel: The area of the stream that is subject to frequent flows (approximately once per one and a
half years), and that includes the portion of the channel below where tl1e floodplain flattens.
Best Management Practices (BMP's): Conservation practices or management measures which control
soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal wastes, toxins, sedirnenl and
runoff.
Buffer: A vegetated area, including trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, which exists or is established
to protect a stream system, lake, or reservoir. Alteration of this natural area is strictly limited.
Development: l) The improvement of property for any purpose involving building; 2) Subdivision, or
division of a tract or parcel of land in to 2 or more parcels; 3) the combination of any two or more lots,
tracts, or parcels of property for any purpose; 4) the preparation of land for any of the above purposes.
Non-Tidal Wetland: Those areas not influenced by tidal fluctuations that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Non-point Source Pollution: Pollution which is generated by various land use activities rather than from
an identifiable or discrete source, and is conveyed to waterways through natural processes, such as rainfall,
storm runoff or ground water seepage rather than direct discharge.
One Hundred Year Floodplain: The area of land adjacent to a stream that is subject to inundation during
a storm event that has a recurrence interval of one hundred (100) years.
Pollution: Any contamination or alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any
waters that will render the waters harmful or detrimental to: public health, safety or welfare; domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses; livestock, wild
animals, or birds; fish or other aquatic life.
Stream Channel: Part of a water course either naturally or artificially created which contains an
intermittent or perennial base flow of groundwater origin. Base flows of groundwater origin can be
distinguished by any of the following physical indicators:
l) Hydrophytic vegetation, bydric soil or other hydrologic indicators in the area(s) where
groundwater enters the stream channel, in the vicinity of the stream headwaters, channel bed
or channel banks
2) Flowing water not directly related to a storm event
3) Historical records of a local high groundwater table, such as well and stream gauge records.
Stream Order: A classification system for streams based on stream hierarchy. The smaller the stream, the
lower its numerical classification. For example, a first order stream does not have tributaries and normally
originates from springs and/or seeps. At the confluence of two first order streams, a second order stream
begins, and so on.
Stream System: A stream channel together with one or both of the following:
l) 100-year floodplain and/or
2) Hydrologically-related non-tidal wetlands
Streams: Perennial and intermittent watercourses identified through site inspection and USGS maps.
Perennial streams are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a solid blue line. Intermittent streams
are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a dotted blue line.
Water Pollution Hazard: A land use or activity that causes a relatively high risk of potential water
pollution.
Section IV. Applications
A) This ordinance shall apply to all proposed development except that development, which meets
waiver or variance criteria as, outlined in Section IX of this regulation.
B) This ordinance shall apply to all timber harvesting activities, except those timber harvesting
operations which are implementing a forest management plan which has been deemed to be in
compliance with the regulations of the buffer ordinance and has received approval from the
Texas Conservation and Natural Resources Department.
C) This ordinance shall apply to all surface mining operations except that the design standards
shall not apply to active surface mining operations that are operating in compliance with an
approved Texas Conservation and Natural Resources Department surface mining permit.
D) The ordinance shall not apply to agricultural operations that are covered by an approved
TCNR conservation plan that includes the application of best management practices.
E) Except as provided in Section IX, this ordinance shall apply to all parcels of land, structures
and activities which are causing or contributing to:
1) Pollution, including non-point pollution, of the waters of the City of College Station.
2) Erosion or sedimentation of stream channels
3) Degradation of aquatic or riparian habitat
Section V. Plan Requirements
A) In accordance with section IV of this ordinance, a plan approved by the appropriate agency
is required for all development, forest harvesting operations, surface mining operations, and
agricultural operations.
B) The plan shall set forth an informative, conceptual and schematic representation of the
proposed activity by means of maps, graphs, charts, or other written or drawn documents so
as to enable the City of College Station an opportunity to make a reasonably informed
decision regarding the proposed activity.
C) The plan shall contain the following information:
1) a location or vicinity map
2) Field delineated and surveyed streams, springs, seeps, bodies of water, and wetlands
(include a minimum of two hundred (200) feet into adjacent properties;).
3) Field delineated and surveyed forest buffers
4) Limits of the ultimate one hundred year floodplain
5) Hydric soils mapped in accordance with the NRCS soil survey of the site area
6) Steep slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent for areas adjacent to and within two
hundred (200) feet of streams, wetlands, or other waterbodies.
7) A narrative of the species and distribution of existing vegetation within the buffer
D) The buffer plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the required grading plan for any
development, and the forest buffer should be clearly delineated on the final grading plan.
E) Permanent boundary markers, in the form of signage approved by the City of College
Station, shall be installed prior to final approval of the required clearing and grading plan.
Signs shall be placed at the edge of the Middle Zone (See Section Vl.E).
Section VI Design Standards for Forest Buffers
A) A forest buffer for a stream system shall consist of a forested strip of land extending along
both sides of a stream and its adjacent wetlands, floodplains or slopes. The forest buffer
width shall be adjusted to include contiguous sensitive areas, such as steep slopes or erodible
soils, where development or disturbance may adversely affect water quality, streams,
wetlands, or other waterbodies.
B) 111e forest buffer shall begin at the edge of the stream bank of the active channel.
C) The required width for all forest buffers (i.e., the base width) shall be a minimum of one
hundred feet , with the requirement to expand the buffer depending on: l) stream order; 2)
percent slope; 3) 100-year floodplain; 4) wetlands or critical areas.
l) ln third order and higher streams, add twenty-five feet to the base width.
2) Forest buffer width shall be modified if there are steep slopes which are
within a close proximity to the stream and drain into the stream system. In
those cases, the forest buffer width can be adjusted.
3) Forest buffers shall be extended to encompass the entire 100-year
floodplain and a zone with minimum width of 25 feet beyond the edge of
the floodplain.
4) When wetland or critical areas extend beyond the edge of the required
buffer width, the buffer shall be adjusted so that the buffer consists of the
ex1ent of the wetland plus a 25-foot zone extending beyond the wetland
edge.
D) Water Pollution Hazards
The following land uses and/or activities are designated as potential water pollution hazards,
and must be set back from any stream or waterbody by the distance indicated below:
1) storage of hazardous substances (150 feet)
2) above or below ground petroleum storage facilities (150 feet)
3) drainfields from on-site sewage disposal and treatment systems (i.e., septic
systems -100 feet)
4) raised septic systems (250 feet)
5) solid waste landfills or junkyards (300 feet)
6) confined animals feedlot operations (250 feet)
7) subsurface discharges from a wastewater treatment plant (100 feet)
8) land application ofbiosolids (100 feet)
For surface water supplies, the setbacks should be doubled
E) The forest buffer shall be composed of three distinct zones, with each zone having its own
set of allowable uses and vegetative targets as specified in the ordinance.
1) Zone 1 Streamside Zone
a) The function of tl1e streamside zone is to protect the physical and
ecological integrity of the stream ecosystem.
b) 111e streamside zone will begin at the edge of the stream bank of the
active channel and extend a minimum of 25 feet from the top of the
bank
c) Allowable uses within this zone are highly restricted to:
i) flood control structures
ii) utility rights of way
iii) footpaths
iv) road crossings, where pennitted
d) The vegetative target for the streamside zone is undisturbed native
vegetation.
·.
2) Zone 2 Middle Zone
a) The function of the middle zone is to protect key components of the
stream and to provide distance between upland development and the
streamside zone.
b) The middle zone will begin at t11e outer edge of the strcamside zone
and extend a minimum of 50 feet plus any additional buffer width as
specified in Section VI C.
c) Allowable uses within the middle zone are restricted to:
i) biking or hiking paths
ii) stormwater management facilities with the approval
of the City of College Station
iii) recreational uses as approved by the City of College
Station
iv) limited tree clearing witll approval from tlle TCNR
d) The vegetative target for the middle zone is mature native vegetation
adapted to tlle region.
3) Zone 3 Outer Zone
a) The function of the outer zone is to prevent encroaclunent into tlle
forest buffer and to filter runoff from residential and commercial
development.
b) The outer zone will begin at tlle outward edge of the middle zone and
provide a mininlum widtll of 25 feet between Zone 2 and tlle nearest
permanent structure.
c) There shall be no septic systems, permanent structures or impervious
cover, with the exception of paths, within the outer zone.
d) The vegetative target for the outer zone may vary, although the
planting of native vegetation should be encouraged to increase the
total width of the buffer.
Section VIL Buffer Management and Maintenance
A) The forest buffer, including wetlands and floodplains, shall be managed to enhance and
maximize the unique value of these resources. Management includes specific limitations
on alteration of the natural conditions of these resources. The following practices and
activities are restricted within Zones 1 and 2 of the forest buffer, except with approval by
theTCNR.
1) Clearing of existing vegetation.
2) Soil disturbance by grading, stripping, or other practices.
3) Filling or dumping
4) Drainage by ditching, underdrains, or other systems
5) Use, storage, or application of pesticides, except for the spot spraying
of noxious weeds or non-native species consistent with
recommendations of TCNR
6) Housing, grazing, or other maintenance of livestock.
7) Storage or operation of motorized vehicles, except for maintenance and
emergency use approved by the City of College Station.
B) The following structures, practices, and activities are permitted in the forest buffer, with
specific design or maintenance features, subject to the review of the City of College
Station:
I) Roads, bridges, paths, and utilities:
a) An analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically
feasible alternative is available.
b) The right of way should be the minimum width needed to allow
for maintenance access and installation
c) The angle of the crossing shall be perpendicular to the stream or
buffer in order to minimize clearing requirements.
d) The minimum number of road crossings should be used within
each subdivision, and no more than one fairway crossing is
allowed for every 1,000 feet of buffer.
2) Stormwater management
e) An analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically
feasible alternative is available, and that the project is either
necessary for flood control, or significantly improves the water
quality or habitat in the stream.
f) In new developments, on-site and non-structural alternatives will
be preferred over larger facilities within the stream buffer.
g) When constructing stormwater management facilities (i.e.,
BMP's), tl1e area cleared will be limited to the area required for
construction, and adequate maintenance access, as outlined in the
most recent edition of the City of College Station's Stormwater
Management Plan.
h) Material dredged or otherwise removed from a BMP shall be
stored outside tile buffer.
3) Stream restoration projects, facilities and activities approved by TCNR
are permitted within the forest buffer.
4) Water quality monitoring and stream gauging are permitted within tile
forest buffer, as approved by the City of College Station.
5) Individual trees within the forest buffer may be removed which are in
danger of falling, causing damage to dwellings or other structures, or
causing blockage of the stream.
6) Other timber cutting techniques approved by the City of College
Station may be undertaken within tile forest buffer under tile advice and
guidance of tile City of College Station Urban Forester, if necessary to
preserve tile forest from extensive pest infestation, disease infestation,
or tllreat from fire.
C) All plats prepared for recording and all right-of-way plats shall clearly:
1) Show tile extent of any forest buffer on tile subject property by metes
and bounds
2) Label the forest buffer
3) Provide a note to reference any forest buffer stating: "There shall be no
clearing, grading, construction or disturbance of vegetation except as
permitted by the City of College Station.
. .
4) Provide a note to reference any protective covenants governing all
forest buffer areas stating: 11 Any forest buffer shown hereon is subject
to protective covenants which may be found in the land records and
which restrict disturbance and use of these areas. 11
D) All forest buffer areas shall be maintained through a declaration of protective covenant,
which is required to be submitted for approval by the City of College Station
Development Services Division. The covenant shall be recorded in the land records and
shall run with the land and continue in perpetuity.
E) All lease agreements must contain a notation regarding the presence and location of
protective covenants for forest buffer areas, and which shall contain information on the
management and maintenance requirements for the forest buffer for the new property
owner.
F) An offer of dedication of a forest buffer area to the City of College Station shall not be
interpreted to mean that this automatically conveys to the general public the right of
access to this area.
G) The City of College Station Drainage Administrator shall inspect the buffer annually and
inunediately following sever stonns for evidence of sediment deposition, erosion, or
concentrated flow channels and detennine corrective actions to be taken to ensure the
integrity and functions of the forest buffer.
H) Forest buffer areas may be allowed to grow into their vegetative target state naturally, but
methods to enhance the successional process such as active reforestation may be used
when deemed necessary by the City of College Station Urban Forester to ensure the
preservation and propagation of the buffer area. Forest buffer areas may also be
enhanced through reforestation or other growth techniques as a form of mitigation for
achieving buffer preservation requirements.
Section VIIL Enforcement Procedures
A) The Director of is authorized and empowered to enforce the
requirements of this ordinance in accordance with the procedures of this section.
B) If, upon inspection or investigation, the Director or his/her designee is of the opinion that
any person has violated any provision of this ordinance, he/she shall with reasonable
promptness issue a correction notice to the person. Each such notice shall be in writing
and shall describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision
within this ordinance tliat llaS been violated. In addition, the notice shall set a reasonable
time for the abatement and correction of the violation.
C) If it is detennined that the violation or violations continue after the time fixed for
abatement and correction has expired, the Director shall issue a citation by certified mail
to the person who is in violation. Each such notice shall be in writing and shall describe
the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision within this ordinance
which has been violated, and what penalty, if any, is proposed to be assessed. The person
charged has thirty (30) days within which to contest the citation or proposed assessment
of penalty and to file a request for a hearing with the Director or his designee. At the
conclusion of this hearing, the Director or his designee will issue a final order, subject to
appeal to the appropriate authority. If, within thirty (3)) days from the receipt of the
citation issued by the Director, the person fails to contest the citation or proposed
assessment of penalty, the citation or proposed assessment of penalty shall be deemed the
final order of the Director.
\
D) Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable for any cost or
expense incurred as a result thereof by the City of College Station.
E) · Penalties which may be assessed for those deemed to be in violation may include:
1)
CONSIDERATION OF "0-RlSE" CRJTERIA
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
CURRENT STATUS:
• Drainage Ordinance Follows FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements
Fill Allowed in Flood Fringe Up To 1' Rise in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation Based
on Current Development Conditions
No Increase in Peak Runoff Caused by Development-Detention normally Required
Finished Floor Elevation Required to be l' Above the 100 Year Base Flood Elevation
and up to 4' in Some Areas
No Development Allowed in Floodway Unless no Increase in 100 Year Base Flood
Elevation (Variance Required)
Mapping and Modeling based on 2' Topographic Maps Prepared using 1970-1980
technology (Accuracy +/-15%)
• 1997 Comprehensive Plan Estimates 2264 Acres ofFEMA 100 Year Floodplain
Within the City Limits; It is Estimated that 1/3 of This Area is Flood Fringe Which
Can be Filled In Under the Current Drainage Ordinance
• College Station Experienced a 100 Year+ Flood in October 1994 With
Approximately 13" of Rainfall in a 24 Hour Period. The Area Upstream of Texas
Avenue on Wolf Pen Creek Experienced the Worst Flooding. City Wide About 30
Occupied Dwellings Were Damaged by Rising Water up to a Maximum Depth of
2.5'.
PROPOSED
Implement the Greenway Master Plan Criteria Adopted by the College Station City
Council on May 27, 1999
• Urban Greenways-Reserve the Floodway Plus as Much Buffer Area as Can
Reasonably be Obtained; Detention Required For All New Development
• Suburban Greenways-Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain; No Detention Except
for Localized Conditions on Secondary Streams
• Rural Greenways-Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain Plus Buffer Areas on Each
Side if Possible; No Detention
• No Channel Modifications without City Engineer's Approval; Limit Maximum
Velocities; Require Compensation Storage
• Remodel/Remap entire City with Latest Technology and Based on Ultimate
Development Per Approved Land Use Plan.
IMPACT
• Estimate Remodeling Based on Ultimate Development Will Result in Approximately
1' Increase in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation. Estimate Change Due to Latest
Mapping Technology to be+/-l '.Net Change Could be +2' to O'.
• 1' Increase in 100 Year Base Floodplain Elevation Will Increase Total Floodplain
Acreage in City by Approximately 375 Acres
• Since the Urban Greenways Along Wolf Pen Creek and Bee Creek are Mostly
Developed the Total Flood Fringe Area to be Reserved From Development is
Approximately 900 Acres. Of This Amount About 200 Acres Has Voluntarily Been
Reserved Along Lick Creek and Spring Creek by Recent and Ongoing Developments.
• If the Current Criteria Remains in Effect We Can Expect Increases in the 100 Year
Base Flood Elevation as Development of Pervious Open Space Occurs and Possible
Flood Damage to Existing Structures That Have Not Experienced Flooding in the
Past
• Texas A&M University has Committed to Detention on Tributary C of Wolf Pen
Creek. This Work Should be Completed in the Next Couple of Years and Will
Reduce the Peak Flow Rate of Wolf Pen Creek Just Upstream of Texas Avenue by
20% Greatly Reducing the Flooding in This Area.
Financial Impacts
• Lost of Value ofDevelopable Acres in the 100 Year Floodplain
• Savings to Developer of Cost to Fill And Compact Area in Floodplain-$20,000/Acre
• Cost to City to Remap and Remodel-$1 ,000,000
• No Detention-
• No Flood Insurance
• Increased Value of Property Adjacent to Natural Floodplain
First Draft--01/29/02-TDM
/Venessa Garza
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cheryl Wright
Friday, June 14, 201311 :18AM
Courtney Kennedy; Venessa Garza
Carol Thompson
RE : Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
I am comfortable with it.
Cheyl
From: Courtney Kennedy
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Venessa Garza
Cc: Carol Thompson; Cheryl Wright
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
I think that sounds reasonable. Cheryl -are you comfortable with it or should we run it by Bond Counsel?
-CK
From: Venessa Garza
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7: 14 PM
To: Courtney Kennedy
Cc: Carol Thompson; Cheryl Wright
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
By definition, greenways typically include areas along creeks but can include any open space for preservation or
recreation. Most of the properties we typically look at have already been studied by FEMA (at some level) and have
been designated as special flood hazard areas but there are areas that have not been studied that would be valuable to
protect and don't fall within that category.
The bond language says -"This proposition is intended to provide funding to acquire creek floodplain and floodway in
our community for natural drainage, open space and recreation areas."
I think any areas along creeks are greenways so I would need to work with Alan Gibbs to estimate the boundary of the
floodplain if hasn't been studied by FEMA.
Let me know what y'all think.
Venessa
From: Courtney Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Venessa Garza
Cc: Carol Thompson; Cheryl Wright
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
I'll let Venessa field this one. And there was an important omission in my original email -corrected and highlighted
below.
-CK
From: Cheryl Wright
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Courtney Kennedy
Cc: Carol Thompson; Venessa Garza
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Courtney,
I am not familiar with what criteria constitutes land to be designated as "greenways" but as long as
the land falls into that category the use of greenway funds would be appropriate. Is designating it as
a floodplain the determining factor?
Thanks,
Cheryl
From: Courtney Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:20 PM
To: Cheryl Wright
Cc: Carol Thompson; Venessa Garza
Subject: FW: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Cheryl,
We are considering purchasing some property for a regional park. The property contains a creek (see attached), but the
area has NOT been studied by FEMA to be designated as floodplain. If studied by FEMA, it's likely that portions would be
designated as floodplain . Venessa's proposal is to determine an appropriate distance from the creek that would be
designated as greenways and using greenways to purchase. Based on the way the proposition is written, I don't think it
would be an issue, but want to run it by you as well for your opinion. Venessa's concern is that it isn't designated by
FEMA as floodplain . Your thoughts?
Thanks, Courtney
From: Venessa Garza
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:24 PM
To: Courtney Kennedy
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Hey Courtney -Call me when you have second. I've attached a map with the stream that crosses the properties for the
question I have.
Venessa
From: Courtney Kennedy
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:20 PM
To: Venessa Garza
Cc: Carol Thompson
Subject: FW: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
2
The map is attached. Thanks, CK
From: Amy Atkins
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Courtney Kennedy
Subject: FW: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Mark's email regarding parkland and greenways with maps attached.
-Amy
From: Mark McAuliffe
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:54 AM
To: Chuck Gilman; David Schmitz; Alan Gibbs; Donald Harmon
Cc: Ashley A. Dorsett; Peter Lamont; Amy Atkins; Venessa Garza
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Greetings,
The map I will use to navigate this project is attached.
Everyone but Ms. Hollimon (No. 11) seems interested in selling the property.
Note that I added No. 8, which is 3 acre tract near the western property line.
That was done to square-up the corner.
Some "Greenways" properties toward the south were included.
Although this is not part of the Park project, I thought it may be worth investigating if Planning is interested in
greenways or regional detention .
Will send a report to you all next week after I meet with Andy White.
From: Chuck Gilman
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:33 AM
To: David Schm itz; Alan Gibbs; Mark McAuliffe; Donald Harmon
Cc: Ashley A. Dorsett
Subject: RE: Pa rk Zone 15 Land Search Project
David, I am sure Mark and Ashley will be happy to help. Would you like us to simply reach out to property
owners to gauge their interest, or do you want to begin the process of actually acquiring the property?
I ask because, staff is required to get a Needs Resolution approved by Council before acquiring property.
Typically, we would have Parks submit the item to Council since Parks is familiar with the project, and can
speak about the goals and objectives you want to achieve with a Park in this area. Once the NR is approved,
we typically have a kickoff meeting with Legal, and then Mark and Ashley can take it from there. Please let me
know how you want to proceed -simple phone calls or NR.
Thanks,
erg
From: David Schmitz
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:03 PM
To: Alan Gibbs; Chuck Gilman; Mark McAuliffe
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
3
Chuck, I spoke with Kathy about the property (parcel #5} and the fact it would not fit the needs for the regional
detention pond. I asked her about the other property we had identified (parcels #8a,c,d,f & #9a,b) and she said to go
ahead and begin to contact the owners about purchase for Park property.« File: Zone 15 Inventory of Prospective
Property -March 2013.pdf » «File : Zone 15 -26-March-2013.pdf »
Obviously no firm commitments yet. Let me know if this can be started. Thanks .
David Schmitz
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of College Station
979-764-3415
dschm itz@cstx.gov
From: Alan Gibbs
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:42 PM
To: David Schmitz; Chuck Gilman
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
David,
The 200 acre Ellington tract is unfortunately in a different watershed which breaks to southward.
The dividing ridge between these two watersheds is just south of Rock Prairie Rd.
Alan
From: David Schmitz
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Chuck Gilman; Alan Gibbs
Subject: FW: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
Chuck and Alan, Frank asked that I get in touch with you about the possibility of utilizing land parcel #5, on Mark's
property search map, for the drainage/detention pond that has been discussed for that area. I am still needing parkland
and this may work if you can use it also . Kill a lot of birds with one stone concept.
Thoughts?
David Schmitz
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of College Station
979-764-341 5
dschm itz@.cstx.gov
From: Mark McAuliffe
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Mark McAuliffe; David Schmitz; Ashley A. Dorsett; Peter Lamont; Amy Atkins
Cc: Donald Harmon
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
4
Corrected memo.
«File: Zone 15 -26-March-2013.pdf » «File: Inventory of Prospective Property -March 2013 .pdf »
From: Mark McAuliffe
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:34 AM
To: Mark McAuliffe; David Schmitz; Ashley A. Dorsett; Peter Lamont; Amy Atkins
Cc: Donald Harmon
Subject: RE: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
David,
Please find a memo and map attached .
«File: Inventory of Prospective Property -March 2013.pdf » «File: Zone 15 -26-March-2013.pdf »
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Mark McAuliffe
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Mark McAuliffe; David Schmitz; Ashley A. Dorsett; Peter Lamont; Amy Atkins
Cc: Donald Harmon
Subject: Park Zone 15 Land Search Project
When: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:30 PM -4:30 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where: PARD World HQ
Discuss findings of search for park land.
5
Criteria for Greenway Land Acquisition
Strategy for identifying floodplain property to purchase is based on potential development altering
the area's natural functions or the need for a proposed trail:
(!)Top Priority -Has flooding problems that are affecting the immediate health and safety of citizens -
HIGH RISK
@ Level 1 -Platted and Zoned for development
_ / '3 Level 2 -Not platted but zoned for develo ment
vel 3 -not platted or zoned for development -LOW RISK
Other criteria considered in determining the need to purchase property for the Greenways Program:
Could also serve a parkland need
Is adjacent to existing City property
Could serve other City needs such as water, sewer, etc.
f
r City later (negati
tial development in the floo lain.
I
Venessa Garza
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Venessa,
See notes below.
Thanks,
Ashley
From: Venessa Garza
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 2:54 PM
To: Ashley A. Dorsett
Subject: Parcels to Pursue
Hey -Here is a list of Parcels to discuss before you send letters out ... Can you look to see if they're on the market and if
~\
Recently attempted to get dedication of easement on property, landowners not cooperative
One landowner did suggest that City buy property however they will probably want quite a bit of money.
R37891: Triangle Oaks, LP .Mc.,· hv \ C -Listed for $172,000 {$2.99/sf) since 04/24/2012 ~) '14
' Four PACs since 2006, most recent in July, NAI study required, zoned GC
R84672 and 84671: Regency Parkway, Inc. \
• -Not listed ... good one to pursue
\Ji.,., Include R89892 as well?
>-( What about the Hwy 30 Partnership property to the SE? They suggested selling to City in 2009 when City was
going to purchase an easement on t he property.
R349906: Inland Western CS CI J.._ ~. Vi __ ._LL·· ~--Not listed "\°\I.I" (,6"" ~ v~v\~--
'-Zoned GC, just purchased last year ... probably would not pursue
R45713 : TECO, Inc. t' Not listed
Remember doing something with this property back in 2009, perhaps Mark remembers what
~» r~2~Ja ck W. Cumpton & Assoc. \ G ~ ~isted for $125,000 {$1.73/sf) since 05/02/2011 ti v-o~LIS'IS"~ l~)~·
Two PACs since 2006, zoned 0
R44334: First Baptist Church of CS
1
I
Venessa
Not listed
Currently pursuing dedication of PUE upon this tract
Zoned R4, church has future plans to put additional parkin g here but is not familiar with the requirements this
would take
2
G REENWAY ACQUISITION POLICY
Definitions
a. The term "Greenways" refers to an interconnected network of off-road human
transportation corridors.
b. Types include:
1. Recreation Paths may be paved or gravel
2. Primitive Path: unpaved tra ils. minimal grading and improvements
c. The standard Williston Greenway Easement is a 20' easement grant in
perpetuity. Town of Wi lliston is responsible for signage and maintenance.
While the landowner is covered by Vermont's Landowner Lia bility laws,
The town of Wi lliston's liability policy covers the specific trai l easement.
2 Policy
a. The W i!!~sto :1 ~onservatior: C:ommis::.::c,n seeks Greenway Easements th3t
meet th e fol lov.-:nc; conditions
1.There is a greenway designatio n on the Open space map in
the Town Comprehensive Plan located on or in the immediate vicinity of
the property under consideration .
2.The Conservation Commission and/or staff has done a site visit
confirming the suitability of the proposed ease ent fitting in with the
Williston greem".t:3 y network.
3.The Conservation Commission and/or staff have discussed the
proposed siting of the easement with the owner or developer.
4. The W illis ton Greenway Easement will be modeled after the Vermont
Lsnd Trust Standard Trail Easement document.
5. Fun ding for Greenway Easements will come from the Williston
Environmental Reserve Fund, with supplemental leveraging funds
from other sources here available.
b. Easements cail be obtained in several ways:
1. Development process: The Conservation Commission ca n recommend
the specific or general siting of a greenway easement to be a condition of
the development's approval. This easement would be con veyed to the
town of Will iston at no outright fee upon approval of the application
\
I
2. Land Conservation Process: As pa rt of the process of conserving Open
Space in Williston, a specific trail easement may be crea ed if a link of the
proposed Williston Greenway network passes on or near the protected
land.
3 Trail development pro cess Specific sections of the Wil liston Greenway
network may be pri oritized as key links by the Conservation Commissio n.
For these properties, the Commission would proactively seek out
landowners on or near the critical links. In this case, Williston would be
willing to pay the landowner $1 /linear foot of Greenway Easement to offset
the potential red uction in the property's value as result of granting the
easement. For Greenway Easements less than 500 feet, the easement
fee would be $500 per Easement. In addition, upon la nd owner request,
the Conservati Commission would inform tov·n iister of easeme::: so
that the ease!nt.::1t's effest can be incorp 0. atecl in the town's tax
assessm :~m of nit~ property
4.Trali Eas(::r'~"-'" -::-'laiic.~s. '....;::::downers who have existing tr aris 111ay
approach the tovm regarding donation of the trai l easement. Unless this
trail is viewed as a "key link" as in case #3 above, th e town would only
accept the easement if it were donated. The Commission would, upon
landowner req uest, inform the town lister of the easement so that the
easement can be inco rp orated into the town's tax assessment of the
property
Ji.pproved by the Williston Conservation Commission 11/18/98
I ;· r -r £..-.I t LJ •. ct o
'R ?01 Si
R4433f J
443~
~ lo ~1'1
fZ 13104 -BiJt'1""~ylj5~
R t:f3o<o'1 6.~ ".f-B~Pc'V\7
1340J ~~~~
g l3J ~l_e Joe_ FA.t;.:&1~0. -~~"'*IV'-~ 7_
Scoring System
for Greenways Prioritization Matrix
Criteria I
Linkage:
Existing (E) = 5 points
Future (F) = 3 points
None (N) = 0 points
Criteria II
Immediacy Of Development In Years:
Ongoing = 4 points
1 to 5 Years = 3 points
5 to 10 Years= 2 points
1 O+ Years = 1 point
Criteria III
Amount Of Undeveloped Land:
Substantial = 3 points
Moderate = 2 points
Minimal= 1 point
Not Applicable = 0 points
o:\group\admin\reports\greenways\ssgpm.doc
... -..
APPLICATION
FOR
ACCEPTANCE
OF
GREENWAYS
TRAILS
AND
OPEN SPACE
File # __________ _
Date of Proposal ______ _
ameof Project----------------------------------------
APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE
GREENW AYS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
APPLICANT
City: __________________ State: ____ Zip: _____ _
Telephone:( __ ) ________ ----------
TYPE OF PROJECT: (Check all that apply)
Trail : ______ _ Acquisition: _______ _ Development : ____ _
Park: ______ _ Acquisition: _______ _ Development: ____ _
Open Space: ___ _ Acquisition: _______ _
Owner: Is owner aware of this proposal? ____ _
Na1ne: ___________________________________ _
Agency: ___________________________________ ~
Address: ___________________________________ ~
City: _______________ _ State: _____ Zip: ____ _
Telephone:(_) _________________ _
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF ACCEPTANCE:
Address: ___________________________________ ~
Description -----------------------------------
Purpose of acquisition or acceptance:
Proposed Type of Acquisition or acceptance:
Fee Simple ____ _ Sale ____ _ Trade _______ _
Conservation Easement: ____ _ Donation: ____ _
Lease: ____ _ POD: _____ _
Other: -------------------------------------
Proposed Type of Development:
APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE
GREENWAYS TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
Page Two
Please explain why this proposal is appropriate for City of College Station acceptance:
APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE
GREENWAYS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PROPERTY PROFILE/PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Prepared by Staff
File No.: ________ _
Date: _________ _
Na1neof Project: _______________________________________ _
Primary Criteria:
(score all that apply: 1-10 points each) (maximum score= 80) Score: ________ _
__ Water resources (natural drainages, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)
__ Riparian corridor (major stream corridors, identified greenways)
__ Open space linkages and trail connections
__ Passive recreational or educational opportunities
Wildlife habitat/corridor
__ Scenjc quality (views to and !Tom, relative visibility, visual significance)
__ Ecosystem preservation; species diversity
__ Economic benefits to the community
Feasibility Criteria:
(score all that apply: 1-5 points each) (maximum score= 30) Score: --------
__ Land/easement rights available
Favorable terms and conditions
__ Accessible to the public
__ Ability to combine acquisition with other grant, matching funds or partnerships
__ Maintenance and management mechanism
__ Spatial definition and neighborhood buffers
Priority:
(score all that apply: 1-10 points each) (maximum score= 70) Score: _______ _
__ Identified for conservation in the Green ways Master Plan or other planning docwnent
__ Meets goals of the Greenways Master Plan
__ Serves multiple purposes
__ Accessible to the public
__ Long term regional significance
__ High and immediate development potential
__ Community support/partnerships
Total Score:----------(maximum score = 180)
Select-p~
with·, h -hoocl p { a.i ~.
e'I. ~lude ~~. th~t \S -coc,s
-HO~
~ed A-o.
hl~h t.f tall~ on. -pcd"h e){~S-h,;j Of'-pJAhYled.
~ €.rvlo9Ra.p'-'tCS
Yv'onth~ PoPu_~·
OCCUf~-~
~Wl-f/~ds -I
0f~sf1+(£)
• {ioocl~s-~·
@-l0>fctd.cd-a~lop~i#J
i'-Ca~noS~
-~iildi"1q p~Y~ -
e ne\-V cl!.-velop~ ~le •
pul\l"~ Cu51.~ JH.Ae.s, ( P°'""f-l~e'-)
\ oo \L l'.\.r fl.l i s . ------n
Clf.P-P ~ ~ lllj...kth v-kat 1
--r ~ i stoo-V't\ L,AJ~tbt, *
• wuJ:rvL~~s~
~~bk~
'> fYJrrc/
'fi11Kn2..l~~ -J?PS~A'l ~
5 "'~ YQ-)1'/\
· S\00'11.)
" SP 05 I!'
~~ll""
SdJ1 vVs-e·
_s ~ iru_+S '10 -i+ F~ J J? v<fl 1 rn '1J-I'!
'{fJfOritf\/ru -~ GVvr-vW-~
• '4Ud}J--pc>0'd' c'OSY1r ·/
s ~!Uld -• \Al~
s /j'"UJdd ~ oS 01 '
'"r~O'l/J ~s 0 1.AS!---3
01a a -s '(JJ)?OO ~ ~v./j0 ~ ~ ~ +-s-\ ~as 0
~,l -VW nq ( ~ '-f ~ / d y;o o lJ' ~' '1,.\J_ f'I\
/~ \!:/
date
project
-·-····----~I-------·----····-··----------····--··-····· .... ---··-··--------------·-···-··---··-· 2 ----------·-·---·-----····---... ···-----·-------------------------------------------------------------------------··-·-·-···-·· --··--
---------------·-·----······-----·······------·----------------·-----------------------------------------------5 -·-·-·-··------------------------·-·--·-·---·------------------------------------------------------------------------------···----------
-------.---------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------.. -------6 -------------------------------------·-···-----------------------·-····----------------------------------------··-··· --------···
-----·--------------------------------------------------------. ---. ----------------------------···· 7 ·-··----··· ------------------------------------------· -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------.------------
8
·9--·------· --··--·---··-·-·-----··--·-·---------------····-·--·-·····-------------·--·-·--·-·----···-------------------···--·----------·-··-·-··-·--·--·--··-··-----------------------·----------------··-····------------------------------------------·
·10·-·--·--· ----···-····--··------------···-·-··--··--·---------------···--··---------·-----------·-·--·-·-··-·------·---------------------------------------------·-····--------------------------·-····-----------------------------------·-·----·-----------
11
·1·2····-----------------·--------------------------------·-··· ...... --------------------------------·------------------·-···----------------------------·--------------------------·--------------------------------------------------·-----------------
--------------------------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------13 -·-····--------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------
·14··-----------------------------------------------------------········-····-----------------------·-·--·----------·----------------------------------------··-----------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------· ------------------------------------------------------··------·---------------------------····-·· ···---------------··r---:--:-:-----------------~
task list:
15
13
17
.. -.
~W/ It?~~
0 A pprwv'tLL tu N:JoTICl CL ~ l>
0 ev~r
a J j 1
~a~ .-~~tJL CQY\:flta0~ ID
Sf1\h.c.t~ Q,{,,"Wfett c.t VV\60.-... So, oco ~
-h\-e.-, ~ J s~ )-httewctt.Jc)
-w'v\.CA.1 to SlJhVV\,1 f--)t\h -cfal (L MA;Y\4..6JR'2-
~ i?~~ S~c:R_c,lv~'4"
es~~a.u~ _
.su~B~C
. -loc~ti 9-Mt!.~"1> -StN~ oil.
-~c,\ t1tl1~.s -e~~t -
\ ~ulC_ VLt h/lffifc.1 + -f__4./j0t~
Mo)ecJ ~JL-. .
-,IZQU _(&'.)\(A.ti co~W--llG~ -'l d"'1'5 ru c~ec}
~ 1~ ~Lu-( C
-:5ubd_ I j._ ~ lci-h
-c)v\~crc /Jl/'j~ _-.
l f ~ I V:Xrb; V\J--1(11///C ffi:{\. fJ Pm G I b1r<I
u\..Q_d l UJ..:hC°Y'.J e~fA.t~.
UA'hf CGv-{1(JVVI ~ ~ tVJ..ru&,
-f2<1:-UY7 i ~Y'---cl 0~{.,~ -
~ so -(;.(5lµVt0l / -
["(3!ffi/2008fVenessa Garza -Re: Greenway Land Acquisition
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Venessa,
Carla Robinson
Venessa Garza
3/14/2008 4:34 PM
Re: Greenway Land Acquisition
Angela Deluca; Harvey Cargill; Mary Ann Powell
Any one of us will be glad to help you.
If you haven't yet done so, you might start by looking at the right-of-way and land acquisition process. You can find the
document on the p: drive under 'administrative polices and procedures'.
f ~stions regarding easements vs. purchase, I think we have typically purchased fee interest for the greenways
acquisitions. If we purchase easement interests, the appraisal report will typically value the property with only a slight
discount, so it makes some sense to buy all of the interest rather than just an easement. But we can explore the benefits
of purchasing easement interests if you have some thoughts on the subject.
~~ ontlh~·
When negotiati g to purchase land we offer the appraised value. In certain ci rcumstances we may, only if necessary to
avoid condemnation, offer up to the amount it might cost to go through a special commissioners' hearing -currently
estimated at $3,000 -$5,000. We have talked about updating this calculation but have yet to do so.
Any one of the attorneys may assist you with future land acquisitions so if you would like to meet you can schedule a
meeting and include Angela, Mary Ann and myself. It will be nice to meet you.
Carla
Carla A. Robinson
First Assistant City Attorney
City of College Station
Phone: (979) 764-3507
Fax: (979) 764-3481
This e-mail and/or attachment is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and /or legally privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and paper copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank
You.
>>>Venessa Garza 3/14/2008 10:55 AM >>>
Hi,
I'm the new Greenways Program Manager and was wondering if I could sit down with one of you to talk about acquisition
procedures/policies that I need to be made aware of from a legal standpoint as well as the role y'all play in acquisitions.
I'll be taking on the land agent role as well as the project manager role and what ever other roles I'm not aware of yet :) so I
would like to be prepared on how I should represent the City before I started meeting with landowners.
Carla -I think you worked on the Resolution Determining Need for the Raintree properties with Mark M. and Bob Cowell and didn't
know if I should be speaking with you directly. I'm currently working on these acquisitions with Gene B.
A couple of questions I have so far include ... (I realize some of these may need to be directed to someone else)
1. At what point do you need to review the title commitment?
2.Where do we stand with conservation easements? I worked for the City of Raleigh, North Carolina and about half of the Greenway
we had were easements. I'd really like to explore this opportunity.
3. What's our liabilify on Greenway we purchase vs. easements? And the implications for maintenance and emergency access
points?
4. How much above the fair market value are we allowed to offer? The Land Agents have mentioned $3-5 K.
Thank you for your time and let me know who I should set up a meeting with. I look forward to meeting with y'all.
Venessa Garza ~ Greenways Program Manager
Planning & Development Services
City of College Station
Page 1
~2008j Venessa Garza -Re: Greenway Land Acquisition
979-764-3674
www.cstx.gov
Page 2 I
Greenway Acquisition Procedure
PARCELS IDENTIFIED FOR
STAFF ACQUISITION
l
PARCELS ARE PRIORITIZED
FOR ACQUISITION
l
MAPS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PREPARED ON IDENTIFIED PARCELS
Registrar of Deeds returns copy ;: or executed Deed/Easement Form • and /or Map to Greenway Staff ~~~ ::: \••• ....... ... ·············.···.··,··.•,·••,''•
I
GREENWAY STAFF UPDATES PROPERTY
FILES, GREENWAY MASTER PLAN MAP,
. GREENWAY CORRIDOR MAPS, AND UPDATES
INFORMATION SENT TO REAL ESTATE
OR
Prioritized Listing and
Maps/Background Information
Sent to Real Estate
Status Report on
Acquisition from Real Estate.
Greenway Staff updates files
containing maps/background
information, sends to Real Estate.
Greenway Staff lends other support
to Real Estate on an "as-needed" basis.
COUNTY REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
RECORDS DEED OR MAP
REAL ESTATE STAFF NEGOTIATE
ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT
Submit Property to Real Estate Committee
for approval recommendation. ;.: =~ ... · .... -: ........ ·.;-::
Obtain an Appraisal for Tax Purposes
if requested by the Owner.
!•.·
Send item to Council for acceptance
(Real Estate Committee)
Obtain executed Deed/Easement Form
from owner/s.
. ... :
Send Deed/Easement Form to County Registrar
of Deeds for recording •
~=
%. ., ::: ... : ••,•••'•'•'•'••Y''"'•:-:~_;:.·.-..··':
PARCELS IDENTIFIED
THROUGH SUBDIVISION
REVIEW PROCESS
Greenway Staff identifies parcels
during subdivision Review Meetings
No Easement
Granted
Easement
Granted
I
Item sent to Council for approval
(Planning Board), Council action,
obtain acceptance and note
reservation period (Greenway Staff)
For Easeme/i
1 J_
recorded by
For Easement
recorded by
Map Deed
Map to be recorded taken to
County registrar of Deeds by
Owner or his agent.
.:.·:-·o:·.·:·:·····-:·:·:·:·:·:·!·!::
7/31/87 w.s.
City of College Station
Greenway Program Property Purchase Encumberances
Owner Appraisal Acreage
Freeman (for Parks) $65,000 67
Craegor (ED parcel) $285,852 102.9
Swoboda (trail) $210,000 54.7
Schultz $40,000
Marsh Reeves $182,081 8.36
OD Butler $340,000 17.03
Ritchie
Methodist Church 1.88
Thurmond (Fire Station) $69,696 1.6
City Center $800,000
1992629
Owner (Use)
Craegor
(greenway and
ED)
Craegor
(ED)
Freeman
Hartzell Elkins
(greenway)
Hartzell Elkins
(greenway)
Marsh Reeves
(ED)
McGill
(greenway)
Swoboda
(greenway)
KTH
Kapchinski
Kapchinski
Rain tree
Development
Marsh Reeves
(greenway)
OD Butler
Thurmond
(Fire Dept)
City of College Station
Appraisal Summary
Thursday, January 24, 2002
Location Acres Value ($/acre)
Thomas 234.81 $1 ,760,000
Caruthers $7 ,495/acre
League,
Abstract 9
Robert 16.89 $350,000
Stevenson $20,722/acre
League,
Abstract 54
67 $8,507 /acre
Lots 1-10, 10 lots $104,611
Block 6 Sun ($10,461/lot)
Meadows
Robert .6479 $6,500
Stevenson $10,032/acre
League,
Abstract 54
38 $21 ,780
Morgan 6.4 $207,589
Rector $32,284/acre
Abstract 46
Morgan 54 .70 $210,000
Rector $3 ,838.85/acre
Abstract 46
8.183 $20,000
49 $30,556
46 $11,440
7.97 $40,000
$5 ,019/acre
8.36 $1 82,081
$21 ,780/acre
17 .03 $340,000
$19 ,964/acre
1.6 $69,696
$43 ,560/acre
City of College Station
Greenway Program Property Encumberances
summary.xis 612012002
[!,;!!!OY Downs -Re: Ap~ra1sa1s
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Judy,
Mark McAuliffe
Downs, Judy
8/20/01 8:26AM
Re: Appraisals
the summary is a good idea.
I would do the following ...
Appraisal date is not pertinent to Council, I would delete it.
Describe locations in layman terms (east side of SH 6 bypass, north of Raintree).
Give a brief description of the current property use (grazing, future residential, etc).
Give a brief description of the proposed use (bike trails, greenways, etc).
If you are going to use it as a hand-out, then blow it up to at least 14 point type.
Glenn has taught me that any handout needs to be very brief so the members will pay attention to you
rather that reading a detailed sheet.
>>>Judy Downs 08/16/01 01 :15PM >>>
Mark,
I am trying to develop a summary of appraisals as a comparison data base to show City Council. Mark
thought that you would be the best one to provide information. Attached is a draft summary to let you
know the type of information I wanted to provide. Can you help add to this?
Judy
Page 11
Owner Use I Type Size Appraised Negotiated
Price/Acre Price/Acre
Marsh I Comm. 38 ac $21, 780 $26,316
Reeves
Freeman Resdn 67 ac $8,507 $8,731
KTH Resdn 8.183 out $20,000
of 18 ac
Kapchinski Dry 49 ac $30,556
Kapchinski Flood 46 ac $11,440
I --2s>
2-dO
i..---i
3 lJ4Dooo
... \ 5<6~S (pg ' ~~-"".A 2.·.,
7iiC ~-.,.,... ' '-"-=-
. 1300 ouu
1 50432. (
-. I
~_Mil'{,) ~
I 7:J.gs, ~ sz
z \ I 2.K 5
4°1/ i \3 7
.3 lt14 0000
... d.. IS &ft'lp<1
i 4 \ 7J~¥.,., I . _i.-r 1~3 ,~'61o---;
"---, ~
I
City of College Station
Greenway Program Property Encumberances
Owner Acreage Comments Appraisal Cost I Acre
Purchased $ 286,852
54.7
7.59 Purchased $ 40,000
8.36 Purchased $ 211 ,213
17.03
$
2.15 $
150 Funding Agreement received 4/14/ $
441.52 $ 1,875,887 $ 8,873
acquisition status 04 15 2003 5/16/2008
City of College Station
Greenway Program Property Encumberances
Owner Acreage Comments Appraisal Cost I Acre
Freeman (for Parks) 67 Purchased $ 69,126 $ 1,032 /
Craegor (ED parcel) 102.9 Purchased $ 285 852 $ 2,778 ~
Researching
easement b
Swoboda (trail) 54.7 prescription $ 35,000 $ 640
Schultz 7.59 urchased 40,000 $ 5,270
Jim West said
they are waiting
to receive ED
arsh Reeves 8.36 payment $ 182,081 $ 21 ,780
OD Butler attorney $ $ 19,965
Survey ordered $ $ 8,658
$ 43,560 7 .,
$ 11 ,905
$
150 $ 330,000 $ 2,200
441 .52 $ 2,766,555 $ 13,393
acq uisition status 05 02 2002 5/16/2008
~--;---------------+------+------G_r,.e_en_w~ay.___:s'---"--S-'-'-um'-'-"-'m_,a'-'--1ry1_ ____ +------l-------------·-·-1_11_~.?_Q04 !9_:4_0
~=~===========================:==:A~c~t-=u-a~l~=~~=~~A~ct~u=a-=1:-_-_-+-t-_-_--=-=-...,..A~ct~u:a.....,1:-_-_-~:-_-_-=-A=c:tu=a=l===:====A;:ct=u:_;;a'--1-_-_--=:1=--_P_r_o_j_ec-t-ed _ __,_ __ P_r--oj--_e-ct-ed __ _
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
rB_e~g_in_ni_n~gB_a_la_nc_e ________ --t-_$ ___ -_~$ __ 5_0_1~,2_43-+_$ __ 5_3_1~,7_0_3+-$ __ 7_6_5~,2_6_2+-$ __ 1~,4_6_0~,7~6~8_1_$.:..._-=-2,~2~64~,~93.:....:.7_ ,_J. __ 1 ,§J~~?..Q_
1=-~--------------+------+------+-------+-------+--------1---·------1·-------------Revenues
9,900
1-....,-,,--------------+------+-,.....-----+-------+-------+-------i--------l----------·-Greenways Bond Funds $ 500,000 $ -$ 500,000 $ 785,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 855,000 $ 1--1---~-----------1---~--t------+-'-----~--t-'------'--+----'----'--l-'---~--+-----------lnterest Income 5,760 30,460 42,300 35,960 36,540 31,840
Revenue Total $ 505,760 $ 30,460 $ 542,300 $ 820,960 $ 1,036,540 $ 886,840 $ 9,900
1_T_o~ta_l _F_un_d_s_A_v_a_ila_b_le _______ --+~$ __ 5_0_5~,7_60-1--~$ __ 5_3_1 ~,7_03-1--~$ __ 1~,0_7_4~,0_0_3 -+-$ __ 1~,5_8_6~,2_2_2-+-$ __ 2~,4_9_7~,3_0_8-+-$'----'-3,~1~S_1~,~7_7'-'1~~----~~?5 .~?._0~
l--'--·--------------+------+------l-------+------+-------1------------------·-Expenditures
Business Park II -Craegor Purchase $ - $ 285,852 $ 1--t---------~-----~-----t------+----· 1_--+--B_u_si_ne_s_s_P_a_r_k _ll_-_M_a_rs_h_R_ee_v_e_s_P_u_~_h_a~se ____ _, ____ -_+-----------+--------+----2_1_1~,2_8_5-+-----
1_-1-C_o_m_m_u_n_ity,__P_ar_k_-_F_re_e_m_a_n_P_ur_c_ha_s_e_-+-------+-----·---+---------1-------+----------69,126 --=--=--~~~~~ 'l. -r--Fire Station #5 ------3,204 ________ _:: ____ _
1_-+-C_it,_y_C_e_nt_e_r_-_K__,ap'-c_h_in_s_k_i P_u_r_ch_a_s_e __ -1--------11--------+----------+-------+---------·--~~~.077 ______________ -. 1 I
- $ $ -·-$----·--~---
1--+-R_a_in_t_r_e_e _D_e_ve_l_op'-m_en_t_J_o_in_t _V_en_t_u_re_--+-------11--------+----------+--___ 40 _ _,,_09_9-1---------1-----·-------_ ---··----·-: .. __
Conceptual Greenways Study ---55,957 1--t---~----~--~----+------+-------+---·----t-------+----·------+---·--·--"--·-··----------·-·----·--·-· Miscellaneous Greenways ~enditures --4, 150 747 ----r------+------1----::--:,.-,:-~----:-:-:,....,--,--1-------1--------1---------·-·----------Survey Expenditures --6,600 14,500 1--t--~-~----------+------+-------+----~-,-,--t----~-+--------11--------------···---------·-Appraisal Expenditures --3,900 5,500 3,200 1--1-~----'------------+------+---------+----~--1----~-+--------'----1-----------------------Environmental Expenditires --3, 110 3,251 5,600 1--1------~--------t------+------+----~--1----~-t------'----l-------t------···--·---Bond lssuanceCo~s -----,---·1---4~,_5_17-+-------~----5~,_12_8-+-____ 5~,4_0_0-+-____ 1 _1~,~~ 10,000 -·--
Future Greenways Purchases and Expen -----200,000 1,685,270
522
,_=r __ x.._.e_n_d_it_ur_e_T_o_ta_l __________ -1 $ 4,517 $ -$ 308,740 $ 125,454 $ 232,371 $ 1,4-76--,4-0--7-+ ___ $_-··------~~~~-2~7_0_
Ending Balance $ 501 ,243 $ 531 ,703 $ 765,262 $ 1,460,768 $ 2,264,937 $ 1,675,370 __ ~-----·-··· .: .. ---
----r-··--------------------1-------1--------l-------+-------+--------l-------·-+--·-----··
1----i--·-·---------------+------11--------t---------1------+-------->-----------···--· .. ----
Greenways Summary 8/1212004 14:52
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Beginning Balance $ -' $ 501 ,243 $ 531,703 $ 765,262 $ 1,460,768 $ 2,264,937 $ 1,675,370
Revenues
Greenways Bond Funds $ 500,000 $ -$ 500,000 $ 785,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 855,000 $ -
Interest Income 5,760 30,460 42,300 35,960 36,540 31,840 9,900
Revenue Total $ 505,760 $ 30,460 $ 542,300 $ 820,960 $ 1,036,540 $ 886,840 $ 9,900
Total Funds Available $ 505,760 $ 531 ,703 $ 1,074,003 $ 1,586,222 $ 2,497,308 $ 3, 151 ,777 $ 1,685,270
Expenditures
Business Park II -Craegor Purchase $ -$ -$ 285,852 $ -$ -$ -$ -
Business Park II -Marsh Reeves Purchase ---211 ,285 --
Community Park -Freeman Purchase -----69,12-6 -
Fire Station #5 ------r 3,204... / -
City Center -Kapchinski Purchase -- ---1, 194,077 -
Raintree Development Joint Venture ---40,099 ---
Conceptual Greenways Study , ---55,957 ---
Miscellaneous Greenways Expenditures --4,150 747 522 --
Survey Expenditures --6,600 14,500 ---
Appraisal Expenditures --3,900 5,500 3,200 --
Environmental Expenditires --3,110 3,251 5,600 --
Bond Issuance Costs 4,517 -5,128 5,400 11 ,764 10,000 -
Future Greenways Purchases and Expen -----200,000 1,685,270
Expenditure Total $ 4,517 $ -$ 308,740 $ 125,454 $ 232,371 $ 1,476,407 $ 1,685,270
Ending Balance $ 501 ,243 $ 531 ,703 $ 765,262 $ 1,460,768 $ 2,264,937 $ 1,675,370 $ -
Greenways Status 11/29/04
Tract Acreage Type Purchase Price Cost/Acre
Pebble Creek 258.21 Private Dedication
Craegor 102.9 Purchase $ 285,852.00 $ 2 ,7?7.~
Freeman 67 Purchase $ 69, 126.00 $ 1,031 .73 -City Center 42 Purchase $ 1, 194,077.00 $ 28,430.40
Springbrook HOA 18.22 Private Dedication ----Castlegate 11.237 Private Dedication --Woodland Hills 10.7 Public Dedication
Marsh-Reeves 8.36 Purchase $ 211 ,285.00 $ 25_L2~l:_ 33 __
Sun Meadows 7.8 Private Dedication
Schulz 7.59 Purchase $ 40,099.Q_Q_ $ 5,281:__'!_!_
Head Lake 7.05 Donation ·------··-
Westfield Addition 2.45 Public Dedication
-~·-------
North Forest 2.434 Public Dedication -Fire Station #5 1.6 Purchase $ 3,204.00 $ 2,002.50
Graham Corner 1.093 Public Dedication ··---Spring Meadows 0.71 Public Dedication --·-----Bridlegate 0.6072 Private Dedication -----T.C.C. 0.5 Public Dedication
Aggieland Fitness Center 0.477 Public Dedication
Spring Creek 0.419 Private Dedication --··-
Westfield Village 0.37 Public Dedication --
Ag_gieland Subdivision 0.23 Public Dedication
TOTAL 551.9572 $ 1,803,643.00
Misc. Expenses $ 143,847.00 -
EXPENDITURES $ 1,947,490.00
BALANCE AVAILABLE $ 1,685,270.00
--
Private Dedication Total 296.4932
Public Dedication Total 18.964 --
Donation Total 7.05 ··--------·-----Purchase Total 229.45 -TOTAL 551.9572 +-----------
·-
-
-
-
·-
Pending ------
Tract Acreage Type
Ritchey 76 Purchase
Animate Habitat 75 Purchase
Crowley 70.587 Public or Private Dedication ·----
Alexandria 16 Public Dedication
Shenandoah 9.4 Purchase --
Academy 4.4 Public Dedication
Townwell 1.464 Purchase ·---------·
TOTAL 252.851
constructfon, Texas Parks and WUdlife interpretation, Safe Routes to
School, Active Living By Design, and US Fish and Wildlife Recovery Land
funding. Only the Recovery Land funds were granted ($200,000).
• TPWD grants are being targeted this fall. We are participating in public
hearings as changes are being proposed to their grant programs this
fall.
+ Develop Guideline Incentives
• Guideline incentives are part of the Oty's UDO. Several sections
relating to greenway or flood plain dedication are yet to be addressed.
Some connectivity issues were addressed as part of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan update. Currently, the City's transportation
planner is developing Pedestrian Access policies and criteria.
• A search of other cities' incentive programs was done and is provided in
this binder.
Strategy #2: Regulation
+ Amend the Regulations
• The UDO has not yet been amended to include a section on greenway
development.
• In 2003, draft guidelines for acceptance of greenways and a draft
riparian buffer ordinance were developed.
+ Monitor the parkland dedication ordinance
• Parks staff and the Parks Board continue to struggle with accepting
greenways and to also meet their park needs. In some areas, parks
adjacent to greenways are being accepted. This discussion is ongoing.
Our analysis shows that the Parks department has accepted 54. 5 acres
of park that are also greenways. This analysis suggests that the
development community would rather dedicate greenways as parks
since it contributes to their parkland dedication requirement.
However, the Parks Department may not receive adequate space for the
development of traditional recreational facilities.
+ Amend the City's drainage ordinance
• The Director of Public Works drafted Drainage ordinance amendments.
These changes are pending inclusion in the UDO.
+ Investigate overlay zones
• Development Services staff does not recommend the rezoning of
greenways (which are generally zoned AO) to a higher zoning
classification. Leaving the greenway AO precludes intensive
development.
+ Amend the Zoning Ordinance
• This will be a function of the revised UDO.
• Future annexations should require greenway dedication
• This strategy is outstanding. The City's legal department does not
believe we can require this.
Strategy #3: Construction, Maintenance, and Operations
• Acquire funding for greenway development .
• $1 mHlion in Capital Improvement Plan funding to buHd hike and bike
traHs was passed in 2003 in the City bond election.
• Design and Construct trails
• The bond funds should be leveraged with other monies.
• Public traHs that have been constructed meet the plan guidelines,
subdivision ordinance guidelines and AASHTO standards.
• Develop a program for long term maintenance
• Outstanding implementation strategy. It is proposed that an operations
and maintenance plan be included in the master plan update.
• Incorporate maintenance costs into future budgets
• Outstanding implementation strategy. It is proposed this would be
addressed along with the above goal of developing an operations and
maintenance plan.
• Design greenways in floodplains to handle flood water
• Kristan Clann and Laura Harris attended a stream and riparian
r~storation workshop in 2004.
• As we negotiate for greenways, we have a goal of ensuring the floodway
and floodplain are left undeveloped and in their natural state.
Section #4: Coordination/Promotion
+ Funding a staff position
• Strategy implemented with the hiring of a Greenways Program Manager.
+ Coordinate with other agencies
• Staff has developed liaisons with TxDOT, the Army Corps of Engineers,
US Fish and WHdlife Service, TAMU and others for program
implementation.
• Monitor and Advocate a Greenways System
• Implementation continues through the Brazos Greenways Council.
+ Engage Neighborhood Associations
• Meetjngs have occurred wjth several HOA 's.
• Kristan js presenting at the September Nejghborhood Semjnar Supper.
+ Develop and maintain a detailed inventory
• A student jntern worked on thjs project. The detaHed jnventory js also
proposed as part of the Master Plan update and should be an ongojng
project.
+ Provide for access to greenways
• Ongojng, jn collaboration wjth the Parks Dept.
+ Develop and Maintain Public Information
• Ongojng. 11,000 copjes of the greenways and traHs pamphlet have been
djstributed and advertjsements were placed in the City calendar.
• Through the task force recommendations, we wW update the greenways
brochure to reflect the update.
• Krjstan js workjng wjth BGC and (jty of Bryan to develop a
comprehensive brochure of traHs in Bf CS and TAMU.
Neighborhood Connectivity Survey Results
Q: How do your children get to school?
Walk 9%
Bike 10%
School Bus 17%
Parent drop-off 55%
Carpool 2%
Other 7%
Q: Which neighborhood would you chose? IA= 60% Is= 40%
Neighborhood A: is developed around a well connected street system with many ways to
get in and out of the neighborhood. Traffic is dispersed evenly throughout all neighborhood
streets. There is minimal congestion when entering or leaving the neighborhood. Residents
are often seen walking and biking on trips to the park and school, on light shopping trips, or
for dinner at a nearby restaurant. Every resident in the area lives within 1/4 mile of a transit
sto rovidin service to em lo ment, retail, and most residential areas within the ci .
Neighborhood B: has two ways to get in and out of the neighborhood. Traffic congestion
exists at these two access points during the morning and evening peak hours. Other than
these locations, traffic volumes on local streets and the many cul-de-sacs in the
neighborhood are low. Residents are often seen walking within the neighborhood for
recreation and exercise. For trips outside of the neighborhood, driving is the preferred
transportation mode.
Q: When buying a home, which characteristics are most important?
Location on cul-de-sac 34%
Access to sidewalk 38%
Access to hike/bike trail 31%
Access to on street 19%
bicycle facility
Access to major roads 43%
None of the above 21%
Q: Which locations are important to be able to bike/walk from home?
School 55%
Park 71%
Shopping 21%
Restaurant 18%
Work 23%
Recreation 63%
None of the above 9%
Q: Regarding sidewalks on major roadways, which do you prefer?
A sidewalk on one side of the street 7%
Sidewalk on both sides of the street 81%
Indifferent 12%
Q: Regarding sidewalks on residential streets, which do you prefer
A sidewalk on one side of the street 27%
Sidewalk on both sides of the street 58%
Indifferent 15%
Q: Regarding sidewalk placement on major roadways, which do you prefer?
A sidewalk adjacent to the curb 10%
A sidewalk set back away from the curb 83%
Indifferent 7%
Q: Regarding sidewalk placement on residential streets, which do you prefer?
A sidewalk adjacent to the curb 44%
A sidewalk set back away from the curb 44%
Indifferent 12%
Q: Would you like a walking/biking trail adjacent to your home?
Yes 60%
No 23%
Indifferent 17%
PROJECT: GREENWAYS PROJECTS PROJECT#: SD9903
FUND: 912 PROJECT
BUDGET: $3,640,000
PROJECT FUNDING
MANAGER: KRISTAN WEAVER SOURCES: 98 CIP Bond
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
This project serves to hold funds for new greenways projects. Original budget was $3,640,000.
I
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG . CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $537,236 $101 ,618 0 $5 ,419 $644,273
2004-05 $1 ,266,427 $1 ,266,427
2005-06 $ 223,800 $ 5,000.00 $228,800
2006-07 $ 300,100 $300,100
2007-08 $ 300,100 $300,100
2008-09 $ 300,100 $300,100
2009-1 0 $ 300,100 $300,100
2010-11 $ 300, 100 $300,100
TOTAL $3,527,963 $101 ,618 $0 $10,41 9 $0 $3,640,000
OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually Tota l
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
REQUEST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET TRANSFER
DATE: June 22, 2005
FROM:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER
Greens Prairie Road/Arrington Road 139-9111-971 .30-20
RealiQnment
ST-0304
REASON FOR AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
Funds are available from the project to mitigate for impacts to endangered species.
TO:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER
Greenway Land Acquisition 912-9111-975.10-00
SD-9903
JUSTIFICATION OF NEED FOR TRANSFER:
AMOUNT
$1500.00
AMOUNT
$1500.00
The funds will be used to mitigate for impacts to Navasota ladies'-tresses from project construction. This
transfer of funds meets US Fish & Wildlife Service conservation measures for the species. Navasota ladies'-
tresses habitat will be purchased usinQ these funds as part of a larQer Qreenway tract acquisition.
Requested by: Craig Jordan. P.E. x3816
Project Manager
Approved:
Department Head
Council Approved: __________ _
Budget Review:
Budget Officer
Approved: ------------~
City Manager
REQUEST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET TRANSFER
DATE: March 21, 2005
FROM:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER
Hike & Bike Trails 139-9111-971 .30-20
ST-0521
REASON FOR AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
General Funding source for Hike & Bike Trails Projects.
TO:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBERS
Brison Park Bike & Ped Path 139-9111-971 .30-10
ST-0524 139-9111-971.30-20
139-9111-971.30-90
JUSTIFICATION OF NEED FOR TRANSFER:
AMOUNT
$75,000.00
AMOUNT
$14,000.00
$60,000.00
$ 1,000.00
Specification of Funding for a Specific Project -the highest ranked project by the Bike & Hike Taskforce
per the November 23, 2004 Council Meeting.
Requested by: Laura Y.H. Harris x6248
Project Manager
Approved: -------------
Department Head
Council Approved: _________ _
Budget Review: -----------
Approved: -------------
Budget Officer
Approved: -------------
City Manager
SD9903 -Greenways GOB
GOB99 GOB 01 GOB02 GOB03 GOB04
Issue Issue Issue Issue Issue
Expense 500000 500000 785000 1000000 855000 3640000
SD9903
2001 17,760
2002 120,054
2003 220,607
2004 2,900
2005 138,679 219,117
2006 18,407
2007 1,604
DE0001
2001 285,852
GG0002
2004 214,148 785,000 194,977
GG0201
2004 3,204
PK9948
2004 69,126
~--~_5_o_o,_oo_o~l_5_oo_,_oo_o~l _7_85_,o_o_o~I _50_6_,4_3_5~1 ___ o~I 2,291 ,435
1,348,565
5/20/2008
Greenways Conservation Master Plan Update
Strategic Implementation Actions Status
November 29, 2004
Strategy #1: Acquisition
+ Accept Dedications
• 315.45 acres of greenway have been dedicated.
• In the past, there has been an issue with the quality of the property
proposed for dedication. Since the City receives these properties when
the final plat is filed, there can be damage from construction, siltation,
erosion, etc.
• Properties may be represented as "future greenway dedication" at the
time of a rezoning request. The exact nature of the "dedication" is not
firm. Sometimes it may be an actual dedication and other times, the
landowner may negotiate for city acquisition. Sometimes those
negotiations fail and the "future greenway dedication" never actually
becomes a dedication.
+ Encourage Voluntary conservation, preservation and dedication of
greenways by landowners
• Developer educational packets have been sent out 3 times.
• Kristan Clann Et Mark Smith have been stressing the value of greenways
to neighborhood and homeowners. If voluntary dedications of
-floodplain land can be worked out at time of platting, the developer is
able to market those greenways as open space and can provide adequate
drainage for the development through a natural means.
+ Develop a program for acquisition ' !Yu '\
• fhe City. has acquired229.4£acr s of greenway through fee simple
acquisition. -
• 239 acres of greenway negotiations failed for a variety of reasons
(primarily appraised value).
• These acquisitions did not necessarily follow the priority listing in the
greenway master plan.
• The City has acquired 7.05 acres through straight donation.
+ Acquire land acquisition services
• The City hired a land agent in 2001. The greenway program manager
generally handles greenway land acquisition negotiations unless they
are part of another City project.
+ Pursue external funding sources
• Grant applications were submitted in 2003 and prior for TEA-21 trail
Greenway Bond Fund Expenditure Summary
Bond funds approved: $3,640,000
Bond funds issued :
1999 500,000
2001 500,000
2002 785,000
2003 1,000,000
Total issued 2,785,000
Remaining to be issued:
Expenditures to date:
gor
Freeman
Fire Station #5
City Center (pending)
$855,000
Total committed to date
Funds Available
Pending Projects:
$299,507
285,825
69,126 lL.:$;..;.;1 ,~7 4 __ 4 __ \ ~
1,200,000
$1 ,856,202
$1 ,783,798
Alum Creek 245 acres for $611 ,320 ($200,000 grant)
Greenway Bond Fund Expenditure Summary
Bond funds approved: $ 3,640,000
Bond funds issued:
1999 $ 500,000
2001 $ 500,000
2002 $ 785,000
2003 $ 1,000,000
Total issued $ 2,785,000
Remaining to be issued: $
Expenditures to date:
AS400 Project to date (8/22/03)
Craegor
Freeman
Fire Station #5
City Center (pending )
855,000
Total committed to date
Funds Available
Pending Projects:
Alum Creek
Shenandoah
SIZE (ac) Appraised Value
245 $ 611 ,320
-6
$ 299,507
$ 285,825
$ 69,126
$ 1,744
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,856,202
$ 1,783,798
City of College Station
Greenway Program Property Purchase Encumberances
Owner Appraisal Acreage
Freeman (for Parks) $65,000 67
Craegor (ED parcel) $285,852 102.9
Swoboda (trail) $210,000 54.7
Schultz $40,000
Marsh Reeves $182,081 8.36
OD Butler $340,000 17.03
Ritchie
Methodist Church 1.88
Thurmond (Fire Station) $69,696 1.6
City Center $800,000
1992629
Owner (Use)
Craegor
(greenway and
ED)
Craegor
(ED)
Freeman
Hartzell Elkins
(greenway)
Hartzell Elkins
(greenway)
Marsh Reeves
(ED)
McGill
(greenway)
Swoboda
(greenway)
KTH
Kapchinski
Kapchinski
Rain tree
Development
Marsh Reeves
(greenway)
OD Butler
Thurmond
(Fire Dept)
City of College Station
Appraisal Summary
Thursday, January 24, 2002
Location Acres Value ($/acre)
Thomas 234.81 $1,760,000
Caruthers $7 ,495/acre
League,
Abstract 9
Robert 16 .89 $350,000
Stevenson $20, 722/acre
League,
Abstract 54
67 $8,507 /acre
Lots 1-10, 10 lots $104,611
Block 6 Sun ($10,461/lot)
Meadows
Robert .6479 $6,500
Stevenson $10, 0 3 2/ acre
League,
Abstract 54
38 $21,780
Morgan 6.4 $207,589
Rector $32,284/acre
.'l4 Abstract 46
Morgan 54.70 $210,000
Rector $3,838.85/acre
Abstract 46
8.183 $20,000
49 $30,556
46 $11,440
7.97 $40,000 \\.<~ $5,019/acre
8.36 $182,081
$21,780/acre
17.03 $340,000
$19 ,964/acre
1.6 $69,696
$43,560/acre \ .oo
Development Services Dedications
Note: These areas are in the greenway and may be parks, open space, greenbelt,
detention or a combination.
1. Steeplechase Subdivision-Owner: Brazos Triod Land Development
Partnership. Dedication area is Public Park, Storm water Detention and.~" A oJ.:le""-it O'h
Open Space. Final Plat on Phase 1 of 4 on Master Plan. S~ vJ()AV'-f\. · [ -hA "'? p::. $ft.epfe.~~' -titll (,J
2. Pebble Hills Subdivision-Owner: Jerry Windham and Frank
Thurmond. Dedication areas are Public Park, Stormwater Detention and
Greenbelt. Final Plat on Phase 1 of Several on Master Plan.
3. Alexandria Subdivision-Owner: Edward Froehling. Dedication area is
Greenway and Stormwater Detention. Master Preli;t:~ Plat of 5 (11 ( C0nri
Phases. no rrnw'b4."1>-rt--~~~':V ~rf
4. Estates of Spring Creek-Owner: Gary Seaback. Dedication area is ·
Stormwater Drainage, Sanitary Sewer and Open Space Buffer. Park no
determined yet. Master Preliminary Plat of Future Phases.
-
-
. ;
~2e hhfib 'o/11(Y}~~ fTJ . ~rnun1~
JJL f'Or;, ~rw.~~t ~r>~ wV1111 f IAi i . rUP ~I ~~~
Wl!J ',IJ!p'JlJ~ ·s; J ~~ JI ~ ~ni~rrt ~oJr~F ~ 'V'l~~rJw1~v~ ,9;;
,,111J); ~ ~" c 1,1 W71<Ylf2 1 ~ 1<; · n I ~1 1-e1 1 11 ~ ~~~~D
P70J uJiw~~ ~~ zof ~J0
I ~n} £tt.w:tr;a1E 1{JJ~ t(~Llf) ~~ l j
V~L8 'fh+ ~i ~ kt\)~W ~Q l!i~/1
'I~ LW1(J I)
'1)t1iA bo ·01 ~ wf!J ~~ \We ·~~UA-00/h ~/i
5J2fJV L h I
~ tt iQ ~~
){ll1J1J~$ ~I :(JJ~ . ~
~!) ~ut±t ~uvo{~ ~0191/1 1
~JfD~lfJ~
Trail
Brison Park Connection
Lick Creek Trail West
Bee Creek Trail -East
Bee Creek Bridge
WPC Upper Trails II
Bee Creek Trail -West
Bike and Hike Task Force
High Priority Trails Information
10.25.2004
Specifications ROW Ownership Construction Cost
0.15 mile -8' asphalt trail co cs $39,000
0.25 mile - 8' concrete trail co cs Existing
0.5 mile - 8' concrete trail Private $150,000
Lick Creek foot bridge Private $100,000
footpath upgrade Spring Meadows HOA $175,000
drainage improvements $75,000
Total -$550 000
0.18 mile -10' concrete trail TxDOT $25,000
0.70 mile -10' concrete trail co cs $260,000
0.51 mile -10' concrete trail Private $165,000
drainage improvements $150,000
Total -$600,000
0.10 mile -10' trail cocs $50,000
Bee Creek footbridge cocs $100,000
Total -$150,000
0.30 mile -12' trail Private $420,000
South:
0.45 mile -10' concrete trail TxDOT / COCS $170,000
low water crossing cocs $55,000
0.5 mile -10' concrete trail Private $185,000
Total -$410,000
North:
0.44 mile -10' concrete trail TxDOT $160,000
Bee Creek foot bridge TxDOT $75,000
0.36 mile -gravel trail co cs existing (Christine)
1.00 mile -10' concrete trail COCS / Private $375,000
low water crossing (2) $50,000
Total -$660,000
Notes
-Could include only
improvement of creek
crossing rather than trail.
-Spring Meadows HOA may
be amenable to making
floodplain public.
-Connection to City Centre
contingent on City Centre
project development.
-SH 6 crossing at FM 2818.
-Contingent on traffic
improvements at FM 2818 /
Longmire Drive.\
-Connection to Longmire
drive would require
easement (owner
amenable).
-Trail includes lighting and
water features.
-ROW must be dedicated
upon development.
-May be able to use Bee
Creek box culvert crossing
to cross FM 2818.
-Converting Christine Lane to
trail minimizes trail and
ROW costs.
Ranking Creek
Reach
1 Lick
Suburban
2 WPC
Urban
2 WPC
Urban
2 WPC
Urban
GREENWAYS PRIORITY RANKING
Acquisition/Dediction
Section Location Owners
S. Fork E. of Well born Old Landfill
CS I SD
Springbrook HOA
Froehling
Randy French
Parkland Dedication
Westfield Sub.
Steve Arden
-
Main Texas Ave. E SCC College Station ,,,
to Trib. B csc
\lAJtl l. Lacour Invest.
Arbors of WPC
Taco Bell ~v
Richard Smith
WC Lube
Tire & Auto
Wash. Chap.
Main Trib. B-Trib Taco Bell
A Sec College Station Partners v'
Ltd. csc
SW Equity ,/
Real Alchemy Y
Watford, Ken & Roy Lewis
Captec Franchise Capital
Main Trib A East to ?
Holleman/ Munro, W. Bart~rustee
Dartmouth Real Alchemy ' csc
Lff t/or
Acquisition/
Dedication
Priority
Dedications
accepted by the
City with final
plats
• Richard
Smith
planning
developme
nt at Texas
Avenue.
• WPC
Overlay
Part ofWPC
Master Plan
preliminary
trail system
design
presented to
over sight
committee
Part ofWPC
Master Plan
2 WPC Main Holleman/ Kahan, Simon Part ofWPC
Urban Dartmouth csc Master Plan
Intersection to Camp
Hwy 6 Bypass Holdings Ltd. Current Trail
Real Alchemy V' construction
University
Commons
Organized
Capital Inc I"' Agua Rica Ltd v
JPJ ...
Investments ./
2 Bee Main Texas Ave. to LJR Properties Proposed site of
Urban Highway 6 Kapchinski, City Center under
Bypass Hattie development by
Cruse, Ronald the City Manager
Trustee and Management
Ford, James & Team. $150,000 -
Margaret $225,000 holding
Clancy, Dan & for Kapchinski
Susan purchase
Townsend,
Ollie & Hazel
Kapchinski,
Henry
2 Spring S. Fork W. end of Crowley Under
Suburban Crowley tract development.
to confluence Preliminary Plan
w/N. Fork& received 3/02
Main channel showing
conservation
easements (not
public)
2 Spring Main Confluence Crowley Open space/trail
Suburban w/N&S Forks dedications shown
(Crowley tract) on preliminary
to Hwy 6 master plan (not
public)
2 Spring Main Hwy6 to Thurmond
Suburban confluence BVSMA • Green ways
w/Lick Creek secure in the
(Green Prairie Business
Road) Park.
• Woodland
Hills
• Thurmond
prop. Under
consideration
for Fire
Station
• Offer made to
Marsh
Reeves, Jim
West said
they are
waiting to be
paid from ED
piece.
2 Carter Mike Davis University to Mike Davis Recommenda-
Rural Tract Harvey through tions made to
vanous Mike Davis early
contracts 2002. ACE has
no record on file
(spoke to Cal
Horton 4/1 /02)
3 Bee Trib B -S. Wellborn Edsel G. Jones Conservation
Suburban Fork (start) to I" Baptist easement for trail
confluence Church system suggested.
w/Trib B & N.
Fork (Welsh)
3 Lick North Fork Btw. Graham • Wyll is • Met with
Suburban & Rock Prairie Ritchey Wyllis
to confluence • MD Ritchey to
w/Main (E. of Wheeler discuss
Hwy6) • Bridlegate options. He
• Lick Creek is asking
Ltd. (Craig $822,500 for
Brown) 95 acres of
• Myrtle greenway and
Tolson 44 acres of
• Texcon upland.
(S&S David Mayo
Investors) completing
• PUD survey work.
FM • Bridglegate •
Arnold never
• Ali Saffe accepted.
Sun • Some •
Meadows dedication
coming in on
Final Plats
3 Spring North Fork E. of Wellborn • Froehling • Letters
Suburban to confluence • Se aback written to
w/S. Fork & • CS I SD Seaback and
Main channel • Dunlap Dunlap.
(Crowley tract) • Met w/CSISD
4 Bee Trib. B-W.of • OD Butler • Offer made to
Suburban . Fork Wellborn to • City Park Butler family
confluence 1· Kenneth I • Pursuing
w/Trib. B & S. Schick linkage to
Fork (Welsh) • Palomares Lincoln
Const. Center and
• Cherokee application of
Ltd. Safe Routes
• Mohawk to Schools
Ltd. Grant
• City Park • Appraisal for
• WHG First United
Treehouse Methodist
L.P. church
underway
4 Lick Main Confluence of • BHVSMA BVSMA needs to
Suburban N & S Forks • City Park submit LOMAR
(E. of Hwy 6) (Freeman) to correct the
to confluence FEMA map to
w/Spring reflect accurate
Creek green way?
4 Alum Un-Names Hwy 6 to • Current Met with Davis
Rural Trib confluence Business Young to discuss
w/Lick Creek Park green way
(Lick Creek • Pebble dedications.
Park) Creek Pursuing linkages
to Lick Creek
Park with A&M
landscape
architects.
4 Alum Main Confluence Thousand Oaks Sent letter of
Rural w/un-names Development interest. Met with
Trib to Joint Venture USF&W/ TPW to
confluence discuss future
w/Lick Creek mitigation
possibilities for
BVSMA.
5 WPC Main Hwy 6 to • Davis • Declined
Suburban confluence McGill purchase of
w/Carter Creek • Lydia McGill
Boriskie • Met
• Burt w/Herrnann to
Hermann discuss. Site
• CB Jones of new
• Shelly Academy
Cashion sports
• LJ & Kitti • Purchased
Ruffino Rain tree
Development
Joint Venture
-future
connection
with
recreational
trail
5 Lick Main Confluence Pebble Creek Propose that
Suburban w/Spring Golf Course connections occur
Creek to through the ROW
confluence
w/ Alum Creek
6 Bee Main Confluence Bee Creek Arboretum needs
Suburban w/Trib. B Demo Project attention. Waiting
(Southwood) to for ACE permit
Texas Ave. for Bee Creek
project
6 Bee Trib A-2 Texas Ave. to • Oscar Trailer Park to
Suburban SH 6 Bypass Parulian Crystal Plaza
• Joe
Fazzino
• CA
Bertrand
• C Park Inc
• Karbrooke
Inc
• Brethren
Church
6 Bee Main Hwy 6 Bypass Swoboda Dedication
Suburban to confluence overflow /purchase part
w/Carter Creek of ROW
Head Lake connections.
conceptual plan Appraisal
completed
(follow up for
easement by
prescription).
Legal
preparing title
work to
accept Head
Lake.
6 Lick Main Confluence City of College Lick Creek
Suburban w/Alum Creek Station Park
(Lick Creek
Park) to city
limits
6 Carter Confluence Brazos County Conservation
w/Bee Creek to Annexation easement
Confluence w/ Priority #1 possibility
Lick Creek
Reconsider
Priority
ranking
7 WPC Trib A Lincoln (start) Oaks Park Current
to confluence Jack Burch location of
w/Main Numerous Conceptual
channel private yards Design by
(Harvey) A&M
landscape
architects for
Kiwanas Trail
7 Bee Trib A-1 Rio Grande to • Private • Current
Texas Ave. yards location
• Southwood of
Elementary drainage
• Brothers project
Pond improve
• Longmire men ts
Park • Possible
future
trail
connec-
ti on
7 Carter Harvey to • Richard • Metw/
confluence Smith • Richard
w/Bee Creek • HP Dansby Smith
• Sandra • Letters
Melville out to
• CB Jones Martell,
• Katherine Guseman
Smith and
• Martell Wolters
Children • Part of
• Guseman proposed
Family recrea-
• City tional
• Freddie trail that
Wolters was not
• Brazos funded.
County Will
Owners proceed
(1996) with
Martell • Steven
Davis &
(R28608) Guseman
• Walker
Family
(R13163)
8 Bee Main Jersey (start) to Brison Park to Location of
confluence Lemontree Park. Lemontree to
w/Trib. B. Numerous Bee Creek
(Southwood) private yards recreation
(Jersey is now trail
George Bush)
9 WPC Trib. B-1 Francis (start) • Thomas Mostly
to confluence Park developed
w/Main • Gables Apt
channel • Kensington
(Harvey) Place
• Mary Lake
Realty
• CFPILP
9 WPC Trib. B-2 Dominik to • Mostly
Harvey developed
9 WPC Trib. C Campus (start) • Campus • Campus
to confluence Golf complet-
w/Main Course ing
channel (W. of • Texas Ave . drainage
Texas Ave.) Crossing improv.
• Allianz • Possible
Prop redevol.
• Wolf At plaza
Creek • Location
Partners of City
• Park Plaza lien
Partners property
Widening of
Texas Ave.
impacts
• Staff met
3/02 to
discuss
project in
relation to
Redmond
Plaza.
Decided
against
stream
restoration
9 Bee Trib. B-2 2818to • City Current
confluence owned location of
w/Main drainage drainage
channel leads into improvement
Bee Creek project
Park and
Arboretum
White • Todd Canyon Creek
Sullivan Apartment
Dedication
Alum Hwy 6 to • Thousand Letter of
confluence Oaks interest out.
w/unnamed Develop-Talking to
trib. ment Corp. USFW &TPW
Joint as possible
Venture Ladies Tresses
mitigation site.
Bee Trib. B North SW Parkway to • A&M Purchase
Fork Lincoln Center Church of consideration
Christ to acquire
properties for
A&M
Consolidated
High School to
Lincoln
Center. Safe
Routes to
. -
School grant
opportunity.
• 30/60 corridor
study and
connections to
Veterans Park
and the City of
Bryan
. \
College Station Greenways Program
Annual Report Information -2002
Property Acquisitions
+ Schultz (Rain tree) -Wolf Pen Creek, priority 6, 7 .5 acres
+ Marsh Reeves -Spring Creek, priority 2, 8.3 acres
+ Purchased 67 acres on Lick Creek in conjunction with a Parks Department
acquisition.
Total Greenway property acquisition in 2002 -82 acres
Negotiated for an additional 30 acres on Bee Creek and Wolf Pen Creek that did not
materialize.
Offered to purchase 55 acres on Bee Creek, Priority 6, acquisition pending.
Offered to purchase 140 acres on Lick Creek, Priority 1, acquisition pending.
Total Greenway property acquisition offers pending-195 acres
Developer Dedications
CY Ckc;;r ltrJcP Z)J1~ /]islr :»r/
Waiting for acreage amount from Development Services.
1 ~6 t C ·NaJ. t2ir){(;{ -ti-~
@T.f,([rbcPi{Sfh ~{ ~ r[tfn JrJ ji<''1
L.(_,.q Ot t
Creek Cleanups li%\i~ GWI< _ !1oj ~ . ~ @IJM(;E}J f)JJ,~;61-Prru JI[
+ April 6, 2002 -Participated in the Texas Trash Off to c ean trash along Bee Creek. d, t./5" /((
Assistance provided by the City Attorney's office, Development Services staff, \fl H~
recycling coordinator and Brazos Greenways Council. Ol lcK ftftt_ '.}
+ September 13, 2002 -removed 4 tons of woody debris for composting from the
Arboretum, with the assistance of 60 young men from the social service organization
One Army of Texas A&M University and Public Works streets Department staff.
+ November 23, 2002 -removed 3 tons of trash and debris from Head Lake with the
assistance of the Brazos Greenways Council, Emerald Forest HOA, American Water
Resources Association and 60 A&M Freshman from Fish Club.
Grant Applications Submitted/Received
Submitted a funding request to the US Fish and Wildlife Service through the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department for the purchase of 150 acres of riparian and endangered
species habitat on Alum Creek. Received $200,000 in grant funds.
Submitted a funding request to the Texas Department of Transportation through their
Safe Routes to School program. Requested $168,700 toward a $232,700 project.
Submitted a grant application to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for interpretive
signage along the Wolf Pen Creek Trails, funding request denied.
Conceptual Design
Four conceptual design proposals prepared and presented to City Council by the A&M
Department of Landscape Architecture. The four conceptual designs include Head Lake,
College Hills Elementary, Pebble Creek to Lick Creek connectivity and Rock Prairie
Road to Castlegate connectivity.
Entered into a contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the development of a conceptual
design plan for Wolf Pen Creek, Texas Avenue to George Bush (Redmond Terrace
Area).
Public Education & Awareness
+ Presented the College Station Greenways Program at the TRAPS conference in
Abilene, Texas (March).
+ Presented to the Brazos Audubon Society (April).
+ Presented greenway conceptual designs to P&Z, Parks Board and City Council.
+ Participated in the Planet Earth Celebration on April 20, booth staffing assistance
provided by the Brazos Greenways Council.
+ Participated and presented the City's greenways program to citizens at the Southside
Block Party, April 23 , 2002.
+ Prepared greenway educational materials for inclusion on the City's Internet site.
+ Participated and presented the City's greenway program at the Neighborhood
conference, September 14, 2002.
+ Presented the City's greenways program to the Emerald Forest HOA, October 8,
2002.
+ Presented the City's greenway program to the Brazos Valley Business Club, October
9, 2002.
Project
Bridle Gate Estates-Mike
Hester (693-1100) (rqst
9/28/99 with map)
Creagor Property-Marion
Creagor (690-3788) (rqst
211 100) (map delivered
2/8/00)
Spring Creek (Crowley
Development)-Chuck
Ellison (696-9889)/Tim
Crowley (2/22/00 with
man)
McGill/Grein
Development-Darryl Grein
(Jane/Sabine) (rqst 2/18/00
with maps)
Westfield Addition-John
Szabuniewicz (268-1008)
(rqst 2/18/00 w/small partial
map delivered)
Randy French/Steve Arden
Spring Brook Subdivision
GREENWA Y S DIVISION
PROJECTS
FY-2000
Description
.754 acres on N Fork of
Lick Creek -priority 3
66.5 acres on Spring Creek
Main-priority 2 and 21.5
acres on Lick Creek Main-
priority 4
@34 acres on Main and S
Fork of Spring Creek-
priority 2
6.44 acres on Bee Creek
Main at entrance to
Raintree-priority 5
1.5-2 acres on S Fork of
Lick Creek-priority 1
Status & Comments
MS response to delay
9/28/99
Hamilton and Legal review
1100
KF formal offer response
1/28/00
MS to meet w/Creagor
week of 3120100; Creagor
dropped off three more
maps; needs proposal
ED office to complete
survey (by Dave Mayo) and
dedicate to Greenways
before transfer to private
owner.
MS waiting on request until
developer is ready.
Plat with dedication filed.
Davis McGill referred city
to talk to Darryl Grein as
McGill is just trustee of
land and wants the
developer to deal with
greenways 3116100.
Dev.Srv and MS want to
drop from acquisition as
greenway will be part of
parks dedication and
drainage only 3/7/00.
Springbrook subdivision
w/HOA. French and Arden
will dedicate remainder
with final plat
Alexandria Subdivision 1-2 acres on N Fork of Lick Elkins doesn't know use of
Hartzell Elkins (774-4090)-Creek-priority 3 the greenway area; sewer
Residential Dev. off line and drainage proposed,
Graham Road across from park dedication not
Cypress Grove. Pre-dev determined yet 3/8/00.
Mtg 3/8/00 Final plat for Alexandria
filed w/ dedication.
A&M Church of Christ 7.05 Acres in Bee Deep pond on property
Creek floodplain -question of liability by
priority 6 Parks Dept. who has
researched the site.
Church wants to
transfer. Pond created
by drainage easements
or borrow pit.
Requested legal
description from John
Duncum representing
A&MChurch.
Requested legal
description from the
church.
Hermann, Burt 41.28 acres on Wolf Received call from
Pen Creek -priority 5 Development Services.
Mr. Hermann has
resubmitted a Master
Development Plan. He
proposes to pay fees in
lieu of park dedication.
Need to follow up with
development services
for history and status.
Waiting for
McGill/Grein appraisal
to follow up on
proposed ac quisition.
Mike Davis/Sowell Carter Creek -priority Mark Smith informed
2 GWM that this property
owner agreed to
dedicate the property
after two days of
mediation. The
payment per acre Davis
proposed was very
high. Meanwhile the
404 permit with the
ACE has expired. Ted
Mayo to call a meeting
to determine how Davis
proposes to complete
improvements on Hwy
30 partnership property.
Springbrook Plat Priority 1 -South Developers have agreed
Alexandria Plat branch of Lick Creek to dedicate the
Bridal Gate Plat Green ways.
Arden/French proposed Alexandria Subdivision
development dedication area is
greenway and
stormwater detention.
City of College Station Priority 2 -Wolf Pen Steve Beachy has maps.
Creek Development Engineers and
Master Plan surveyors are working
on. Part of a
Parks/Drainage project.
Funds are ready to go -
will secure greenway.
Pebble Creek Priority 4 -Main Developers set
Subdivision section of Lick Creek greenways aside in final
Windham/Thurmond plats. Majority of this
section is the Pebble
Creek golf course.
Pebble Hills Priority 2 -Spring Master Development
Windham/Thurmond Creek Main Hwy 6 to plan submitted 7 /98.
confluence w/Lick Greenbelt shown as
Creek public park, stormwater
detention and open
space.
Steeplechase Priority 3 -tributary B, Dedication area is
Subdivision -Brazos South Fork of Bee public park, Stormwater
Triod Land Creek. Wellbome Detention and Open
Development (start) to confluence w/ Space. Final Plat on
Partnership Trib. B&N. Fork Phase I of 4 on Master
(Welsh) Pl an.
McKellom, Luthell Priority 9 -tributary C GPM would like to
Wolf Creek Partners II purchase to develop
Ltd. connector between
TAMU and Greentree
Subdivision. Propose
to submit a grant
application for a flood
protection and stream
restoration project.
Pursue greenway
easements on private
property.
!Ranking -CreeK Section
1 -Lick Creek South Fork
2 -Wolf Pen Creek Main
2 -Wolf Pen Creek Main
2 -Wolf Pen Creek Main
2 -Wolf Pen Creek Main
2-Bee Creek Main
2 -Spring Creek South Fork
GREENWAYS PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
PROJECT SUMMARY
2/5/01
Location Ownership
E. of Wellborn (start) to Carroll, Westfield Schoor,
confluence with Main cnannel (E Froehling, College Station, MD
of Hwy 6) Wheeler Ltd., Ritchey, Thurmond-
Windham , Craeger, BVSM
Texas Ave. east to Trib B Richard Smith, Tire & Auto
Holdings Inc., Washington
Chappel Baptist, Wolf Creek
Lube, Taco Bell, College Station,
SCC Partners Limited, Captecl
Franchise, Munro, Real Alchemy,
McHill,
'
Review ownership
Tributary B to Tributary A Private homeowners (see Priority
2 file), Wolf Creek Partners Ltd.,
Park Plaza Partnership, Lojon
Prooertv, Colleoe Station
Tributary east to
Holleman/Dartmouth intersection
Holleman/Dartmouth intersection College Station, Organized
to Hwy 6 Bypass Capital, Kahan, Sears, University
Commons, Agua Rica Ltd., JPJ,
Camp Holdings Ltd., Real
Alchemy
Review ownership
Texas Avenue. To Hwy 6 Bypass College Station, LJR Properties
Ltd., Kapchinski, Hattie,
Kapchinski , Henry, Solomon,
Cruse, Ford, James & Margaret,
Townsend, Clancy
West end of Crowley tract to McDougal, Crowley
'Status & Comments
Westfield -greenways to be part
of parks dediction and drainage
only.
Springbrook -w/HOA
(French & Arden will dedicate
remainder w/final plat.)
Alexandria -dedication
Bridal Gate -dedication
Part of WPC Development Master
Plan. Engineers and Surveyors
are working on as part of a
parks/drainage project. Funds
are ready to go -will secure
greenway. Richard Smith
property at Texas and Harvey
listed for sale.
WPC Dvpt Master Plan
WPC Dvpt Master Plan
Site of proposed City Plaza.
Plans available in the City
Managers Office.
Spring Creek (Crowley
confluence w/N Fork & Main Development) Plat with
channel Review ownershio dedication filed.
2 -Spring Creek Main Confluence w/N & S Forks
(Crowley tract) to Hwy 6
2 -Spring Creek Main Hwy 6 to confluence w/Lick Creek Dvpt Plan to be reviewed by
(Greens Pariaire Road) Parks Bd 2/01
2 -Carters Creek Mike Davis tract University to Harvey Jim Sowell Construction Co Inc., Mediation occurred on this
Regency Parkway, MD Wheeler proposed development.
Ltd., Lamar, Delmar, Wolfe Developer agreed to dedicate
Investments, Talk, MJ, Hwy 30 new channel plus 100 yards on
Partnership each side. City to pay for extra
200 yards. Sowell has withdrawn
from proposal, 404 permit has
expired. Davis does not have
TexDOT permission to use bridge
as planned. Purchase price
proposed by developer high. The
Davis proposal may be
unrealistic. Davis has filled areas
in the flood fringe. Met with Davis
in December, he is reevaluating
his proposal. Requested that he
work with the BGC to develop
conceptual plans.
3-Bee Creek Tributary B -South Fork Wellborn (start) to confluence CSISD, 1s1 Baptist, Jones, City of Much of this is in public
w/Tributary B & N Fork (Welsh) Bryan, several private ownership. Should we approach
homeowners the church about designating
qreenwavs and open space?
3 -Lick Creek North Fork Between Graham & Rock Prairie Sun Meadows HOA
to confluence w/Main (E. of Hwy Bridlegate (small dedication)
6) Future Lonamire extension
3 -Spring Creek North Fork E. of Wellborn to confluence w/S Several homeowners, Dunlap, Should we pursue Dunlap
Fork & Main channel (Crowley CSISD Parcel? It abuts CSISD. Seabeck
tract) did prelim plat.
Check ownership
4-Bee Creek Tributary B - N. Fork W. of Wellborn to confluence College Station, Mohawk Ltd., Private yards.
w/tributary B & S fork (Welsh) Chreokee Ltd., Palomares
Construction
4 -Lick Creek Main Confluence of N & S Forks (E of MD Wheeler, College Station, Economic Development
Hwy 6) to confluence w/Spring Ritchy, Willis, BVSM, Craegor, Department to purchase and
Creek Marion, Craegor, JC Family Trust complete survey (by Dave Mayo),
to dedicate Greenways before
transfer to private owner.
Greenways bond issue to pay for
greenways in business park at
$3500 oer acre. Estimated
acreage approx. 177 .5 acres
($621 ,250)
4 -Alum Creek Un-named tributary Hwy 6 to confluence w/Lick Creek CSISD, College Station, VPI,
(Lick Creek Park) Universal Computer, Stata Corp,
Thousand Oaks Development Co.
4 -Alum Creek Main Confluence w/ unnamed tributary Thousand Oaks Development Majority of property in Lick Creek
to confluence w/ Lick Creek Co., Colleoe Station Park. No development proposed
5-Wolf Pen Main Hwy 6 to confluence w/Carter McGill, Boriskie, Hermann, Kolbe, McGill is trustee of land,
Creek Cashion, Jones, Ruffino. Sm ith, development services dealing
Martell Childrens Trust, with Darryl Grein. Grein drained
Guseman Family Trust, Raintree some property.
Development Joint Venture Hermann -some property in
flood fringe has been filled.
Additional property should be
pursued as possible conservation
easement for tax purposes.
Future Academy development.
Raintree Development -should
be pursued for acquisition.
Pursuing prelim plans for T-21
trail app.
5 -Lick Creek Main Confluence w/Spring Creek to Craegor, BVSW, Pebble Creek Majority of property secure.
confluence w/Alum Creek Country Club Pebble Creek Country Club golf
course located here, and the
Pebble Creek Homeowners
Association leads to College
Station owned Lick Creek Park.
6-Bee Creek Main Confluence w/Tributary B College Station, Parkway Baptist Majority of this property is
(Southwood) to Texas Avenue Church, Colleqe Station, CSISD public/quasi public ownership
6-Bee Creek Tributary A-2 Texas Avenue to SH 6 Bypass Fazzino, Parulian, Bertrand,
Karbrooke Inc., Cpark Inc.,
Brethern Church, Clancy,
Swoboda
6-Bee Creek Main Hwy. 6 Bypass to confluence w/ Swobada, AM Church of Christ, Pursuing acquisition of A&M
Carter Creek Cole, Kapchinski, Wolters, Church property. The church
College Station, Emerald Forest would like to transfer the property
Community Inc. to the City. Requested legal
description from the church, will
then order an appraisal.
6 -Lick Creek Main Confluence w/Alum Creek (Lick College Station The entire section of this priority
Creek Park) to City limits is in Lick Creek Park, owned and
managed by the City of College
Station.
6 -Carter Creek Confluence w/Bee Creek to This section is outside the city
confluence with Lick Creek limits of Colleqe Station. Owner
information was unavailable on
the City's GIS.
7 -Wolf Pen Creek Tributary A Lincoln (start) to confluence Approximately 30 private property
w/Main channel (Harvey) owners. Larger parcels owned by
Burch, Jack M, and an unknown
between the highways
7 -Bee Creek Tributary A-1 Rio Grande to Texas Avenue
7 -Carter Creek Harvey to confluence w/Bee Richard A Smith, CB Jones, LK & BGC and Chamber of Commerce
Creek Kitti Ruffino, Kathryn Smith, to hold meeting with Carter Creek
Martell Childrens Trust, Guseman property owners 12/13/00
Family Trust, CoCS, Freddie
Wolters, Garland J Watson
8 -Bee Creek Main Jersey (start) to confluence Many small private parcels
w/Tributary B (Southwood}
9 -Wolf Pen Creek Tributary B-1 Francis (start) to confluence CoCS, Terry Raines, church, Large sections owned by CoCS
w/Main channel (Harvey) Gables Apts, Kensington Place,
Mary Lake Realty, Bellaire Capital
Partnership
9 -Wolf Pen Creek Tributary B-2 Dominik to Harvey (combined w/WPC B-1 above)
9 -Wolf Pen Creek Tributary C Campus (start) to confluence Several private homeowners, T AMU currently undertaking
w/main channel (west of Texas larger ownerships include: TAMU, stormwater improvements to
Avenue) Alliance Properties, WPC reduce discharge
Partners II Ltd, Luthell McKellom,
WPC Partners Ltd, Park Plaza
Partners, JJ Ruffino
9 -Bee Creek Tributary B-2 FM 2818 to confluence w/Main Many private property owners. Current site of Bee Creek flood
channel CoCS owns a large drainage channelization project
easement thru· this site