The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21 Venessa Garza 16I I~ /7 . S~v --~""411---~--~-~ -v.kJ-~~~d~~ ~ ~ttt:tc~ v '1 l{ Q::CV (Ul. ,. --· l!i i:r 1 11 • II Ir u " i! !I II II ;1 J a 'I :1 • 1:1 . ~.I I! • 5hf'.Cf, r * 7 ~ "U>u1""" .~ . I n .._.. " ii / l ----------!-·---·-------------------·---------------···-·--·------····------------~--------------·-·----~---- __ , ___ __,,_,._,,... .... ~~ .... --t---............... -•• .,_._ ___ .~ .. -.. -··~----....... -----....... ._ .. ___ .......... __ .. _ .... _____ .,_,,,. ....... _._ .. _____ ,... ................ -.. ______ ... _ .. ____ ._ .. _~_ .......... -.---~------.. --.. ... -... _.... .......... ' r --·------i+·---·------------·--------··--------·--··-----···--=-··--~----···--------------·-·····-----·----------~-·-·-·--·· ·------------------··---···-·----·-----·-···---·--- ., • ..,j (,..\ /\ Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: jeff.whitacre@kimley-horn .com Saturday, January 28 , 2017 12 :09 PM Venessa Garza ; Jason Schubert Demographic Updates _Revised _FI NAL_Southwest_Parkwa y_Study_S-4 -1 1.pdf; 201 1 _9_9 _FINAL_Dartmouth_Study_r educed .pdf *****This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without po s itive sender verific at ion of purpose . Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from thi s email. * * * * * This is a summary of our demographics updates since the original model was completed : In 2014 we modified the demographics for the following areas: o Southside neighborhood; o Medical District; o Wellborn District; and o Northgate Plan. We also modified demographics in 2011 for a Southwest Parkway Study (see attached). There is a graph on page 3 showing what was updated . We also modified demographics in 2011 for a Dartmouth Study (see attached). There is a graph on page 3 showing what was updated . Jeff 1 VESTED RIGHTS GUIDELINES Background Vested rights , also known as "grandfathering" or permit rights, are derived from Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code . Chapter 245 provides , in general , that a municipality must review a development application under regulations in effect on the date that the first permit application for the project was submitted. T EX. LOCAL GOV 'T CODE, §245.002(a). Chapter 245 requires a municipality to determine whether a permit application submitted after the in it i a 1 a pp 1 i cat i on is sufficiently related to a prior application to constitute a continuous and ongoing project; if so , then all permits for that project are entitled to review under the regulations in effect when the earlier application was submitted. However, subsequent permit applications may have the effect of refining or narrowing the scope of an original project, which in turn may require establishing a new "vesting date " tied to the later permit application. This is especiall y true for older projects. It is irrelev ant whether the owner who files the original application for the first permit retains the property for the duration of the project or conveys the property to a new owner, vested rights continue with the project. See TEX. Lot. GOV 'T CODE ANN. 8 245.001(3 ) Permit and Project. Chapter 245 defines both "permit" and "project." The term "project" means an endeavor over which a regulatory agency exerts its jurisdiction and for which one or more permits are required to initiate, continue or complete the endeavor." A "permit ' is a license , certificate , approval , registration , consent, permit, or other form of authorization required by law, rule , regulation, order, or ordinance that a person must obtain to perform an action or initiate , continue , or complete a project for which the permit is sought." TEX. LOCAL GOV 'T CODE, §245.001(1). In construing Section 245 .002(b), courts have conclu ec[ tliat pre· · ary plans and related ubdi v ision plats, site plans, and all other development permits for land covered by the prelimin ry plans or subdivision lats are considered collectively to be one series o permits for a project. City of San Antonio v. En Seguido , Ltd, 227 S .W .3d 237 ,244 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007, no pet.). It should be noted that rezoning is not considered a "permit," and neither is a request for hardship relief (e.g., a variance). Vesting Vested rights applies to all permits "required for completion of the project." See LGC § 245.002(b). The first application for a project, often a preliminary plan locks in a project 's vested rights and defines the boundaries of the development plan, such as land use and overall site layout, without nailing down all of the details. A preliminary plat approval creates v ested rights for the entire subdivision area, including individual lots , such that no new development rules may be applied for construction on those lots (subject to any applicable exceptions to that general rule). Hartsell v . Town of Talty , l 30 S. W.3d 325 , 328 (Tex. App. -Dallas 2004, pet. denied). In Hartsell, the court rejected the city 's position that the plat was a distinct "project" for vested rights purposes , separate from development activities on the tracts created by the plat. Noting the practical concerns of the city, that "outdated" rules would apply to future development , the court countered that the legislature clearly intended such result "to alleviate bureaucratic obstacles to economic development." Id. 1 In most cases , the first application provides "fair notice " of the project for purposes of Chapter 245 and should be used as a point of reference for determining when a project is complete and whether subsequent applications are part of the original project. The "fair notice" requirement appears in Section 245.002(a-1 ), "Rights to which a permit applicant is entitled under this chapter accrue on the filing of an original application or plan for development or plat application that gives the regulatory agency fair notice of the project and the nature of the permit sought." Projects that are completed in phases require a city to determine whether a permit application submitted subsequent to the initial application is sufficiently related to a prior application in order to constitute a continuous and ongoing project; if so , then all permits for that project are entitled to review under the regulations in effect when the earlier application was submitted. Loss of Vested Rights Vested rights protections are lost or forfeited to the extent that the development being pursued constitutes a new or different project from the one for which the initial permit was sought. See City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S.W.3d 237, 242-43 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007, no ~· Vested rights are also lost when the project is completed or becomes dormant. Dormant Project. Section 245.005(c) provides a list of factors used to determine whether progress is bein g made toward the completion of a project. This section authorizes cities to enact ordinances that expire projects when "no progress has been made toward its completion . Progress towards completion of the project shall include any one of the following : • an application for a final plat or plan is submitted to a regulatory agency; • a good-faith attempt is made to file with a regulatory agency an application for a permit necessary to begin or continue towards completion of the project; • costs have been incurred for developing the project including , without limitation, costs associated with roadway , utility , and other infrastructure facilities designed to serve , in whole or in part , the project (but exclusive of land acquisition) in the aggregate amount of five percent of the most recent appraised market value of the real property on which the project is located ; • fiscal security is posted with a regulatory agency to ensure performance of an obligation required by the regulatory agency ; or • utility connection fees or impact fees for the project have been paid to a regulatory agency. Ex pired Project A project's "expiration" necessarily results in the project losing the rights granted by chapter 245. The City's UDO speaks to expiration of a project when it states , "For projects re uiring more than one (I) permit, authorization or a wroval, there shall b a project ex piration date o 1ve (5) years from the date the first complete application is filed for the roject or from the date vesting occurs pursuan: o Chapter 245 Texas Local Government Code if no progress is made towards completion of the project or if the expiration date is not otherwise further extended pursuant to the terms of this UDO . For purposes of this 2 Section, progress towards completion of the project is as defined by Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code ." Change of Project/New Project Vested rights protections are lost or forfeited to the extent that the development being pursued constitute~ a new or different project from the one for which the initial permit was sought. If a project changes , it becomes subject to current development regulations. Whether a particular project has changed so as to lose the protections granted by chapter 245 is a question that must be resolved by the City . How City staff determines whether a subsequent application creates a new project may be one of the most important questions . Unfortunately there are no hard and fast rules , only case law interpretations of what has been determined to be acceptable enforcement of Chapter 245 's requirements. The following are examples of when vested rights have been lost: • Where a permit application proposes development that materially differs from the original project arfi the permit is no required for completion.of the original project. • Where an application proposes development of new land area , not delineated within the original project boundaries , unless the additional land area is necessary to offset the dedication or condemnation of land for public use. • Where a requested modification or revision is beyond what would be allowed under the regulations applicable to the original project without submitting a new application . • Where a requested modification or revision significantly : o increases the number of buildings or living units ; o increases gross floor area or building coverage ; o increases development density ; . . . o mcreases 1mperv10us cover ; o increases drainage impacts or reduces capture volumes ; or o alters street layouts. • Proposed development of new land area , not delineated within the original project boundaries , will generally constitute a new project unless the additional land area is necessary to offset the dedication or condemnation of land for public use . • rut application wouldnave triggerea dif erent regulatory requirements had tfie uses been inciu e in the application for the-original prnject; or 1 ~ Where an application materially alters the character of the original ~)(, · development to such an extent that it would significantly increase impacts on surrounding land uses. o Any application for a new permit , authorization for approval or application to replace an existing approved permit shall be deemed to commence a new development project , as of the date it is filed , if the new application is not compatible with the permits preceding it in 3 regards to the type of proposed use(s), nature of the development , or significant changes to density or infrastructure demands . Completion of Project. The following are guidelines for the City to follow when determining whether a project is complete: • A project may be complete when construction has occurred or been approved within the subdivision that is sufficient to establish the uses shown in the original application. • For purposes of a single-family residential subdivision , construction on each residential lot is generally pres umed to be part of the original project and , in most cases , vested rights extend to the construction of a specified number of units on each lot. Due to differences in the nature of commercial development, however, construction on a particular lot within a commercial subdivision is often presumed to be part of the original project only if indicated on the plat. • Subdivision plats are sometimes approved and recorded solely for the purpose of dividing land , with no provision made for subsequent vertical construction. Where a plat application declares no land uses , municipalities may regard a project as complete when approved subdivision.infrastructure has been installed or approved for installation'. o Where a plat application declares no land uses , municipalities may regard a project as complete when approved subdivision infrastructure has been installed or approved for installation. o Where a plat application declares no land uses , municipalities may regard a project as complete when approved subdivision infrastructure has been installed or approved for installation . Exemptions to Vesting Chapter 245 does not apply to the following: • A permit that is at least two years old , is issued for the construction of a building or structure intended for human occupancy or habitation, and is issued under laws , ordinances , procedures, rules , or regulations adopting only: • Uniform building , fire , electrical , plumbing, or mechanical codes adopted by a recognized national code organization ; or • Local amendments to those codes enacted solely to address imminent threats of destruction of property or injury to persons; • Municipal zoning regulations that do not affect landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park dedication , property classification, lot size , lot dimensions , lot coverage , or building size or that do not change development permitted by a restricti ve covenant required by a municipality ; • Regulations that specifically control only the use of land in a municipality that does not have zoning and that do not affect landscaping or tree preservation, 4 ' ' City Liability open space or park dedication , lot size , lot dimensions, lot coverage , or building size; • Regulations for sexually oriented businesses; • Municipal or county ordinances , rules , regulations , or other requirements affecting colonias ; • Fees imposed in conjunction with development permits • Regulations for annexation that do not affect landscaping or tree preservation or open space or park dedication ; • Regulations for utility connections; • Regulations to prevent imminent destruction of property or injury to persons from flooding that are effective onl y within a flood plain established by a federal flood control program and enacted to prevent the flooding of buildings intended for public occupancy ; • Construction standards for public works located on public lands or easements; or • Regulations to prevent the imminent destruction of property or injury to persons if the regulations do not: • Affect landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park dedication , lot size, lot dimensions , lot coverage , building size , residential or commercial density , or the timing of a project ; or • Change development permitted by a restrictive covenant required by a mu11icipality . The refusal of a city to acknowledge vested rights could be challenged as a regulatory taking. A developer may also pursue a mandamus or declaratory or injunctive relief. Declaratory judgment is available to confirm the existence and extent of vested rights for a project and to determine what aspects of the city 's regulatory scheme apply to the project. A challenge may subject the City to reasonable attorney 's fees. Steps to Determine Whether a Project has Vested Rights • Review original application to determine the project boundaries and to what extent it provides the City with fair notice ; • Determine whether any subsequent applications materially change the project (if so , use th~e new vesting date); • Determine whether the project has been completed; • Determine whether the project is dormant 5 March 2012 nside College Station * * * * * * * CITY OF C O LLEG E S TATION * H ome o/Texas A&M Unive rsity ® * Coll ege St at ion, Texas * * * * * * * Adopt-A-Greenway program begins this spring T hi s spring offers many exciting volunteer opportunities that have an eco-friendly approach . The City of College Station is recruiting residents, nei ghborhoods, businesses and other groups to support the new Adopt-A -Greenway program . This program will serve to help maintain College Station's system of greenways . Citizens are encouraged to adopt a greenway much like the existing Adopt- A-Highway program that most of us are familiar with . By protecting our greenways, we make College Station a safer and cleaner place to interact outdoors . Participation in this program requires the removal of trash at least twice a year at a designated greenway for two years . Volunteer members will be publicly recognized on our website for their work and a sign also will be placed at the adoption site identifying the groups involved w ith the program. Moreover, we want vo lunteers to feel good about the difference they are making in the community. What are Greenways? Greenways are corridors of protected open space that follow natural features, such as creeks and rivers, and their floodplains that are largely kept in a natural state. Some greenways link neighborhoods and parks with each other through m ulti-use paths , also called greenway trai ls. In some instances , greenways are along h uman - made features like utility or road corridors. Most greenways in College Station are along our creeks : Wolf Pen Creek, Bee Creek, Lick Creek, Spring Creek, Carter's Creek and their tributaries. Greenways have numerous benefits and accomplish multiple goals . They help protect habitat and create corridors for wildlife, as well as improve air and water qua lity. Greenways allow floodplains to function as they were intended for occas ional or periodic flooding, which in turn m inimizes costly damage to deve loped areas . Multi-use paths create an alternate mode of transportation, whic h can relieve congestion on our roadways and reduce pollution . They are not only beneficial for our environment, but they encourage residents to live a healthier life style by participating in nature-based recreation and exercise . Ultimately, greenways have many valuab le uses and should be ma intained regularly. April 28 is Creek Clean-up The Adopt-A-Greenway program will host its first majo r event at Wolf Pen Creek on Saturday, Apri l 28 from 9 a.m . to 12 p.m. Citizens are encouraged to come clean and beautify the area through litter pickup and a few landscape projects . Pre-registration is open and highly recommended. Supplies and a light lunch will be provided . Th is is a great op portun ity to give back, so don't miss out! We'll see you at Wolf Pen Creek! To learn more about the Adopt-A-Greenway program or the Creek Clean -up at Wolf Pen Creek, visit cstx.gov/adoptagreenway or contact Venessa Garza at 979.764 .3674 or vgarza@cstx.gov . QUICK LINKS >> cstx.gov /adoptagreenway s ys r~1y1 $ GeoTRAK Update Routine Instruction Documentation The following documentation helps both the agency and CRW coordinate the requirements for providing a finalized GeoTRAK update routine. All field names must also exist and follow structure and naming rules previously provided . If any errors occur during the run of this interface, please contact Nlkoel at@crw.com or (858) 451-3030 ext. 1132. 1. Please tell CRW where the file will be stored. Provide any path names and other details. File must be located on the database server and remain there to properly execute . Click here t o enter text. If connecting to a linked server, please provide the following: Database Platform: SQL Server 2008 Machine Name: GIS3 · Database Name: devservices 2. If not using finked server. what will the source file be named? The file name should remain intact in order for the routine to execute properly. N/A 3. Options to run GeoTRAK Update Routine: (choose one) X Option A Schedule a package/stored procedure If CRW prepares a scheduled automatic routine, please indicate how often the routine should be run (i.e. monthly, weekly, etc.): Daily 8:00PM Provide the day to execute the routine : Also provide the time of day to execute the routine: 0 Option B Manually executed Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. 4. Upon completion of the routine, the agency can elect to have an automated email notify a user that the procedure has run successfully. SQL Server Agent Mall and an Operator will need to be setup and created by the aqencv before this can be done . If sending an email message is required, please verifv that this has been done and provide Operator name. then indicate an email address to send the message: The Operator for update routines is Brett Blankner The Mail Profile is "City GIS Ad min" 5. Will the previous owner be preserved? (choose one) Yes, please retain the previous owner information under the following contact label type: X No, the new owner will replace the existing owner in the "Owner" name field. 6. If there are restrictions indicated in the source data, what process should be followed? (choose one) X Add the new restrictions to the GeoTRAK record, and remove any prior restrictions. D Only add the new restrictions to the GeoTRAK record, and do not close any prior restrictions. ,r! • TRAKIT Enterprise I • Aficrosott -esr1 GOLD CE RTfflED r nt t r•ff Page 1of4 GeoTRAK Update Routine Instructions D No restrictions are in the source data . 1. How should the routine process an y GeoTRAK records that are no longer in the source file? (choose one) X Change the GeoTRAK record 's "Status" to the following status (i.e. lnactive[default], Retired): Retired D Remove record from GeoTRAK. 8 . When new r eco r ds are found in the source file, do the following: (choose one) X Add the record to GeoTRAK and change the status to the following (i.e . Active[default), New Record): Active D Add the record to GeoTRAK and do not add t he status. D Ot her, please provide details : Clic k here to enter te xt . SYSTE¥S 9 . The Site Change Log can he l p the agency track what has been changed in TraklT GIS by the GTUR. When changes to records are made or new records are inserted, should the changes be made to the Site Change Log? (choose on e) X Ye s, please specify which fields from GIS and/or Assessor data should be captured In the Log . Previous Owner; Address; Legal Description D No, there isn't a need to maintain changes i n the Log . 10. How are records in the source database linked to records within GeoTRAK? Note: Each source record must only match one GeoTRAK record. D No linking r eq ui red/Linking w ill be done manually D Linki ng will be required, follow direction below: a) If th ere are more t han one GeoTRAK record per pa rcel , how shou ld t he routine li n k the new records from the source database? Cl ic k here to enter text. b) If other GeoTRAK types ex ist (i.e. street segments, address records, etc.), how should these be linked? Cl ic k here to ente r text. 11. After go -live, will it be part of your business process to enter temporary parce ls or any other geotypes? D Yes . X No. Please list geotypes to be entered as temporary: Click here to e nte r text . 12. Indexes help t he GTUR ru n quick and efficient. Sometimes indexes already ex ist on the server we w ill be linking to . Indexes must be created or ex ist prior to creating the routine for Go -Live . If we will be implementing a linked server (See #1 above), have indexes been added to all fields that the GeoTRAK Update Routine will be comparing aga i nst? X Ye s. D No . ~ . TRAKiT Enterprise I • MictOSOtt . esr1 G '0 '""'"o Page 2 of 4 GeoTRAK Update Routine Instructions tu.s~Uh~r Yleeol -1-o "1L ~ fk ~ Y\ ew -h ac.cr · I <v~.f\ UV] ~0 hfl-R s-' '4-~~ ~~~ ~ -~ fVL ::::, jn-l ~_,n Q1'\. l. --~\j[)b_ ~ r'\~ I· I P ~I ok:t 'cl Y\.t., \ ~61-\ skp -? I• ~~ol e~. ~ I ..:::---.-. -.,...----~ / /' ~{)b\__,11 J.._ \01~( -17 d-nCUA.-tLxc 1 ~,~~ ) ~ -r J ...., _____-/ i '• / ~ A~rf; ,(;vt~ ~ ~ yt;,.Jl--) ........._ _./ ---i er- I ? I L.. ~/- ~ , " \ I - -~~;t~ YlA. LJ IVf). ' BfPtf -~.+A~ lu.J--. I I j u The Birthing of the City 's Greenways Program The City of College Station's 1997 Comprehensive Plan addressed the need for development of "greenways" within the City . A citizen 's task force was created to guide in the implementation of that system---through a Greenways Master Plan . Members of that task force included : + David Scott -Brazos Greenways Council + James Massey & Wayne Rife-Planning and Zoning Commission + John Crompton & Mike Manson -Parks Board + Mike McClure -Drainage Issues Representative + David Scarmardo -Development Community Representative + Sherry Ellison -Neighborhood/Home-owner Association Representative + Lynn Allen -Recreation Organization Representative + Don Mueller -Environmental Science Community Representative + Harlow Landphair -Landscape Architect This task force was very concerned about nipping a potential problem that so many other growing cities have faced in the bud . Too often, increased development leads to an increase in hard surfaces, and in return, increased flooding and drainage problems . The task force and city staff saw a way to combat that problem in College Station by developing a plan to acquire and protect floodplains and floodways to ensure their natural flooding capacity was maintained . The creeks and tributaries running through College Station provided the perfect template for creating greenway corridors. Additionally, the task force envisioned these natural corridors, along with human-made corridors, as providing links for hike & bike trails---leading to a city linked with trails to allow for alternate forms of transportation. The task force drafted a Greenways Master Plan which was adopted by City Council in May 1999. Short Definition of Greenways Greenways are corridors that follow natural features like the floodplain of creeks, or human-made features such as utility corridors, roads or railroad beds Full Definition of Greenways Greenways in College Station (and Brazos County) are de.fined as linear open spaces that fallow natural features like the floodplains of creeks and rivers or human-made features such as utility, road or rail corridors. College Station 's floodplains will serve a variety of functions, including but not limited to, floodplain mitigation, provide trails to link neighborhoods, parks, public institutions and businesses, provide for aesthetic beauty, recreation and alternative transportation and protect wildlife and plants . Greenways along human-made corridors, associated with facilities like roads and utilities, will provide trail connections for alternative transportation and recreation. T/l~)l "tVill help. ftnk economic nodes, cultural/historic areas, parks and residential areas. Greenways in College Station should form a network and should be diverse in th eir form and .function linking developed urban corridors with undeveloped natural areas. Funding In 1998 , the voters of College Station approved $3 .4 million for the acquisition of these greenways . To date, $1.8M has been spent. And in 2003 , voters approved $IM for hike & bike trails to be built. That money will start becoming available next month . Key Greenway Resources in College Station Carter Creek Bee Creek Lick Creek Alum Creek Wolf Pen Creek Spring Creek Gulf States Utility ROW Railroad, if abandoned Strategies • Acquire Greenways through purchase and encourage voluntary dedication and preservation of greenways • Include the Greenways Plan in our Unified Development Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations • Design and construct trails • Develop a long-term maintenance plan for greenways • Promote the greenways program and educate the public on the inherent importance of greenways to our way of life Famous Greenways in Texas The Riverwalk in San Antonio Town Lake in Austin Some greenways along bayous in Houston Suburban greenways run throughout Plano The City of College Station started with Wolf Pen Creek and has expanded the greenway concept throughout the city to gain those valuable connections for water, people, wildlife, and places . Issues Regard ing Monthly Updates from BCAD ~-\-~~-v;tl\ -f"h,s Sf\I\ be. ~ p rt~I~? MPrij ha~ tu kl&lit ,-h\\~e t.~-1. Inside/Outside Code Changing (Even with the street dictionary being / \)~ correct) (This should have been corrected with the last update, will verify when we run the October update) 2. Not all records are being updated with the R# or Parcel#, recently found out the update is only matching up to the Parcel #'s . 3 . There are occasions that the owner informat ion is not brought in (ie may bring the name in but does not bring in the current mailing address) 4 . There are issues with the way that Parcel ID's are being created : The first 6 numbers are the Subdivision Code which is created by BCAD the second set of numbers are created from the section/phase and block The third sets of numbers are created from the lot number . Judy Compton (BCAD) and I talked about this and she has agreed from this point on to write the Parcel's on the plats for me and fax them back . We learned of this when trying to find information out for Census and end of year demographics. Example: Dove Crossing Ph lA 230100 1101 0010 Sub Code Sec/Phase Lo t # (section 1 Phase A ) (blk 1) I was unaware that the letter A was being represented by the number 1. I was only us ing 01 (being the section) therefore there have been lots of records that were not updated . Is there a way that we can go in threw the back door of Naviline and do a quick fix??? No-\e ·. Go."1\ PAI&-~~· K~e '"'-~ ~ ~ p_tto&:JiA."'-~ ~~ J~C~Mrt'Af { 11-<.. d~~ ~IS~ Th.t... I~~ .. --------- Do w~ vv.....t tk... ~ wifl.. ,.,,· t.lfl. IT/o ,f °"""'l?ll.$·~ ~ ki "-tS-flfo. ·,bl A.hA. i"" ~~ l"'-fcxt p~) c..ott_ oWC. . a. o'V'ltlt+t-Prd.duss. J!'I'« "' atS WAv1t - ----++---l_,_A_,_,£Ml sec\ VfJ. l l.(t,. ~el i vetZ.~bleS. :;. pR.ot!clu-tle..I j aa:te.-hlASG s~1_ --------------~e~od~r_h~ ex~-~~;~_e_d _______ _ 1Z ori.ts we., \rJ"Pm t - ' s~CMJs chl'tYl es s•a~ dov{~ wf\Y\t - es -#uf moPds. • Tbao: DlO. "t;~, ~ clelt ti \klA ~'~~ul Ad.~ r ? '.f ~~ n.ot fled 10 ~~~- ~fJ ~ 9-l-~t-fb~. \~~in#-~. - Who t.t~~~ & l-t1r€ d~ ~cl ~ ~f-f)l)~O~. Lm-icA M~twt~~'P~ DS. -~· ""' • ~f." LJ-rtl l hJ ;:~it\ It .V. _..~ vvcruiu\S, N.t.~ 1~~~ . ..J "c.u. stohAW I Co tJ..e.. e:. ~toll.Ct! Wt~ ~ We-w~ t ~~ ~ "tw. e<n.:..-r--7...., lol '-of F-T:J . • INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, CITY OF BRYAN, BRAZOS COUNTY AND BRAZOS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is here by made and entered into by and between the CITY OF COLLEGE ST A TION, TEXAS, A Texas Home Rule Municipal - Corporation (hereinafter "College Station"), the CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS, A Tex as Home Rule Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "Bryan"), and BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS (hereinafter "County"), a political subdivision of the State of Texas and t.he BRAZOS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (hereinafter "BCECD") each acting by and through its duly authorized agents (referred to collectively as the "Parties"). WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Goverrunent Code, also known as the Interlocal Cooperation Act, authorizes all local governments to contract with each other to provide a governmental function or service that each party to the contract is authorized to perform individually and in which the t::ontracting parties are mutually interested; and WHEREAS, Under Section 772.301 of the Texas Health and Safety Code BCECD is the established Emergency Communications District in Brazos County. WHEREAS, Under Section 772.302 of the Texas Health and Safety Code BCECD's purpose .is to encourage units of local government and combinations of those units to develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in a manner that will make possible the quick response to any person calling the telephone number 9-1-1 seeking police, fire, medical, rescue, and other emergency services. NOW, THEREFORE IN CONCIDERATION of the recitals and mutual covenants made herein by the parties hereby mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following tenns shall have the following meanings when used in this Agreement: 1.1 The term "MSAG (Master Street Address Guide)" .means a database of street n~mes and address ranges defining emergency service zones for 9-1-1 purposes. 1.2 The term "Duplicate road name" means a street as compared to that of another street or street section with the same or similar name, in spelling or pronunciation, regardless of the application, or lack of, directional's and/or suffixes. 1.3 The term "Policy" means the Policy for Road Naming and Addressing for Brazos County 9-1-1 adopted by the Board of Managers ofBCECD on June 9, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all purposes. ARTICLE II COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES 2 .1 Each Party agrees, prior to approving a preliminary plat or granting a request to rename an existing road or street, to submit to BCECD the names of all streets and roads proposed as part of the preliminary plat or renaming request, to be handled by the BCECD in accordance with the procedure set forth in ArtiCle III below. 2.2 The Parties will discourage naming private roads; however, if a request is made to .name a private road, it shall be sent to BCECD for review to determine if it enhances the ability to locate the address in the event of an emergency and if it allows for a consistent 9- 1-1 scheme. · 2.3 The Parties agree to incorporate the terms and provisions of the Policy into its code of ordinance, adopt it by resolution or by such other means as each Party deems appropriate in order to implement the terms and .conditions of the Policy and enforce the decision set forth in the letter issued by BCECD as described below when approving plats and renaming requests. ARTICLE III BCECD RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 BCECD shall provide assistance to College Station, Bryan and Brazos County regarding the uniform naming and addressing of public and private roads, within the District's jurisdiction by acting as the clearing house for the Parties. 3.2 BCECD shall maintain and update the MSAG for all streets and roads inside the District. 3.3 BCECD shall review all requests for street names in the District's jurisdiction by consulting the MSAG along with other resources relative to street naming. · 3 .4 BCECD shall issue an official letter, which shall bear the signature of the Executive Director or Associate Director, for each new road or street name request submitted by a Party as described above. The letter shall confirm that the requested name has either been approved or rejected as disqualified pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the Policy. This letter will be issued as promptly as possible, but in no event more than 7 days after it is received. ARTICLE IV MISCELLANEOUS TERMS 4.1 Interlocal Cooperation Act. The Parties expressly acknowledge that each Party to this agreement is a local government as that term is defined in the Interlocal Cooperation Act~ Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as a V\laiver or relinquished by either Paiiy of its right to claim such exemptions, privileges and immunities as may be provided by law. 4.2 Amendment. The terms and conditions of this agreement may be amended upon mutual consent of all Parties. Mutual consent Will be demonstrated by approval of each governing body of each Party hereto. No amendment to this agreement shall be effective and binding unless and. tmtil it is reduced to writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of all Parties. 4.3 Termination. This Agreement m ay be terminated for convenience or cause upon 180 days advance written notice by either Party. 4.4 Public Information Coordination. Public dis closure of information related to, and activities conducted tmder, this Agreement will be subject to the Freedom of Info1mation Act and the Texas Public Information Act Prior -to disclosure of any requested information, the Parties shall consult with each other regarding any such proposed disclosure. 4.5 Indemnification. Subject to the limitations as to liability-and damages in the Texas Tort Claims Act and without waiving its governmental immunity, each party agrees to hold harmless each other, its governing board, officers, agents and e mployees for any liability, loss, damages, claims or causes of action caused or asserted to have been caused directly or indirectly by any other party to this Agreement or any of its officers, agents or employees, or as the result of its perfurmance under this Agreement. 4.6 Invalidity. If any provision of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court or other tribunal of competent jUiisdiction, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provision shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. The Parties shall use their best efforts to r eplace t11e respective provision ot provisions of the agreement with legal terms and conditions approximating the original intent of the Parties. 4. 7 Notice. Any notices, approval, consent, or ·communications by one Party to another must be in writing and be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified United States Mail, properly addressed to the respective Parties as follows: College Station: City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Attn: City :Manager B1yan: City of Bryan P .O. Box 1000 Bryan, Texas 77805 Attn: City :Manager ' l County: Brazos County 200 S. Texas Ave. Suite 332 Bryan, Texas 77803 Attn: County Judge The Brazos County Emergency Communications District: Brazos County Ernergency Cormnunications District P.O. Box 911 Bryan, Texas 77806 Attn: Executive Director 4. 8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements, arrangements, or understandings between the Parties relating to the subject matter, No oral understandings, statements, promises, or inducements contrary to the tenns of this agreement exist. This agreement cannot be changed or terminated orally. No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent, or employee of any Party before or after the execution of this agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations hereunder. 4 .9 Texas Law. This Agreement has been made under and shall ·be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. 4.10 Venue. Performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Brazos County, Texas, United States of America. 4.11 Authority to Contract. Each party has the full power and authority to enter into and perform this agreement and the person signing this agreement on behalf of each Party has been properly authorized and empowered to enter into this agreement. The persons executing this agreement hereby represent that they have authorization to sign on behalf of their respective Governmental Bodies. 4.12 Waiver. Failure of any Party, at any time, to enforce the provision of this agreement, shall in no way constitute a waiver of that provision, nor in any way affect the validity of this agreement, any part hereof, or the right of either Party thereafter to enforce each and every provision hereof. No term of this agreement shall be deemed waived or breach excused unless the waiver shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived. Furthermore, any consent to or waiver of a breach will not constitute consent to or waiver of or excuse of any other different or subsequent breach. 4.13 Multiple Originals. It is understood and agreed that this agreement may be executed in a number of identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes. NOW THEREFORE, this Agreement is made and entered into by and between College Station, Bryan, Br3Zos County and BCECD. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by the last party signing which makes the Agreement fully executed. BRAZOS COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT By: _________ _ Ron Mayworm, Chairman Date: - ATTEST: Greta Norton, Recording Secr:etary Date: ____ _ APPROVED AS TO FORM Patricia Meronoff, Attorney Date: ----- CITY OF COLLEGE STATION By: __________ _ Nancy Berry, Mayor Date: ----- ATTEST: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Date: ------ APPROVED AS TO FORM Carla Robinson, City Attorney Date: _____ _ CITY OF BRYAN By: __________ _ Jason Bienski, Mayor Date: ____ _ ATTEST: Mary Lynne Stratta, City Secretary Date: ----- APPROVED AS TO FORM Janis Hampton, CityAttorney Date: ----- ·-, BRAZOS COUNTY By: __________ _ Duane Peters, Judge Date: ____ _ ATTEST: Karen McQueen, County Clerk Date: ------ APPROVED AS TO FORM Bill Ballard, Civil Counsel Date: _____ _ Exhibit A Brazos County Emergency Communications District Policy for Road Naming and Addressing for Brazos County 9-1-1 Administrative Offices P.O. Box 911 Bryan, Texas 77806 Approved in Board Meeting: _6/9/11. ____ _ Office: {979) 779-0911 Fax: (979) 821-3407 Email:bgodwin@bc911.org Section I. Definitions 101. Definitions For the purposes of these guidelines, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning ascribed herein, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise . address coordinator-The local entity, divi sion, or d epartment of a local entity, authorized and delegated to assign and re-assign street addresses for and by a county or municipality. district -The territory and persons served by the Brazos County Emergency Communications District limited to ~he incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas of Brazos County. duplicate road name -A street as compared to that of another street or street section with the same or similar name, in spelling or pronunciation, rega rdless of the application, or lack cif, d irectional's and/or suffixes MSAG (Master Street Address Guide) -A database of street names and address ranges defi ning emer.gency service zones for 9-1-1 purposes . NENA (National Emergency Number Association) -A not-fo r-profit professional organization established in 1982 for the planning, implementation, management, training and administration of emergency number systems. USPS -The United States Postal Service. Section II. Title, Purpose, and Authority 201 Title This order is entitled "Policy for Road Naming and Addressing for Brazos County 9-1-1" and will be referred to herein as "these guidelines". 202 Purpose These guidelines are designed to provide uniform _procedures for use by the Brazos County Emergency Communications District ("The District" "BCECD" ·or "Brazos County 9-1-1 District"} when naming and addressing public and private roads, w ithin Brazos Cou-nty. Guidelines to follow when establishing road names and property addressing should be: The numbering system should accommodate existing addressing schemes; Unique -Not a duplicate by sound or spelling: Easy to implement; Adaptable; Easily maintained; Establishment of continuity on a particular road; Uncomplicated with conventional spelling without special characters {i.e. hyphens, periods, apostrophes, etc.}; No re-use of former/discontinued street names; Primary street names should not be abbreviated; Compliant with NENA, USPS, U.S. Census Bureau BCECD is responsible for maintaining the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) for Brazos County and should be the Clearinghouse for the City of Bryan, City of College Station, and Brazos County. Utilizing BCECD as the Clearinghouse will : enhance and ensure the easy and rapid location of properties for public safety and emergency services response; e xpedite postal and package delivery and facilitate public utilities and business services. The District is committed to partn erships that protect the public's health and safety and request designating these requirements for Public and Private streets that will be utilized by public service and emergency veh icles . BCECD should review all proposed streets in Brazos County and provide each agen cy all concerns regarding public safety in a timely manner. It is prudent for BCECD to have authority to reject streets that negatively impact the safety of first responders. Note: Due to the emergence of cellular telephones and new technologies like Voic e over Internet Protocol (VoIP) it is critical to preven t/eliminate duplicated road nam es, even though the name may be on the oppo s ite side of the county. Many of the ne w technologies do not give the ca/I-taker location information the way hard-wired phones have in the past which could cause confusion .during the emergency call. Because the ca/I-taker must get the information verbally from a caller in a very stressful time, situations may develop that could potentially lead to responde rs being dispatched to the wrong location due to a similar or duplicated road name or address. 203 Authority BCECD is responsible for maintaining the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) for Brazos County. [The MSAG is a list of all streets and roads inside the Distri ct. This lis t shows the house number (address) ranges that are associated with each street or road.] These guidelines are formulated and adopted under the authority and provisi ons of the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, Subchapte,r ~(The Em ergency Telephone Number Act), Sections 772.302; 772 .3 07(a); 772.307{b); 772.310{d); and 772.313(a). Section Ill. Public and Private Roads 301 Road Name Requests These guidelines have been established for persons or agencies requesting to establish a new road or rename an existing road within Brazos County. While incorporated cities are autonomous and may name a road in any fashion they desire, the District recommends that the road names be reviewed by District staff to ensure it conforms to the requirements as established by the District . The District staff will check the MSAG along with other resources in the planning phase in order to ensure compliance. Instances which may disqual ify the .use of road names include but are not lim ited to: duplicate road names (CATHY LANE -K ATHY LANE; LAKE VIEW ROAD-LAKEVIEW ROAD) exact duplication of names (Bush Dr-Bush St) sound alike (SUNSET PASS-SUNSETPATH) offensive, libelous or derogatory phonetic duplication (BAER RD, BEAR RD) any names that may cau se confusion or delay when delivering emer.gency services to . the road multiple street names which use the same root word must also be restricted . The District recommends that prior t.o official ap prov a l for a ne w road name, th at a letter should be on file from the Dis trict ensuring that the MSAG and available resources have been checked by District staff. (See Appendix A-Sample approval letter) BCECD staff shall follow the enclosed guidelines and provide information to any Braz~;s County or city representative as promptly as possible. The District maintains consistency in regards to suffixes and the suffix chose n depends on several characteristics of the road such as length, width, median, location, etc .· A suffix of "circle" or "loop" is used when the street actually forms a circle (with one entrance) or loop (with two entrances and no cross streets). The District utilizes a two character abbreviation for street suffixes. The following is a list of acceptable abbreviations : Av (Avenue) -A princip al road in a dens e ly populated ar ea Bl (Boulevard) - A street with a median refiecting the boulevard character Cr (Circle)-Self-Terminating circular s treets Ct (Court)-A permanently closed street ending in a cul-de-sac Cv (Cov-e )-A short permanently closed road ending in a cul -d e-s ac Dr (Drive)-A curvilinear street Ln (Lane)-A secondary dead -e nd road Lo (Loop)-A crescent shaped road that connects two .or more ·differ.ent roads Pl (Place )-A sma ll residential street or a narrow street in a .c ommerci al district Pt {Point)- Rd (Road) - A common collector road, usually in rural areas Sq (Square)-Often used on streets whose shape is lik e a squ a re or rectangle, often with a cent-er park or plaza St (Stre et) -A common collector road, usually in urban are as Tr (Tra il) -A secondary curvilinear road Vw (Vi ew) -A sce nic ro ad , usually in rural areas Wy (Way) -A minor roadway Note: There a.re two types of directions, leading (N. Main St.} and trailing (Main St. N.} With some exceptions, the City of Bryan uses leading directionals and the City of College Station uses trailing directionals. The use of directionals is discouraged where either unique block ranges or the use of an additional name would suffice. 302 Private Roads The District strongly discourages naming private roads. However, when a request to name a private road is received, the BCECD staff will review the requ est and may authorize the request if it allows for a consistent 9 -1-1 scheme or it will enhance the ability to locate the address in the event of an emergency. The requestor will be instructed to check with all neighbors on the road for naming consensus. The property owners accept responsibility of purchasing and placing a road sign, in coordination with Brazos County Road and Bridge, at all intersections with oth e r named roads. The property owners accept responsibil ity and expense of having documents changed that reflects the new address. These documents include items such as driver's license, deeds, postal delivery, letterhead,-etc. Section V. Revision 501 Revision History 61911 I \_ Create a poli6y to designate the District as the Clearinghouse to all Brazos County entities for naming and addressing public and private roads within Brazos County. The policy shall provide uniform guidelines utilize d by Brazos County Emergency Cotmnunications District personnel. c • • DATE: October 19, 2011 TO: Gary Arnold, Bra:zos County Road & Bridge (775-0453) FROM: Patrick Corley SUBJECT: Final Plat, Saddle Creek Subd ivision, Phase 2 In compliance with the county's subdivision ordinance, I hav.e reviewed the final Plat of Saddle Creek Subdivision, Phase 2, dated July, 2008 and find that the plan conforms to all requirements outlined by the District. ]t~e ~eachy -Update on the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail, a nature tourism initiative of Texas Parks and WildlifeP.age 1 J From: Linda Campbell <Linda .Campbell@tpwd .state .tx.us> Date: 9/12/02 10 :08A~!:.!--- a nature tourism initiative of Subject: Update on the l rairies and Pine ~oods Wi ldlife Trail Texas Parks and Wildlife -9/200L Friencfs and Supporters of the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail: I will be using email to periodically update you on our progress in complet ing this newest wildlife viewing driving trail , modeled after the award-winning Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. The Coastal Birding Tra il, a Texas Parks and Wildlife project funded by a grant from the Texas Department of Transportation , was the first of its kind in the nation, and has been a model for many other states . Texas Parks and Wildlife is continuing the effort to provide similar trails highlighting the best wildlife v iewing opportunities throughout all regions of Texas . The nomination phase of the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail officially closed on August 31 . I know some of you are still working on some last minute nominations . Please call or email me soon if you intend to send in a late nomination . As of today , we have received 205 site nominations for the Trail from 61 counties (41 state properties , 11 county properties, 50 city and school district properties, 33 federal properties , 4 river authorities and water district properties , and 66 private properties). We will soon be hiring a consultant to help us visit and write descriptions of each s ite . We hope to start the site assessments this fall. If you are listed as a contact person for the site , you will be contacted by the site assessment team prior to their visit. We anticipate that the site assessment phase will continue through July or August , 2003 , with maps available by March or April of 2004 . You can review the list of nominated sites by going to our web site at http ://www .tpwd .state .tx .us/bird ingtrails/sites2 .htm <http ://www .tpwd .state.tx.us/birdingtra ils/sites2.htm> . If you know of sites that are not listed but should be, please call or email me . We are interested in natural areas that provide opportunity for people to view and learn about native wildlife and plants . Sites can be public or private. For private sites, we list a reservation number or web site along with a description of wildlife , habitats, and amenities . Private landowners and businesses deal directly with the public in providing access , recreational opportunities, and information on fees and reservations. Each site will have a sign w ith the Trail logo and number identifying it with a numbered site on the map. These highway signs are placed on TxDOT maintained roads nearest the site . Criteria for selecting sites are listed on our web site at http ://www .tpwd .state .tx .us/birdingtrails/prairies_trail .htm <http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/birdingtrails/prairies_trail .htm> . In January of this year, the Texas Transportation Commission approved $770,880 in federal TEA-21 grant funding for the Trail. We are offering commun it ies and organ izations in the project area the opportun ity to be recognized as a Community/Organization Sponsor by partnering with Texas Parks and Wildlife to fund the 20 percent nonfederal match of $192 ,720 needed to complete the Trail. Please consider showing your support for the Prairies and Pineywoods Wild life Trail by becoming a Community/Organization Sponso r. Show visitors that your community or organization supports a strong nature tourism industry in Texas. Sponsorship levels from $500 to $5000 and greater are available . All sponsors will be listed by sponsorship tier (Platinum -$5,000 or greater; Gold -$3 ,000-$5 ,000 ; Silver -$1 ,500-$3 ,000 ; Bronze -$500-$1 ,500) on an insert in each of the beautiful trail maps. Platinum donors ($5 ,000 or greater) will also have the opportunity to have )(eve ~eachy -Update on the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail, a nature tourism initiative of Texas Parks and WildlifeP.age 2 I their logo placed directly on the printed maps. If you would like to be recognized as a sponsor, please make checks payable to Wildlife Trail Community/Organization Sponsorship and mail to Kerrie Summerfield, Texas Parks and Wildlife, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 . Again, I would like to thank each of you for your support of this project. Nature tourism is a fast growing industry in Texas , and the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail is our newest effort to make Texas the destination of choice for birders , wildlife photographers and other nature enthusiasts . Surveys show that wildlife watching is a growing recreational pastime, contributing almost $2.6 billion to Texas in 2001. The 2001 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing , and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USFWS) showed that 3 .2 million people watched wildlife in Texas and over 1 million traveled to engage in these activities. We want to work with you to build a nature-based tourism trail that will proudly highlight the wonderful natural history of north and east Texas while providing economic benefits to you and your communities. The Trail will also promote recreational opportunity, raise awareness and understanding of Texas wildlife and habitats, provide economic incentives for conservation, and build public support for conservation of wildlife resources . Thanks for your interest and participation in making the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail a reality for Texas. If you know of people that are not on our distribution list but would like to be , please have them email me their address. If you are receiving this email twice, please let me know so we can correct our database . Thanks again , Linda Campbell Nature Tourism Coordinator Wildlife Diversity Branch Texas Parks and Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 (512)389-4396 linda.campbell@tpwd .state.tx.us CC: Linda Campbell <Linda.Campbell@tpwd .state.tx .us> From: To: Date: Subject: Steve Beachy barry@bcscvb .org 10 /1/03 2 :52 :25 PM Prairie & Pinywoods Wildlife Trail Information The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is establishing another wildlife "tra il" which w ill include our region . Th is trail is actually a listing of significant sites within our county and surround ing counties that offer bird watching opportunities . The sites will be listed through web sites and other means . The sites in College Station include the Anderson Arboretum in Bee Creek Park and Lick Creek Park . Sites in Bryan include the Brazos Valley Museum of Natural History and Lake Bryan . For addit ional informat ion contact: Linda Campbell Nature Tourism Coordinator Texas Parks & Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4396 linda .campbell@tpwd.state .tx .us Steve Beachy Director of Parks & Recreation College Stat ion, Texas (979) 764-3413 CC: Banks , Helen; Hazlett , Ann ; PARO Management; Spring f ield, Pam >teve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map From: Linda Campbell <Linda .Campbell@tpwd .state .tx.us> To: "'sbeachy@ci.college-station .tx .us"' <sbeachy@ci.college-station .tx .us >, '"dlewis@btutilities.com"' <dlewis@btutilities .com>, '"citymgr@hot1 .net"' <citymgr@hot1.net>, '"bvmnh@myriad .net"' <bvmnh@myriad .net>, '"j-novak@tamu .edu"' <j-novak@tamu .edu >, 'Sharon Kersten' <sak@tlab .net> Date: 9/26 /2003 11 : 15AM Subject: Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map Dear Landowners and Site Managers : Below are the descriptions of the sites that will be featured on the Brazos Loop of the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map . I am sending all site descriptions on your loop so you can see how the sites fit together within the loop . I am asking each of you to do the following: 1. Please print the description and other information pertaining to your site and make your corrections on a hard copy in red ink. Return the corrected copy to me at the mailing address below . We need to be sure the contact information is correct, the directions are the best they can be, and the description adequately describes the natural history and amenities of your site. Please note that information in the recommendations section is provided to TPWD by Fermata, Inc, our contractor on this project , and is provided for your information only -it will not appear on the map. Please also remember that we have a word number cap for the map and must be careful to include the essentials but avoid lengthy descriptions. 2. Briefly review the arrangement of the other sites on your loop and take note of the loop name that has been chosen-. This is your loop and your chance to provide input on the loop arrangement and name . If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me . If you have trouble printing your site description from this email , let me know and I will mail you a hard copy for your review. Please return your review and any comments to me by October 31 . Thank you for your time in helping us make the Prairies and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail a project that will benefit the region , the resources, and the state . Linda Campbell Nature Tourism Coordinator Wildlife Diversity Program Texas Parks and Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 (512)389-4396 <mailto :linda .campbell@tpwd .state. tx . us > linda.campbell@tpwd. state . tx. us Loop 2 -Brazos Loop Loop : 2 Site : 1 Name : Lic k Creek Par k Site ac cess F/SS Page 1 [Steve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map GPS coordinates : N 30 .56952 , W 96 .21573 Site contact: Steve Beachy; 979-764-34-1 -Y-5 •l ~ (. Owner: City of College Station ; C -• -I -,,:: . ( I <, Email: sbeachy@Gi 7Gellege-s-tation..tx .us '-.. , \ . d Website : www.ci .college =station ,tx .-us-- Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion . This s ite would benefit from increased signage highlighting the extent of nature trails in the park and interpretation of the area's ecology. Directions : From the intersection of University Dr. and SR 6 in College Station, go south-east on SR 6 for 6.4 miles to the Greens Prairie Rd . Exit Turn left (north-east) on Greens Prairie Rd . for 1.8 miles to Rock Prairie Rd. Turn right on Rock Prairie Rd. and go 1 A miles to the park entrance and parking area on the right Description: .. C · ;· c ·riz · -. ..;! 11 ·--.v,-t1a fC •l 'C:: /)~'C::<-.,E>r\f'(~_ f l ~ r ( ~rJ-(:'.) ("._ ~( j ( L \ ' I £t i ~;> ( s ( It. c: I # ' L ll .. '\ ( \. I p {..... . Depending on the time of year, a visit to ~ick Creel0can reveal a variety of . different birds. Listen for the "peents" and,'whirrs" of displaying American t i, - Woodcocks in late winter or warbles of Painted Buntings in early summer. Northern Cardinals are probably the most common bird heard throughout the year. A diversity of warblers and vireos can be seen during migration , and nesting species include Northern Pa r ula, Kentucky and Swainson's Warblers, White-eyed and Yellow-throated Vireos and Summer Tanagers . During the winter months, the shrubs fill with Savannah , Vesper, Field and White-throated Sparrows. Henslow's Sparrows have also been seen . Look for Armadillos rooting in the leaf litter or reptiles and amphibians along the creek . ........, ~-- ) " (_) \, '-..\. \ ( '-"" ~ -H\"' C· Loop: 2 Site : 2 \. ' ' ('. ~· . \.) •( Name: DA "Andy" Anderson Arboretum (. ' ( \ t'sis Site access : F/SS i\._.~l ' d ..;;; 0 c c 1 GPS coordinates : N 30 .60202 , W 96 .30760 S ite contact: Steve Beachy ; 979 -764-3413-I \" ' \; l '._· \... • I 1 { ~ I ' Owner: City of Col leg e Station ; ( , i ~· . . , Email: sbeachy@Gi 7college-station . tx . us - '-.) \ '-._ • I \ Website : www. ci . college-station . tx. us P.a_ge 2 i \. .( t s ' ( . ! . 1' . , I " : , 1 iteve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion . This site would benefit from improved trail maintenance and upkeep of interpretive signage highlighting the area's ecology . Directions : . . ( I .:·· -~ From the intersection of University Dr. and Texas Avenue/ SR 6 Business in College Station , go south-east on Texas Avenue/ SR 6 Business for 2.1 miles to Southwest Pkwy . Turn right (south-west) on Southwest Pkwy for 0 .3 miles / to Anderson St. Turn left on Anderson St. and travel to the parking lot...at .. Be: , C-e ~JL (,, · ~ c... the end of the road . ~ I f' I . ,. ';' <--• • I ! 11 • { ' \ I ~· ,., I.{/ j j I' Description : ['' The D. A. "Andy" Anderson Arbore)u';;, p;ovides access to a variety of habitats right in downtown College Station .' Walking the numerous trails through the forest will eventually lead to the banks of Bee Creek and several wooded ponds . These areas have a diversity of birds throughout the year. In summer Green Herons and Yellow-billed Cuckoos can be heard calling from above the ponds , while Painted Buntings flit along the edges of woodland . During .; l. i ,r \ winter look for skulking species such as Brown Thrasher and Hermit Thrush in the thick undergrowth . Look for roosting nightjars during migration , along with migrating warblers and vireos . Killdeer can often be seen on the neighboring baseball field and Purple Martins and Chimney Swifts cruise overhead. . · .. I ' I , I ; ''· ~· Loop : 2 Site: 3 Name : Texas Heritage Garden at TAMU Site access : F GPS coordinates : N 30 .60780 , W 96 .34859 Site contact: ; Owner: TAMU ; Email : No email given Website : http ://agg ie-horticu ltu re. tam u. ed u/hol isticgarden/inde x. htm Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion . This site is clearly st ill being developed , for the site to be more attractive as a wildlife -watch ing venue the garden could be incorporated into the neighboring natural landscape through an interpretive trail. Specific information on the varieties of plants in the garden , their uses and value to wildl ife and people would also be valuable . Designated parking areas need to be added so that the public can access the area , at present a visit to the site includes running the risk of a parking ticket ! -' ·: t ' ( i. I l,. ~-r (_ l '""'(" •} -" .. J. -, 1 ( --. _, I..' ' Page 3 /' r Steve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map Page 4 ~-'--~~~~~~~--~~~~_) Directions : From the intersection of University Drive/ FM 60 and Texas Avenue/ Bus iness SR 6 drive west on University Drive/ FM 60 for 1.8 miles to Discovery Drive . Turn left on Discovery Drive and go 0.4 miles to Kimbrough Blvd . Turn left and proceed 0 .2 miles to large parki ng area on the left. The garden is north of the parking area between two large brick buildings . Description : This cozy garden is nestled between two imposing buildings on the west campus of Texas A&M University. In addition to acting as a magnet for the area's birds and insects, the Gardens provide educational insight into the plants of the area and their contribution to Texas heritage. Martin houses at either end of the garden attract several families of Purple Martin each summer. Northern Mockingbirds loudly proclaim their presence from the numerous perches throughout the garden. In spring , the garden is a wonder of color with numerous blooms attracting Ruby-throated Hummingbirds and butterflies. Look for Gulf Fritillaries , Spicebush Swallowtails and the occasional Monarch butterfly. During summer, look for Western King birds and Scissor-tailed Flycatchers flying across the surrounding lawns and parking lots . In the early evening listen for the 'peenting' call of the Common Nighthawk, awakened from their daytime roosts on the rooftops of surrounding buildings. Loop : 2 Site : 4 Name: Brazos Valley Museum of Natural History Site access: $/Day/M-S GPS coordinates : N 30 .66627 , W 96 .32006 Site contact: ??; , . I L-. Owner: 979-776-2195 Email : bvmnh@myriad .net Website : http://bvmuseum .myriad .net Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion . This site is already very well developed for wildlife watching visitors . One thing they may want to consider is to tie the information presented along the nature trail into their internal exhibits . At present there appear to be no thematic linkages between the two . Directions Steve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map From the intersection of University Dr. and SR 6 in College Station , go north on SR 6 for 1. 7 miles to the Briarcrest Dr . Exit. Turn right (north-east) on Briarcrest Dr./ FM 1179 and follow it north-east 0.3 miles to the museum on the right. Description : The Brazos Valley Nature Museum offers several exce llent exhibits dedicated to the cultural and natural history of the region . Visitors can also enjoy an interpretive nature trail that traverses the woods behind the museum. Look for White-eyed , Red-eyed , Yellow-throated and Blue-headed Vireos during spring , with both White-eyed and Yellow-throated staying to nest. In winter , look for White-throated and Lincoln's Sparrows along with resident Carolina Wrens and Red-bellied and Downy Woodpeckers. The bridge near the museum on the eastern corner of the property is a good place to test your identification skills for Barn , Cliff and Cave Swallows . Loop : 2 Site : 5 Name : Lake Bryan Site access : $/Day GPS coordinates : N 30 .71014 , W 96.46744 Site contact: Don Lewis ; 979-821-5857 Owner: Email : dlewis@btutilities .com Website : www.lakebryan .com Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion. This s ite already supports an extensive network of Mounta in Biking tra il s . These trails could be modified to provide interpretive material on the areas natural history . Directions : From the intersection of University Drive/ FM 60 and Texas Avenue/ Business SR 6 in College Station , drive west on University Drive/ FM 60 for 2.6 miles to FM 2818 . Turn right onto FM 2818 and travel north 6.8 miles to FM 1687 . Turn left onto FM 1687 and go 3.3 miles to the entrance to the lake on the right. Description : Lake Bryan is best in winter when waterfowl and White Pelicans are present in large numbers. During summer, check the pilings for roosting Forster's Terns and watch the shallows for stalking Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets . Dur in g migration the shorel ine can attract a variety of shorebirds Page 5 r Steve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map such as Least , Pectoral , White -rumped and Baird's Sandpipers . Look for Blue-gray Gnatcatchers and Yellow-billed Cuckoos in the surrounding woodlands and Marsh and Sedge Wrens in the lakeside reeds . Check the shoreline vegeta ti on for Rambur's Forktail and other damselflies, and dragonflies such as Eastern Amberwing, Blue Dasher and Red Saddlebags . Over the years, a number of rarities have been seen on the lake , including Tundra Swan and Hudsonian Godwit. Loop: 2 Site : 6 Name : XE Ranch Site access : $/Day/Res GPS coordinates : N 30 .94645 , W 96 .81332 Site contact: Sharon Kersten ; 254-697-6760 ; 254 -729 -2993 Owner: Robert & Sharon Kersten ; 254-697-6760 Email : sak@tlab.net <mailto :sak@tlab.net> ; sak@glade .net <mailto :sak@glade .net> Website : Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion as is . Directions : From the intersection of SR 6 and FM 979 in Calvert , go west on FM 979 for 9.3 miles . Go left on CR 250 Loop for 0. 7 mile. Turn left into property . The entrance is on the outside corner of 90 degree turn to the right. Description: This beautiful pr ivate ranch in the rolling hills of the post oak savannah region provides habitat for a divers ity of wildlife . Check the feeders and plantings around the house and office for Ruby-throated Hummingbirds and a variety of butterfli es . Numerous hiking trails allow visitors to explore the various habitats found on the ranch . Resident birds include Red-bellied Woodpeckers , White-eyed Vireos , Yellow-billed Cuckoos , Barred Owls , and Red-shouldered Hawks . In winter , look for Mallards and Wood Ducks in the flooded areas . During summer, the ponds on the ranch attract dragonfl ies such as Common Whiteta il, Widow Skimmer, Blue Dasher and Black Saddlebags . Loop : 2 Site : 7 Name : Rosebud City Lake Pag e-D] Steve Beachy -Landowner and site manager review -Prairie and Pineywoods Wildlife Trail Map Site access : F GPS coordinates : N 31.07035 , W 97.00914 Site contact: Miles Shaunfield ; 254-583-7926 Owner: City of Rosebud ; 254-583 -7926 Email : citymgr@hot1 .net Webs ite : Recommendations : Recommended for inclusion . This site would benefit from the development of an interpretive trail to control and guide access to the area. Directions : From the intersection of US 77 (North) and SR 53 in the town of Rosebud , go left (west) on SR 53 for 2.0 miles to CR 347 . Turn left (south) and go 100 yards to the lake . Description : This small reservoir just outside the town of Rosebud provides easy access to wetlands and open grassland . A loop road reaches most corners of the lake . In winter check for a variety of waterfowl , including American Coot and Ruddy Duck. Scan the shoreline for Spotted Sandpipers during migration . The surrounding grasslands provide habitat for Eastern Bluebirds , Eastern Kingbirds and Dickcissels as well as Monarchs , Gulf Fritillaries and Spicebush Swallowtails . In summer, scan the surface of the water for Cliff and Barn Swallows along with dragonflies such as Black and Carolina Saddlebags . CC: Linda Campbell <Linda. Campbell@tpwd .state . tx. us> Page 7 ' Lick Creek Park Page I of 2 Lick Creek Park ©Bert Frenz , 2001 The premier nature preserve of College Station is Lick Creek Park . Except for a parking lot , a few fences and some primitive trails, the 500-acre park is mostly untouched woods and bottomlands along trickling Lick Creek. The park is good birding year-round , but is especially known for its spring migrants and summer residents . Almost all of our migrating vireo and warbler species (34 are on the list) have passed through the park and Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-throated Vireo, Kentucky Warbler, Swainson's Warbler, Summer Tanager, Painted Bunting and many others stay to breed . Barred Owls and Pileated Woodpeckers are present year-round , one of seven species of woodpeckers at the park . Hairy Woodpeckers have been reported regularly , but are hard to locate . Notoriously difficult birds to find, Henslow's Sparrows are known to winter in the park. Your best bet is the grassy fields near the park entrance and to the left of the main trail. Lick Creek Park is also a botanist's delight and is used by many Texas A&M University professors and students for research studies. To learn more about identifying the plant life check out the Navasota Flora - TAMU Herbarium website. To reach the park, drive to the south of College Station along Texas Highway 6. At the water tower, exit on Greens Prairie Road , turn east under the overpass and continue on Greens Prairie until it dead ends after 1.6 miles . Turn right on Rock Prairie Road and, in spring, listen for Painted Buntings along the gravel road . Continue for another 1.6 miles until the entrance and parking lot to Lick Creek Park appears on your right. There are several unmarked trails in the park and many places to explore , but the park is large enough to get lost. The main path starts as a wide dirt road directly from the parking lot. Eventually you will reach an area that was cleared for a sewer line . Hiking up and down this cleared area will give many opportunities to find birds at the wooded edge . The main trail continues perpendicular to the cleared area and to its right is the sedge meadow , a fascinating habitat that attracts flycatchers , vireos and warblers. You can continue on the path past the first creek . The path narrows and is often muddy but eventually leads to another creek spanned by a dilapidated bridge . The adventuresome may wish to risk their lives crossing the bridge , but the path beyond the bridge is hard to follow and without a guide , one can easily get lost. Eventually it reaches Pebble Creek golf course . Partial List of Species Double-crested Cormorant , Great Blue Heron , Great Egret , Little Blue Heron, Cattle Egret , Black Vulture , Turkey Vulture , Snow Goose , Ross's Goose , Mississippi Kite , Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk , Red-shouldered Hawk , Broad-winged Hawk , Red-tailed Hawk , American Kestrel , Peregrine Falcon , Ring-necked Pheasant (escapee), Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper , American Woodcock, Rock Dove , Mourning Dove, Inca Dove, Yellow-billed Cuckoo , Barred Owl , Chimney Swift , Ruby -throated Hummingbird , Red-headed Woodpecker , Red-bellied Woodpecker , Yellow-bellied Sapsucker , Downy Woodpecker , Hairy Woodpecker , Northern Flicker, Pileated Woodpecker , Eastern Wood-Pewee , Acadian Flycatcher , Least Flycatcher , Eastern Phoebe , Great Crested Flycatcher , Western Kingbird , Scissor-tailed Flycatcher , Loggerhead Shrike , White-eyed Vireo , Yellow-throated Vireo , Blue -headed Vireo , Warbling Vireo, Philadelphia Vireo , Red-eyed Vireo , Blue Jay , American Crow , Purple Martin , Cliff Swallow , Barn Swallow , Carolina Chickadee , Tufted Titmouse , Brown Creeper , Carolina Wren , House Wren , Sedge Wren , Golden -crowned Kinglet , Ruby-crowned Kinglet , Blue-gray 0 11 "n nm Lick Creek Park t'age /.. or /.. Gnatcatcher, Eastern Bluebird , Veery , Swainson's Thrush , Hermit Thrush , Wood Thrush , American Robin , Gray Catbird , Northern Mockingbird , Brown Thrasher , Cedar Waxwing , Golden -winged Warbler, Tennessee Warbler, Orange-crowned Warbler , Nashville Warbler, Northern Parula, Yellow Warbler , Chestnut-sided Warbler, Magnolia Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, Yellow-throated Warbler, Pine Warbler , Cerulean Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, Prothonotary Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler, Swainson's Warbler, Ovenbird, Northern Waterthrush , Louisiana Waterthrush , Kentucky Warbler , Mourning Warbler, Common Yellowthroat , Hooded Warbler , Wilson's Warbler , Canada Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat , Summer Tanager , Scarlet Tanager, Spotted Towhee, Eastern Towhee, Chipping Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Le Conte's Sparrow , Fox Sparrow , Song Sparrow , Lincoln's Sparrow , Swamp Sparrow, White-throated Sparrow, Northern Cardinal, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Blue Grosbeak, Indigo Bunting , Painted Bunting , Eastern Meadowlark, Great-tailed Grackle, Brown-headed Cowbird , Orchard Oriole, Baltimore Oriole, Purple Finch , and American Goldfinch. (128 species) http ://www .bafrenz.com/bird s/lickck . htm 9/15 /200 3 Checklist -back side Birds of Central Brazos Valley Tyra nt F lycatch ers La rks Swa llows Eastern Wood-Pewee • Acadian F lycatcher Eastern P hoebe • Great Crested Flycatcher • We s tern Kin gbi rd • Eas tern Ki ngbird • Scissor-ta il ed Fl ycatcher Homed Lark • Purple Martin Tree Swa ll ow • Cliff Swa llow • Barn Swa ll ow C rows and Jays • Blue Jay • Ameri can Crow Tits and Allies • Carolina Chickadee • Tufted T itm ouse Wrens • Caro lina Wren Bewic k's Wren House Wren Old World F lycatchers Ruby-crowned Kinglet • Blue-gray Gnatcatcher • Eastern Blu ebird Swainson's Thrus h Hermit Thru sh • Wood Thrush • Americ an Robin Mockingbirds and Thrashers • Gray Catbird • Northern Mockingbird • Brown Thras her Wagtails and Pipits America n Pipit Waxwings and S ilky-Oyca t c h e r s Ceda r Waxwing S hrikes • Lo gge rh ead S hrik e S tarlings • European Starling Vireos and A lli es • White-eyed Vireo Solita ry Vireo Ye llow-th1oated Vireo httn· //www hafren7..com /hi rd s/Chk ls tB. htm Page I of 2 C hestnut-sided Warbler Magnolia Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-throated Green Warble r Blackburnian Warbler • Yellow-throated Warble r Pine Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Black-and-white Warbler American Redstart • Prothonotary Warbler Northern Waterthrush • Kentucky Warb le r Mourning Warb ler • Common Yellowthroat Hooded Warble r Wilson's Warbler • Yellow-breasted Chat • Summer Tanager • Northern Cardin al Rose-breas ted Grosbeak • Indi go Bunting • Pa inted Bunting • Dickci sse l Eastern Towhee Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Vespe r Sparrow • Lark Sparrow Savannah Spa rrow Le Conte's Sparrow Fox Sparrow Song Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-throated Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Ha rri s' Sparrow Dark-eye d Junco • Red-win ge d Blackbird • Eastern Meadowlark We ste rn Meadow lark Yellow-headed Blackb ird Brewer's Blackbird Great-tail ed Grack le Co mm o n G ra c kl e • Brown-hea ded Cowbi rd O rc hard Oriol e Ba ltimore Oriol e 9/15 /2003 Checklist -back side Warbli ng Vireo • Red-eyed Vi reo Tanagcrs,Bu ntings,S pa rrows a nd Allies Blue-winged Warbler Tennessee Warbl er Orange·-crowned Warb ler Nas hvi ll e Warbl er • No rthern Parul a Ye llow Warbl er Rio Brazos Audubon Society ----- www.bafrenz.com/birds/index.htm h ttn ://www.bafr e nz.com/bird s/ChklstB .htm S is kin s, C ro ss bills and A lli es Pu rpl e Finc h • Ho use Fi nc h Pine Siskin American Goldfinc h Evenin g Grosbeak Old World S parrows • Hou se Sparrow rage L-u1 L.. 9/15 /2003 Checklist -front side Birds of Central Brazos Valley (abundant , co mmon, un co mmon only) G r e bes Pelican s Co rmorants • Pied-billed Grebe Eared Grebe American W hite Pelican Double-crested Cormorant Neotropic Conn orant H e rons, Egrets and Bitterns • Great Blue Heron • Great Eg re t • Snowy Eg re t • Little Blue Heron • Cattle Egret • Green Heron • Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Ibis and Spoo nbills Storks Waterfowl • White I bis • White-faced Ibi s • Roseate Spoonbill Wood Stork • Black-be lli ed Whistl in g-Duc k Greater W hite-fronted Goose S now Goose Canada Goose • Wood Duck Green-w in ged Teal Mallard Northern Pintail Blue-winge d Teal Cinnamo n Teal Northern Shove le r Gad wall American Wigeon Canvasback Redhead Rin g-necked D uck Le sser Scaup Bufnehead Rudd y Duck New World Vultures • Black Vulture • Turkey Vulture Hawks , Eag le s and Kit es O s prey North e rn Harrier httn ://www.bafrenz.com/bird s/C hkl stA.htm (C) Bert Frenz, 1997 Rails and Coot s Sora • Com mo n Moorhe n • A me ri ca n Coot C ranes Sandhill Crane Plovers and Lapwings Sa ndpipers Blac k-be ll ied Plover American Golden-Plover • Killdeer Greater Ye ll owlegs Lesser Ye ll ow legs Spott ed Sandpiper U pl a nd Sandpiper Western Sandp ipe r Leas t Sandpiper White-rumpe d Sandpipe r Pectoral Sandpiper Co mmon Snipe • American Woodcock Gu lls and Terns Franklin's Gull Bonaparte's Gul l Ring-bi ll ed Gull Herring Gu ll Cas pi an Tern Forster's Tern B lack Tern Pigeons and Doves • Rock Dove • Mourning Dove • In ca Dove Old World Cuckoos Owls ig htjars S wifts • Ye llo w-bill ed Cuckoo • G reate r Roadrunne r • Eastern Screech-Owl • G reat Horn ed Ow l • Barred Owl • Co mmon Nighthawk Chuck-w ill's -widow Wh ip-poor-will • Chim ney Swift Hummin g bird s • Ruby -th roated Hummin g bird Page 1-of2 9 /1 S/?.001 Checklist -front side S harp-s hinned Hawk • Red-shoulde red Hawk Broad-wi nge d Hawk Swainson's Hawk • Red-ta il ed Ha wk Falcons and C ara ca ras (' = breeding ) American Ke stre l Rio Brazos Audubon Society ----- www.bafrenz.com/birds/index.htm htto ://www .ba fr e nz .co m/bird s/C hk lstA.htm h'.in g li s hc r s Be lt ed Kin gfisher Woodpeckers • Red-headed Woodpecker • Re d -belli ed Woodpecker Ye ll ow-be lli ed Sapsucker • Do wny Woodpecker No rth e rn Flicker • Pi leated Woodpecker 9115 12003 Field Trips Schedule Rio Brazos Audubon Field Trips for 2002-2003 Thi s is tbe mos t up-to -dat e fi e ld tr ip li stin g fo r RB AS. October 5: Hawk Watch in the Brazos Bottoms in Burleson County. This is a great first trip of the year just across the Brazos River along Butler Bayou and into Buffalo Ranch. The trip finishes in the Aquatics facility this side of the river. Target species: Migrant raptors (Broadwing and Swainson's Hawks, Merlins, Peregrine Falcons, Mississippi Kites, Kestrels, Bald Eagles), Shorebirds (Spotted, Least, Upland, and Pectoral Sandpipers), and Passerines (Nashville's, Wilson's and Black- throated Green Warblers, Common Yellowthroat, Blue-grey Gnatcatchers, Indigo Buntings). Leaders: Darrell Vollert and Ellen Ratoosh. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at 8 AM to carpool. Should finish birding by 2 PM. November 9: Flowers and Flocks in Lick Creek Park. Check out the end of the Fall Migration and the early winter arrivals, while viewing the endangered Navasota's Ladies' Tresses in our local nature park. Jim Manhart has guided the flower part of this walk for several years. Larry and Tonna Harris-Haller will chaperone birders through the wilds. Meet at the Lick Creek Park (south College Station, on Rock Prairie Drive, east of Pebble Creek) parking lot at SAM. November 23: Afternoon community birding at Bryan Utilities Lake. Come join and help out guiding local home-schoolers at the Bryan nature park. Bring your spotting scopes to help the young-uns get a good view of waterfowl. The troops will arrive at about 2:30PM, so you can sleep in. Larry and Tonna Harris- Haller will organize everyone at the covered area upon arrival. December 7: Woodpecker Wonderland trip at Jerry Wall's Christmas Creek Nature Preserve (western Montgomery County), foJlowed by excursions to Stubblefield Lake and Huntsville State Parks as time allows . Looking for eight different woodpecker species (including Red-cockaded), three nuthatch species, and maybe a Bachman's sparrow. Leaders: Darrell Vollert and Jerry Walls. Meet at the College Station Conference Center to carpool. Should finish birding by 2 PM. December 14: College Station Christmas Count. Join Mike Manson, an outstanding birder and past-president of the chapter, for a complete survey of the birds in our area. All together we usually get more than a hundred species every year and thousands of birds. Mike might organize an OWLING in relation to the count. This is a great way to kick off the Christmas holidays. Check the website or come to the httn ://1n i ffin !Z . tamu.edu/rbas/fldtrp .htm Page I of 3 9/1 5/2 003 Field Trips Schedule November meeting for assignments. December 19: Gibbons Creek Christmas Count. Our local Texas Ornithological Society officer, Bert Frenz, organizes this count. This count makes citizen science fun. Like its sister- count in College Station, we sec more than a hundred species. It is a wonderful outdoors break between Christmas and New Years. Check the website or come to the November meeting for assignments. January 18: Twelve Sparrow Species by Noon trip. This is a favorite yearly quest to try to see at least a dozen different sparrow species before lunch . This year we arc going to Washington-on-the-Brazos State Historical Park in Washington County. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at 7:30AM to carpool or meet Darrell at the gate to the park at SAM. Leaders: Ellen Ratoosh and Darrell Vollert. Should finish, of course, by Noon. February 1: Gibbons Creek Reservoir trip. Bird the restricted mining areas and the public-use areas at the reservoir. We have special permission to go in the recovery areas that are full of wildlife. A great trip for winter \'Vaterfowl (including Anhingas), grassland specialties (looking for LeConte's Sparrows), and woodland denizens (e.g., the Red-headed Woodpecker). Leaders: Darrell Vollert, Larry and Tonna Harris-Haller. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at SAM to carpool. Should finish birding around 3PM. February 15: Moore Farm trip to South Brazos County. We have special permission to bird along the Brazos River and on the farm. There are wintering goose species, ducks, Bald Eagles, longspurs, and pipits. Leader: Darrell Vollert. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at 7:30AM to carpool. Should be done by 2PM. March 1: Whooping Cranes with Captain Ted. This is a great little tour on the intercoastal waterway to Anahuac in Captain Ted's Skimmer out of Rockport. It costs about $20 each for the ride. Captain Ted guarantees whoopers (if not whoppers). Contact Larry Griffing for the early morning meeting time at the dock (necessitating an overnight stay the previous night on the coast). Early April: Spring blooms and birds at Lick Creek Park. Join the morning birding tour at the annual BioBlitz. Stay for the demonstrations at the entomology, herpetology, and mammalogy pavilions. Tour leader: to be arranged with BioBlitz and the student conservation association. 7:30AM Lick Creek Park parking lot. http://griffing .tamu .edu/rbas/fldtrp .htm Page 2of3 9/15 /2003 Field Trips Schedule April 19-20: Upper Texas Coast trip for the Spring Migration. This is the great gift of Texas to b irders, who come from all over the world to see the amazing aggregation of birds at High lsland, Anahuac NWR, Bo livar F lats, and Sabine Woods. Stay tuned for organizational details, but the general plan is to get there fairly early Saturday morning at the groves in High Island, move the Anahuac, then on to Bolivar flats in the afternoon. Sunday we bird Sabine Woods near Beaumont. April 26: B/CS Parks trip. Brison and Hensel Park. During Spring Migration, this can be a very rich trip in our own backyard. We look for warb lers, flycatchers, vireos, grosbeaks, tanagers, buntings, and orioles. Leader: Ellen Ratoosh. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at 8AM, finish by Noon. May 24: Nesting birds in Sam Houston National Forest. Look for Painted and Indigo Buntings, Summer Tanagers, several woodpecker species and, perhaps, a Bachman's Sparrow with leaders Jerry Walls and Darrell Vollert. The trip will include Jerry Walls' Christmas Creek Nature Preserve and the adjacent Sam Houston National Forest. Meet at the College Station Conference Center at 7:30 to carpool. Should finish by 2PM. httn://g:riffing .tamu .edu/rbas /fldtrp .htm Page 3of3 9/15 /2003 Creek Sign Update Purpose: Locate all of the possible locations for creek name signs with current sign posts . Past: Possible sign locations were identified . U pdate: • The creek name sign locations were placed on a map . • I talked to Troy Rother and he said that signs must be no less than six feet from road. It is unclear, but assumed that creek name signs cannot be placed with regulatory signs. If we want to place the creek signs on current signs , we may have to change the post to a larger gauge. To Be Discussed: • The next steps for the project. • Determine the distance between sign post and creek. Detention Ponds Inventory Purpose: Identify the detention ponds in College Station. Update: • There are 26 private development detention ponds based on the City's GIS. • Example detention pond plans were obtained. To Be Discussed: • The next steps for the project. • Determine how information regarding individual detention ponds will be linked to maps and photos. • Determine where the City's detention ponds are located. • Are there other private detention ponds not included on GIS? · r · t: j I r { i -1 j I J ./ J •, ·I' I ( ' . '. -l I; I (f .. ·""" ' l ' ' . \. i / - I / , I : I I : II till m m Ill II~~ I Ill' :111 Ill 1111 .:"- : .-J:: ' u -. ' --.. ~ .. j., ( ' -. ---p f l ''1 · -i ! \l ,· ; . , . Ml ~ ~/ -T' t r·.' 1--1 ,•, --., .-·,{ i ' .,. . ' ~ ' ~I~~ II! ! I I s T A N T 0 N -w A R -=.:..:. -• :.-:._. = ~ --- l E T T E R DATE: 8 January 2001 CLIENT: City of College Station Greenways Program DESCRIPTION OF WORK Logo design Delivery on CD $550.00 0 F · .. HOURS . @$60 9 n/a AGREEMENT COST .. 1.'..-· $540 $10 Payment is due 30 days after receipt of invoice. E ,,.. ·.'·· 2'f •COLLEGE STATION •TEXAS• n8'41 • 979.680.9221 • stantonware@yahoo.com • http://home.earthlink.net/-stantonware Creek Signs Update Counted number of creek signs needed for major and minor arterials for various creeks Worked with Lui s and Troy on the sign configuration. It should meet TxDOT's standards . Discussed costs with Lee . Talked to Marshall about posting signs on bridges and he said that it probably would not work the way we wanted it to . N b f . d d um er o signs nee e Major Arterial Minor Arterial Bridge Wolf Pen Creek 8 Bee Creek 10 Spring Creek Lick Creek 2 Carte4 Creek 4 Alum Creek Total s WPC size sign 14 Other size sign 30 Estimate 14 signs for WPC 30 other size signs cost of signs cost of posts cost of labor cost of lettering total cost $3432 880 800 600 $5712 $60 each $48 each 2 2 6 10 (includes cost of bridge signs becoming posted signs) (sv~j I ~1~~~ ~tlVx;v~ ~~ ~3J ~3.2l 1. )~ ~~ U!OS--~.J I '<' • Ecologically Based Municipa l Land Use Planning ATTENTION .~<:~ THIS IS A 4<. ~:;)~ wm.AllDS/OPEN SPACE \} ~ BOUNDARY UNE ~ · THE AREA BEHIND THIS SIGN IS A PROTECTED WETLANDS OR OPEN SPACE AREA. THESE AREAS PROVIDE SOME OF THE LAST REMAINING HABITAT FOR WILD- LIFE AS WELL AS STORAGE AREAS FOR CONTROL OF FLOODING AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER . YOUR HELP IN PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THESE PROTECTED AREAS WILL BE SINCERELY APPRECIATED BY YOUR NEIGHBORS . THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. ~e these posted along sensitive lands or dedicated buffers serve as a constant reminder mce of these areas. (These signs are available from Site Evaluations, P.O. Box 371, Venessa Garza -Proposed Street Cross-Sections From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Attachments: Alan Gibbs Balmain, Gary; Cowell, Bob; Garza, Venessa; Gilman, Chuck; Guerra , J ... 6/13/2011 1:21 PM Proposed Street Cross-Sections Cotter, Carol; Simms, Lance 20110613122524683_1.pdf; 20110613122545406 _1.pdf Page 1 of 1 I have sent an appt for June 27th to discuss this item. Focus of this meeting is to seek PW input on proposed pavement and ROW cross-sections -with regard to CIP design and construction, ROW acquisition, and PW maintenance, etc. (Future phase of this effort will need to be drafted and discussed for intersections, additional turn lanes, utility crossings in tree zone, installation timing of trees, maintenance of trees, urban roadside zones, etc.) Thanks, Alan Background: This is pick ing up an old discussion to implement the comp plan (t-plan), context sensitive cross -sections, include a tree in roadside zone, etc. Attached are the hand-sketched draft roadside zones and amended KHA cross-sections. Water Services, CSU and Parks met on June 7th with P&DS and concurred with the proposed roadside zones with regard to utilities, trees, spacing, etc. This requires a minimum of a 20 ft roadside zone of ROW beyond the back of curb. The proposed pavement and ROW sect ions for each provides atleast 20 ft of roadside zone except for the 2 Lane Suburban Major Collectors which needs to be increased from 77 ft ROW to 90 ft ROW, and the 4 Lane Urban Major Collector which needs to be increased from 125 ft ROW to 137 ft ROW. Subsequent meetings will be needed with private utility companies , and local development community. file://C:\Documents and Settings\vgarza\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4DF60EDOCity ... 6/17/201 1 I I , i i I I I I I I I I I I II ;::;. ( 6 f I . 0/v1Jf?t 1Vl!:D tz,o.A{Js;i,~ puvJ ------------------------· ~ -----. '2.. -·--------------~--- ---. -.Z-'------~~, ~ __ \' ------~· ---------------- ------1---- -4-------- · - --·------'--L---- ...... ---------~--------------- j_ ----·---··------·-··----·--· .C:,. ·---·~-= ----·-_ -:·---. ----- ~~-+- --=----1----- -.--!~··- _ _J __ --++--- - Stree t Cro ss-S ection Standards T h e stre et cro ss-se cti o n standard s assist in ch a sing the ap p ropriate d esign stan d ards for a parti cular street based o n the approve d City of College Station T h oroughfa re Pl an . Th e fo ll o wi ng are t yp ica l exam pl es wit h t he re co m m e nd ed d im e nsio n s for each zone . The zo n es and oth er d esign as p ects are l is t e d b el o w: • • • • • • • Roads i de Zone : Location for Planting Zone (grass strips, street trees, tree wells and utilities); Throughway Zone (sidewalks, tr~e wells and utilities); an d Edge Zone (accomodates doors for parked vehicles and utilities) Parki ng: Space for parking vehicles on-street; may also contain stormwater facilities Travel Lanes: the pavement avai lab l e for through travel by vehicles Median: space available for additional planting zone, pedestrian refuge, and/or turning lanes Target Speed (posted speed limit) -Local Subdivisio n, M i nor Co ll ector, and M ajo r Coll ector : Assumed to be 30 mph with a design speed of 35 mph Ta rget Speed (poste d sp e ed lim it) -M i no r Arte ria l a nd Major Arte r ial: Assumed to be 35 mph with a design speed of 40 mph Othe r design aspects (grades, curve fa ct ors, radii, sig ht distance, etc.): shall be per adopted design guidelines Rural Local Subdivision Streets Roodskl• Zona• Po ndng Travel Lones Park ing 8' 22' 8' 13' p 1 ))( 1 ·Includes oreo fo r side wa lks, ulili li es , sh eel trees, lre e well s, sh eel lu1nil u1 e, elc . •• Inclu des o reo lo r ulililies, dr a inage swo les, p1ivole plonlings , e1c . 22' 22' ;n :?2' /~O ••• Moy be 1ed uced by 14' ii porldng is nol .requi1 ed; would be e 11la1ged by 1-4' ii median 1eq uired/provided (excepl wilh e stCJle or ruroq; larger al inlerseclions based 011 odupled d esig1 guid elines (exc e pl wi1 h e state o r ru rul) Majo r Collector 2-Lane ing /Blke Lone Travel Lo nes Med ion p '1 11' 1 l.: 11 ' V' 1 11' ~l lo 11 ' 1/ '1 11 ' 11' 13' 1 11 ' 11' N/A un les s requir ed by 11' 11' bike pion '· . ' I TY2.. '?v.J I I fV6" -I , I I I )s w/ ) v../Pi, \ 0 I 0 1 " I )6 f( I ) I Cc:> I c' Vv/tt. Pt/A ~ Pa rking/Bi ke lone 61 N/A unless 1 requi1ed by bike Ion • Includes 0 1eo for side""'°lks, ulililies, sl ree l lrees, lree. welts, sl reel rurnilure, elc. •• Includes oreo lor ulililies, drainage swoles, privole plon°lings, elc . Travel Lones 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' Major Co llector 4-Lane Median . 16' 16' Oplionol (16) Travel Lones 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' N/A unless l'eq uired by bike Ion ·•• /titoy be reduced by 141' ii µurking i~ nol requi1ed; would l>e enlarged by 16' if median required/providecl (excepl wilh o1e or rurulJ; larger ul fntersecl ions l:iosed on udopled desiy11 guidelines lexcepl with eslole or rurnl) . ,35.5"" • Includes area fo r sidewalks, u1ililies, slreet lrees, l ree wells, s1reel furniture, elc. •• l11cludes oreu for ulililies, chC1inoge swoles, privole plonlings, elc . Travel Lones 2 2' 22' 22' 22' 22' Minor Arteria l 4-Lane Median 16' 16' 16' 16' Oplionol (16) ... Moy be reduced by 1-4 ' ii parking is not required; larger of inlerseclions bosed on odopl&d design guidelines jexcepl wil h eslole or ru1ol) ~ .. , ·A· Travel Lones 22' 22' . 22' 22' 22' / /6 5._,,,.,; TR p._ - id) )VJ V\.l /.. 0) 6f-/0 / vy Vt_ "'-ct..__ II\ •Includes area lor sidewalks, utilities, slreel lrli!es, hde wells, slreel lurniture, elc. •• Includes area lor ulililies, drainage swoles, privole plantings, e1c. T rovel LoneJ 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' Major Arterial 4-Lane Medi<Jn 16' 16' 16' 16' Opllonol (161 ·•• Moy be 1educed by 14' ii po1king is nol required; larger al inlersecliom bosed on odopled design guidelines (e)lcepl wilh eslole or rural) • Includes o reu lor sidewalks , utililies, sh eel lrees, lree wells, sh eel lumilure, elc. •• Includes urea for utililies, droirioge swules, private µlunlings, elc . Trove! Lones 33' 33' 33' 33' 36' Major Arteria l 6-Lane Median 16' 16' 16' 16' 25' ... Moy be 1educed by 14' ii po1king is nol required;larger a l in1erseclions based on adopted design guidelines (excepl wilh eslole or 1urol) ·CJ · Travel Lones 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' n Travel Lones , 33' 33' 33' 33' 36' required by bike Ion -n - ROW J---~ 14 .5' -20' 6' Sidewalk I / 3' Sanitary/Water (opposite sides) 4.5' Propo~ep PUE (15 ) V I \~ 2' Electrical • 2' Gas/Phone Cable 4' Meter C/Os Rough Proportionality: ·Who Pays for Inf rastru ctu re? Texas City Attorneys Association 2007 Summer Conference June 13-15, 2007 South Padre Island, Texas Radisson Resort Hotel Terrence S. Welch Brown & Hofmeister, L.L.P. 740 E. Campbell Road, Suite 800 Richardson; Texas 75081 214/747-6100 2147747-6111 (Fax) www.bhlaw.net - Terrence S. Welch In 1981, Terry began h is legal career in the Dallas City Attorney's O ffice and is one of the founding partners of Brown & Hofmeister, L.L.P. Since 1991 , Terry has served as the Town Attorney for the Town of Flower Mound, Texas, one of the fastest growing communities in the State of Texas . He routinely represents and advises local governments on a variety of issues, including employment, land use, civil r ights, police, election, condemnation and regulatory matters. Terry received hi s Bachelor of Arts degree at the University oflllinois at Urbana-C hampaign in 1976, hi s law degree in 1979 from the University of Houston College of Law a,nd a Master of Public Affairs in 1981 at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austi n. Terry has authored and presented over 150 papers to various groups, including the A merican Bar Association , the Texas City Attorneys Association, the Texas Municipal League, the American Planning Association , the North Central Texas Council of Governments, CLE International and the National Business Institute. He has had three law review articles on civil rights and public employment law issues published in The Review of Litigation, Southern Illinois University Law Journal and Baylor Law Review. He was the 2004-05 Chair of the State and Local Government Law Section of the American Bar Association and Immediate Past Section Chair of the State and Local Government Relations Section of the Federal Bar Association. For recreation, Terry enjoys lon g di stance running, having completed hi s 24th marathon in December ~006 . Unfortunate ly he runs them all very slowly! 1 I. INTRODUCTION In recent years , perhaps no area of municipal planning and practice has become the subject of more confusion and debate than zoning and land use practice. While federal and state courts attempt to unravel the often perplexing decisions of the United States Supreme Court in regulatory takings and land use cases, mayors , city council members, city managers, planners, city attorneys and building officials are left scrambling for footing on an ever shifting playing field that appears to become softer and more unsure with each Supreme Court opinion. One need only read a local newspaper and , more than likely, you will probably see an article about a zoning or land use dispute . Disputes about zoning classifications, variances and permits are commonplace. More frequently , in addition to these traditional situations, we now see new controversies that stem from increased municipal efforts to protect the environment, preserve our historic landmarks and cultural heritage, and enrich the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Overlying all of these issues is a greater emphasis on identifying and controlling urban sprawl and its ill-effects. While each of thes~ issues are worthy of significant and in depth discussion ,· this paper makes no effort to do so, primarily because the task would be somewhat daunting and the results extremely voluminous. Rather, this paper seeks to provide an overview of the concept of rough proportionality in Texas , with emphasis on the Texas Supreme Court case of Town of Flower Mound, Texas v. Stafford E s tat es Limite d Partners hip , l 35 S. W.3d 620 (Tex. 2004 ), and further , to offer suggestions on how Texas cities may address the issue of exactions in the land development process . II. AN OVERVIEW OF TAKINGS CASES Article I , Section 17 of the Texas Constitution provides that "[n]o person 's property shall be taken , damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person .... " Tex. Const. art. I, § 17. The federal Takings Clause is substantially similar. Se e U.S. Const. amend . V ("[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"). As a result, the Texas Supreme Court relies upon interpretations of the federal Takings Clause in construing the Texas takings provision and analyzes Texas takings claims under the more familiar federal standards. See, e .g ., City of Austin v. Travis County Land.fill Co., L.L.C., 73 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. 2002) (considering aircraft overflights takings claim , asserted under Texas Constitution, by reference to federal standard established in United States v . Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)); City of Corpus Christi v. Pub. Util. Comm 'n of Texas, 51 S .W.3d 231 , 242 (Tex. 2001) (examining federal precedent to decide the framework for determining whether utility charges constitute a taking); Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 , 932 (Tex. 1996); ("[W]e assume , without deciding, that the state and federal guarantees in 2 respect to land-use constitutional claims are coextensive, and we will analyze the Mayhews' claims under the more familiar federal standards."). Both the Texas and Federal Constitutions recognize a claim for a taking of property. Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 93 3; Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980). There are three general categories of takings claims: (1) physical occupation, (2) exactions and (3) regulatory takings. Stafford, 135 S.W.3d at 630 ; Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 933; Sheffield Development Company, Inc. v. City of Glenn H e ights, Texas, 140 S.W.3d 660 , 671-72 (Tex. 2004). The United States Supreme Court has determined that the first category, a physical invasion or a regulatory activity that produces a ph ysical invasion , will support a takings claim without regard to the public interest advanced by the regulation or th e economic impact upon the landowner . See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, In c . v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 330 (2002); Lucas v. South Carolina Coasta l Council , 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp ., 458 U.S. 419, 435-440 (1982). See also Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 933 (recognizing physical takings as takings category). The second category of takings claims is found where an exaction, such as the required dedication ofland, is made a condition of development approval. See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 , 704 (1999); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U .S. 374 , 391 (1994); Nol/an v. California Coastal Comm 'n, 483 U.S. 825 , 836 (1987). The third category of takings claims-regulatory takin gs--encompass the majority of takings cases and involve the mo st complex analysis. See Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 933 (recognizing regulatory takings as category of takings claim). Within the context of regulatory takings , the United States Supreme Court has recognized a categorical rule where a regulation itself "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land ," finding that such regulation requires compensation without "case-specific inquiry into the publi ~. interest advanced in support of the restraint." Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1015-16. The Texas Supreme Court also recognize~ this rule in Mayhew, in which it held that a compensable taking occurs when a governmental re striction "denies the landowner all economically viable use of the property or totally destroys the value of the property .... " Id. at 935. When a regulatory takings claim does not render property valueless, howev er, a taking may still re sult after evaluation of the three factors promulgated in Penn Ce ntral Transp. Co . v . City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Those factors are (1) the character of the governmental action, (2) the economic impact of the regulation upon the claimant, and (3) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S . 1003 , 1016-20 (1992}; Penn Ce ntral Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 122 (1978). The United States Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the viability of the Penn Central standards. See Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 321 ("[W]e conclude that the circumstances in this case [determining whether a 32 month moratorium is ~a__.t~king] are best anal yzed ~ith the Penn Central framework."); Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 , 617 (2001) ("Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use , a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation 's 3 economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action."). m. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES EXACTIONS Two United States Supreme Court cases articulate the current federal tests for determining whether conditions that require the dedication ofland, and possibly all exactions, constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment.1 The first, Nollan , requires a court to evaluate the nexus between (I) what the municipality seekS to exact from the developer by way of imposing a condition that takes land , and (2) the projected impact of the proposed development. In Nollan, the Supreme Court required that in cases involving permanent dedication of title, an "essential nexus" must exist between the title condition imposed and the stated police power objective ofrequiring development to meet the needs created by the development. Id., 483 U.S. at 837. Under this test , the dedication must serve the same governmental purpose as the regulation . The Court employed a heightened level of scrutiny, differentiating the ad hoc , factual inquiry balancing test of an economic take as enunciated in Pe nn Central. Following Nollan, there was uncertainty regarding the degree of nexus that a municipality was required to establish in order for a land dedication condition to pass constitutional muster. In Dolan , the Supreme Court clarified Nollan by adopting the "rough proportionality" test as the means for determining the degree of nexus required between a real property exaction imposed by a municipality and the projected impact of a proposed development. In Dolan, the Court addressed the question of a second nexus required between the city 's conditions of title transfer and the projected impact caused by the proposed development. Id., 512 U.S . at 388. To evaluate this question, the Dolan Court articulated a two-pronged test. First, as determined in Nollan, there must exist an essential nexus between legitimate state interests and the permit conditions. Id. at 386. Second, the exaction required by the permit condition must be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development. Id. at 391. Under this prong, the government bears the burden of proof and must show that the dedication or exaction is roughly proportionar to the impact of the project. Id. The Supreme Court intended this two-prong test to function as a higher standard ofreview. The Supreme Court noted, however, that traditional land use planning tools such as dedications for streets, sidewalks and other public ways will generally be considered reasonable exactions. Id. at 395. A. Nol/an Facts 1 An exaction is an example of the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine which prohibits the government from "requir[ing] a person to give up a constitutional right-here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for public use-in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit has little or no relationship to the property." Lingle v. Ch evron US.A ., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 547 (2005). 4 As a condition to granting the Nollans a permit for their house , the California Coastal Commission required the Nollans to give the public an easement across their beachfront property. The Commission recited the usual "health , safety and welfare" justifications which have traditionally supported land use regulation , and declared that the easement was necessary because the new building "would increase blockage of the view of the ocean" from the street; might reduce the public 's perception that a public beach existed in the other side of the house; and would "burden the public 's ability to traverse to and along the shorefront." The Commission refused the permit to build unless the couple granted an easement across the shorefront part of their land for public use. The U nited States Supreme Court recognized the general police power of the Commission, but found that there was no "essential nexus " between the exaction (a public easement across the beach front of the Nollans ' land) and the state impact created or exacerbated by the construction ofa new hou se (abi lity to see the beach, assisting the public in overcoming the "psyc hological barrier" to using the beach created by a developed shorefront, and preventing congestion on the public beaches). Nol/an, 483 U.S. at 835 . The Court held that the absence of any "nexus" between the exaction and the state interest asserted by the Commission resulted in taking without just compensation in violation of the U.S . Constitution. Id. B. Dolan Facts This "essential ne xus" requirement of Nol/an was refined by the Court in Dolan. Mrs. Dolan operated a store which had a gravel parking lot. A creek traversed part of her property. Mrs. Dolan applied for a permit to increase the size of her store and pave the parking lot. The city conditioned the permit upon a dedication by Mrs. Dolan of a portion of her land for use as a flood control area and upon the dedication of an additional 15-foot stri p of land adjacent to the creek as a bicycle path . Dolan, 512 U.S . at 385-86. The city claimed that the creek land was necessary to control flooding and the bicycle path might alleviate congestion on the streets and was necessary for the health , welfare and safety of the public. Mrs. Dolan complained on appeal that the city had not identified any "special quantifiable burdens" created by her new parking lot or building that wou ld justify the particular exactions from her. After concluding that there was a "ne xus" between the exactions and the claimed state interest, the United States Supreme Court framed the following additional que stion: "What is the required degree of connection between the exactions imposed by the city and the projected impacts of the propo sed development." Dolan, 512 U.S. at 375. The Court answered as follows: We think a term such as 'rough proportionality ' best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of the Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is required , but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391 (emphasis added). 5 The exactions were stricken because less invasive measures than taking Mrs. Dolan 's land would have accomplished the same stated goals . Read together, Nol/an and Dolan appear to inquire first whether the government imposition of the exaction would constitute a taking if done without the corresponding application for a permit by the landowner. If the question is answered affirmatively, the Court then applies the two part "rough proportionality" test which asks whether the exaction demanded is roughly proportional both in nature (nexus) and extent (proportionality) to the impact of the proposed development. Dolan appears to place the burden of proof squarely upon the governmental entity to show compliance with the rough proportionality test. Dolan , 512 U.S. at 391. C. Turtle Rock Before adopting the "rough proportionality" test, the Dolan Court considered the tests that existed among the states for determining the d egree of nexus required for a condition to be constitutionally valid. The state tests considered by the Court have been organized into three categories: (1) the judicial deference te st; (2) the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test , and "~he reasonable relationship " test. Id. at 390-92 . The principal difference among the three tests is the requi s ite de g ree of nexus between the exaction and the projected impact caused by the development. Under the judicial deference test, a court would find that the required degree of nexus between the exaction and the need created by the development exists by the mere existence of a statute calling for the exaction. A court utilizing the judicial deference test simply defers to the legislature, which in enacting the statute authorizing the exaction, has already decided that the projected impact is addressed by the exaction. The specifically and uniquely attributable test requires the municipality to show that the exaction is directly proportional to the specific need created by the proposed development. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 389-90. The Court rejected the judicial deference tests used in states such as Montana and New York as "too lax." On the other hand , the Court found that the specifically and uniquely attributable test used in states such as Illinois to be more exacting than what was required by the Federal Constitution . The Court ultimately concluded that the reaso nable relationship test, used in states such as Texas, was closest to the federal constitutional norm. Id. at 391. The test adopted by the Dolan Court was labeled the "rough proportionality" test because the majority wanted to differentiate the newly articulated federal constitutional standard from the less demanding rational basis test which the Court implied was analogous to the judicial deference test. The rough proportionality standard adopted by the Court in Dolan requires a court to conduct a more exacting scrutiny of real property exactions than does the judicial deference test, and a les s exacting scrutiny than does the specifically and uniquely attributable test. Stated differently , the s pecifically and unique ly attributable test guarantees an individual more protection than federally mandated, the judicial deference test does not provide enough protection, and the reasonable relationship test provides a constitutionally sufficient amount of protection . In determining that the reasonable relationship test provides a constitutionally sufficient 6 amount of protection under the Fifth Amendment, the Court cited the Texas Supreme Court 's decision in City of College Station v. Turtle Rock, 680 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1984), as a jurisdiction that used this test. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 390-91. Consequently, the United States Supreme Court has reviewed and addressed the Texas Supreme Court 's analysis in Turtle Rock and has arguably held that the Turtle Rock test passes constitutional muster under the Dolan standard . In Turtle Rock, the Texas Supreme Court set forth a te st to determine the validity of ordinances requiring dedications, or fees in lieu of dedicating property, for park purposes. Drawing upon previous Texas Supreme Court cases, the Court held that a city may enact reasonable regulations to promote the health , safety and general welfare of its citizens provided that the ordinances meets two requirements: (1) the regulation must accomplish a legitimate goal ; and (2) the regulation must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Id., 680 S .W .2d at 805 . The first requirement depends upon whether or not reasonable minds could differ that the ordinance has a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals , or general welfare. The Court in Turtle Rock recognized that cities may impose reasonable regulations as a condition for the use of property or as a condition precedent to the subdivision of land and held that the College Station ordinance in question was a regulatory response to park needs created by the developer 's use of land. As a result, the ordinance satisfied the first level of judicial scrutiny. Id. at 805-806. The second te st articulated in Turtle Rock identified the reasonableness requirement for a valid ordinance . The Court stated that the second requirement for park land dedication is whether a reasonable connection exists between the increased population arising from the subdivision development and the increased park and recreation needs in the nei g hborhood. Citing The American Law Institute, the Supreme Court stated that "[t]he Code adopts the position that developers may be required to provide streets and utilities but only of the quality and quantity reasonably necessary for the proposed development." Id. at 807. Among the important elements to be considered include the extent of the dedication and the size of and number of subdivision lots. The Court opined that the requested exaction would be deemed reasonable if imposed to offset the need created by the proposed development. Id. The Court expressly noted , however, that the burden rests on the plaintiff challenging a city's regulation "to demonstrate th at there is no such reasonable connection." Id. at 806-807 . To that extent, Turtle Rock is at odds with the burden of proof allocation discussions in Dolan. IV. TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND V. STAFFORD: TEXAS GETS ITS FIRST DOLAN CASE In 2004, the Texas Supreme Court released its opinion in Stafford, which concerned the constitutionality of a subdivi.sion exaction and, for the first time, addressed the application of the United States Supreme Court 's decisions in Nol/an and Dolan to a fairly standard road improvement subdivision requirement used by many Texas cities . Stafford, and its take on the law of exactions, is 7 important to understand given that it has application to many work-a-day development requirements commonly imposed by municipalities as a condition of development approval. While the U9ited States Supreme Court issued its decision in Dolan in 1994 , there had not been a reported deci ;ion in Texas addressing how Dolan would be applied in Texas until the decision in Stafford. Stafford is a regulatory takings case challenging the constitutionality of a plat approval condition under the two-prong test articulated in Dolan. In a bifurcated trial, the trial court held , based upon a stipulated record , that the Town 's plat approval condition (that Stafford reconstruct and improve an abutting substandard street from which the subdivision development would take access) was a taking under the Texas and United States Constitutions. After a trial on damages, the court awarded Stafford $425 ,426 in damages, as well as attorney's fees , ex pert fees and costs. On appeal , the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed that the plat approval condition was a takin g under the Texas Constitution and upheld the damage award; but reversed and rendered the award of attorney's fees , ex pert fees and costs. Stafford, 71 S.W .3d 18 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth , 2002), aff'd , 135 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2004). The Texas Supreme Court upheld the appellate court in it s application of the nexus test of Noll an , and the rough proportionality test of Dolan , to all types of development "exactions," which the appellate court defined broadly to include "an y requirement that a developer provide or do something as a condition to receiving municipal approval. ... " Stafford, 71 S .W.3d at 30 n. 7. A. Factual Background Between 1994 and 1997, Stafford developed a 247 single-family lot subdivision ("Subdivision "), in three phases, on 90 acres located at the intersection ofMcKamy Creek Road and Simmons Road ("Simmons") in the Town. Phases II and III of the planned Subdivision proposed two street intersections with Simmons, which at that time was a two-lane asphalt road abutting the Subdivision. Pursuant to the Town 's subdivision regulations , which required that all proposed developments take access to and from concrete streets, the Town required Stafford, as a condition of plat approval , to improve Simmons, at Stafford 's cost, to the Town 's minimum standards as a concrete road . The required improvements to Simmons were located entirely within existing Town right-of-way , no part of which was required to be dedicated by Stafford . Section 4.04 of the Town 's Land Development Code ("LDC ") addresses subdivision standards for streets located within the Town. Section 4 .04(0) of the LDC provides as follows : (o) Construction and dedication of boundary streets. Where a subdivision or industrial area abuts a street that does not meet the minimum design standards of thi s section, the following shall apply. (1) Local and collector streets. Abutting substandard local and collector streets shall be constructed or reconstructed as necessary by the developer to bring them up to minimum standards, and all right- 8 of-way from the centerline of such roadway necessary to meet minimum right-of-way requirements dedicated to the Town, with no cost participation from the Town. The Federal Government, the State of Texas, and political subdivisions of the State of Texas may be exempt from the provisions of this requirement. (2) Major and minor arterials. In the event that the subdivision or industrial area proposes access to a planned major or minor arterial shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, no development plan or record plat shall be approved and no development permits shall be issued until such arterial is constructed or until agreement is reached between the Town and the developer on the financing and construction of such arterial. Section 4.04(b) of the LDC requires that "all builder/developers shall be required to construct concrete streets according to the Engineering Standards Manual." Section 4 .04(a) of the LDC allows property owners to apply for and the Town Council to grant an exception to the street design standards "provided that the Council finds and determines that such standards work a hardship on the basis of utility relocation costs , right-of-way acquisition costs, and other related factors." While Stafford objected to bearing the total road improvement costs in various letters to the Town , and unsuccessfull y sought to obtain from the Town an exception to be relieved of 50% of the costs, Stafford did not file suit seeking to have the road improvement condition found unlawful until after Stafford had received the benefits of plat approval and Simmons had been rebuilt, thereby irreparabl y changing the status quo so that the Town 's only recourse , in the event of a Dolan violation , would be the payment of damages. In October 1994 , the Town adopted roadway impact fees pursuant to Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The Town's impact fee ordinance establishes a maximum road impact fee per service unit based on the total cost of capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to new development. For the service area in which the Subdivision is located (Service Area No . 2), the maximum impact fee is $1 ,249 per service unit. The number of service units for a single-family dwelling is 2.85 , making the maximum allowable impact fee approximately $3 ,559 per single-family dwelling for Service Area No. 2. At that time , roadway impact fees were assessed at the maximum impact fee per service unit for each service area at the time of plat approval for most developments. The Town 's impact fee ordinance heavily discounts impact fees for single-family dwellings. The ordinance thus establishes a fee to be collected of $1 ,140 per single-family dwelling unit, roughly 32% of the maximum allowable fee. As a result, although Stafford was assessed impact fees in the amount of $3,559 per single-family dwelling unit at the time of final approval for each phase of the Subdivision , Stafford was only required by pay impact fees in the amount of $1,140 per single-family dwelling unit. After the lawsuit was filed, the Town retained an expert to perform a rough proportionality 9 analysis. That expert concluded that the Town 's requirement that Stafford improve Simmons was roughly proportional and, at trial , he testified that the Town 's regulatory objective of providing an adequate roadway network concurrent with new development was implemented through road impact fees, paid for by builders, in conjunction with mandatory right-of-way dedication and road construction requirements for perimeter roads that provide access to new development. Road impact fees are used to finance major arterial roads within the Town and are established by the impact fee ordinance. In Service Area No. 2, which includes Stafford Estates, the fee is roughly 32% of the impact of the development 's traffic . Pursuant to the Town 's regulatory strategies for providing roads, developers must dedicate right-of-way and construct perimeter roads, including access points, as established by the Town 's subdivision ordinance. Developers are required to construct two of four lanes for major collectors or arterials, and two lanes for rural collectors. No developer, however, is ever required to build more than two lanes The Town 's expert further testified that only the costs for major roads can be financed with impact fees. An impact fee shortfall (maximum fee allowed less actually fee charged) must be taken into account in evaluating the impact on roads created by new development. As applied to the Subdivision, the maximum impact fees are $3 ,560 per dwelling unit. Stafford paid $1, 140 per unit, which created a shortfall of about $600,000. This shortfall was roughly proportional to the total cost of the improving Simmons. Based upon this analysis, the Town contended that the Simmons improvements were roughly proportional and did not violate Dolan . The Town also presented testimony that the Simmons improvements were roughly proportional given the safety considerations involved in the Simmons improvements. The Town's subdivision regulations prescribe minimum safety design features where perimeter roads must be upgraded. Those features include sight distance, safe access, interface of old and new road segments, increased road shoulders, and long-term durability by utilizing concrete over asphalt. Additionally, the size of the subdivision and the length of frontage along Simmons necessitated that a second point of access be taken from Simmon s for the Subdivision. The Simmons improvements supplied safety features benefiting residents of the Town traveling on the adjacent segment of Simmons, in addition to the Subdivision's residents, by upgrading the road to community standards . The Town presented evidence that the improved Simmons was a safer road that would benefit the Subdivision's residents because of better sight distances , which would allow both traffic turning into and exiting the Subdivision on Simmons to have more time to see approaching vehicles. Testimony established that the wider shoulders added to Simmons provided an additional degree of safety that would be of benefit to the Subdivision's residents, and that the Simmons improvements, being made of concrete rather than asphalt, would extend the life expectancy of Simmons and reduce the necessity for repairs on Simmons, which repairs would be an obvious detriment to traffic flowing in and out of the Subdivision from Simmons. B. No/Ian/Dolan on the Spectrum of Takings Claims Traditionally, takings jurisprudence has distinguished between two kinds of encroachments on property interests , with significantly different analyses applicable to each. The first is an actual 10 physical invasion or occupation of property, whether in the form of a physical trespass or a forced dedication. The Takings Clause is particularly protective of property against that form of encroachment, and physical invasions or diminutions of rights of exclusive possession have been deemed to be per se takings that entitle a property owner to compensation . See Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 321-22; Lucas , 505 U.S. at 1015; Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 , 435-440 (1982). See also Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 933 (recognizing physical takings as takings category). This categorical rule recognizes that such an invasion is unconstitutional "without regard to whether the action achieve s an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner." Loretto, 458 U.S. at 434-35. See Sheffield, 140 S .W.3d at 669-70 ("Phys ical possession is , categorically, a taking for which compensation is constitutionally mandated , but a restriction in the permissible uses of property or a diminution in its value, resulting from regulatory action within the government's police power, may or may not be a compensable taking."). A similar categorical rule applies where a regulation itself "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land ," with such regulation requiring compensation without "case- specific inquiry into the publ ic interest advanced in support of the restraint." Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1015-16 . See also Mayhew , 964 S.W.2d at 935 (recognizing that a compensable taking occurs when a governmental restriction "denies the landowner all economically viable use of the property or totally destroys the value of the property .... "). These categorical approaches do not apply, however, to most traditionally recognized types of government encroachments on property interests , namely, regulatory restrictions on property uses, e.g., zoning. In testing use restrictions, no "set formula" determines whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred . Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1015. Instead , a court must engage in an essentially ad hoc, factual inquiry that considers evaluation of the three factors promulgated in Penn Central, siipra. Those factors are (1) the character of the governmental action, (2) the economic impact of the regulation upon the claimant and (3) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations. Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1016-20; Penn Central, 438 U .S. at 122. Thus, when the government regulates property without physically occupying it or totally destroying its value, the Takings Clause is much less protective of the interests of the property owner and much more deferential to the public interests served . Dolan, and the case that foreshadowed it , Nol/an, were decided against that landscape . Both cases involved development conditions that, in effect, required the landowner to forfeit part of his property in exchange for approval to develop. The Court therefore was confronted with a blend of the governmental encroachments described above . On the one hand, the challenged government action involved a regulatory use restriction in the form of a restriction on further development. Traditionally, such a restriction would have triggered a lenient takings standard. On the other hand , as a condition of relaxing the use restriction, the government required the property owner to suffer a physical occupation or invasion. Traditionally, such an invasion would have been considered aper se taking. The issue for the Court was how to test that amalgamation . The facts of the cases provide context that is helpful to understanding the Court's resolution of that issue. In Nol/an, the plaintiffs sought approval from a California agency to rebuild a 11 beachfront house. The agency granted the approval, subject to the condition that the plaintiffs dedicate a public easement behind their house , along the shore, so that the public could pass freely between the two public beaches bordering the plaintiffs ' property. In invalidating the dedication , the Court accepted as legitimate the agency's concern that the house that the plaintiffs proposed to build would block visual access to the beach and create a "psychological barrier" to its use by the public . But the Court considered the requirement of a public easement behind the house to be unrelated to that interest, because it did nothing to enhance visual access of the beach from the street or to overcome any psychological barrier. Instead, the easement merel y facilitated use of the public beaches by people already aware of and using them. The Court concluded that the dedication therefore lacked an "essential ne x us " between the condition imposed and the government interest in impo sing it , which rendered the dedication a taking. Id. at 841-42. In short, although the Court declined to deem the condition a per se taking as it had for other physical invasions or dedications of property interests, the Court required that there be a logical co nnection between the governmental interest to be served and the particular condition imposed on the landowner. Because the Court determined that no connection existed between the dedication and the government's interest in impo sing it , the Court did not, ho wever, hav e to decide how close a nexus ·was required between the tWo to avoid an unconstitutional taking . Id. at 838. The Court granted certiorari in Dolan for the express purpose of sett ling that unresolved issue. Id., 512 U.S. at 3 77 . In Dolan, the property owner sought to double the s ize of her retail store and to pave her parkin g lot. As a condition of allowing the development, the city required the owner to dedicate a 15-foot strip of land for use as a pedestrian path and bikeway and also to dedicate a porti on of her property within the 100-year flood plain for a publicly accessible "greenway ." The city defended the bikeway requirement with a calculation that the increased size of the retail store would add 937 car trips per week and that the bikeway "could" help to offset the increased traffic. The city defended the flood plain dedication on the basis that paving the gravel parking lot would increase the amount of impermeable ground, thus adding to flooding from the adjacent and already overburdened creek. Id. at 379-82. The Court, in examining the dedication s, established a two-step inquiry for analyzing regulato ry takings claims in the context of conditional u se or development permits. First, as it had in Nol/an, the Court examined whether there was an "essential nexus " between the conditions and legitimate governmental interests , such that the purpose to be served by the condition was the same as the government's interest in the use restriction . The Court found that nexus requirement readily satisfied. More specifically, the Court determined that there was a logical relationship between relieving traffic congestion and requiring a bike path and between the increased risk of floodin g due to the parking lot and requiring property within the local flood plain to remain undeveloped . Id. at 387-88 . Second , having determined that the "essential ne xus" inquiry was satisfied, the Court turned to the degree of connection between the dedications and the projected impact of the proposed development. Id. at 388 . The Court began by endorsing the predominant test developed by state courts--i.e., the requirement of a "reasonable relationship" between the condition imposed and the 12 impacts of the development. That test, the Court reasoned, best "encapsulat[ ed]" what the federal Takings Clause requires. Id. at 391. The Court, however, adopted the phraseology "rough proportionality" to avoid confusion with "rational basi s" scrutiny, which the Court viewed as appropriate for equal protect io n rather than takings analysis. Id. Thus, the Court held that there must be "rough proportionality" between a development's projected impacts and the 'condition required of the property owner to permit development. Id. The Court emphasized that it was requiring proportionality of only an approximate kind : "No precise mathematical calcul ation is required , but the city must ma ke some effort to quantify its finding in support of the dedication ... beyond the conclusory statement that it could offset some of the [impacts of the development]." Id. at 395-96 . The government "must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Id. at 391 . Moreover, the Court made c lear that it was departing from the general rule applicable to zoning and other use restrictions that the "burden properly rests on the party challenging the regulation to prove that it const itute s an arbitrary regulation of property rights ." Id. at 391 n . 8. Instead , the burden was on the government "to justify the required dedication." Id. Applying the "rough proportionality" prong of the test to the case before it, the Court concluded that the record in Dolan was insufficient to satisfy the government's burden . With respect to the dedication of the greenway, the Court observed that the city's interest in not overburdening the adjacent creek was served by keeping the flood plain free of development. But rather than just regulate petitioner's private use of that portion of the property, the city required her to dedicate it to public use as a greenway. The Court concluded that nothing in the record demonstrated any "individualized determination" of the development impacts that wou ld support divesting the owner of her property, rather than regulating her use of it. Id. at 393-94 . As for the bike and pedestrian pathway, the Court deemed the city's finding that the pathway could offset some of the traffic demand insufficiently precise to justify a dedication of some the landowner 's property for public use. Id. at 395-96 . In departing from the less exacting requirements app lic able to zoning and other traditional use regulations, the Court in Dolan explained : Th[ ose sort of land use regulations], however, differ in two relevant particulars from the present case. First, they involved essentially legislative determinations classifying entire areas of the city, whereas here the city made an adjudicative decision to condition petitioner 's application for a building permit on an individual parcel. Second , the conditions imposed were not simply a limitation on the use petitioner might make of her own parcel , but a requirement that she deed portions of the property to the city. Id. at385 . Both Nolan and Dolan arose in the context of discretionary adjudicative determinations specific to one development proposal on a particular parcel of land. Both, moreover, involved conditions that took the form of a dedication of property for public use. As the decision in each case 13 reveals , those facts played an explicit part in the Court's rationale for adopting aheightened level of scrutiny for the development conditions at issue. The issue that lower courts throughout the nation have struggled with is whether those facts are therefore an indispensable predicate for applying this heightened scrutiny. As a result, the two questions that consistently arise, and which were before the trial court, court of appeals and Texas Supreme Court in Stafford, are (1) does Dolan apply to nonpossessory exactions, such as the street improvement requirement imposed in this case, and (2) does Dolan apply to development conditions imposed through generally applicable legislation , rather than individual adjudicative decisions ? In Texas, as demonstrated by the Stafford decision, the "land only" defense is no defense at all, and the Dolan standard will be found to apply to all exactions , regardless of their characterization as legislative or adjudicative. C. The Texas Supreme Court Speaks in Stafford The Court in Stafford applied Dolan broadly, rejectin g the distinctions that some courts had made in limiting Dolan 's reach. Additionally, the Court rejected the Town's efforts to force developers to brin g suit to challenge alleged Dolan violations before accepting the benefits of permit approval. 1. A Threshold Defense As a threshold matter, the Court declined to accept the Town's argument that the developer had waived , or was estopped from asserting, a takings claim because the developer took the benefits of plat approval without first seeking to challenge any conditions attached to the approval that the developer contended were unlawful. Cases from other jurisdictions that have addressed this iss ue have required permits holders to file s uit seeking to invalidate conditions before accepting the benefits of permit approval. See , e.g ., Weatherly v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Fairfield, 579 A.2d 94 , 97 (Conn.App.1990) ("One who seeks to avail himself of the benefits of a zoning regulation is precluded from raising the question of that regulation 's constitutionality; or of that regulation's validity; in the same proceeding .") (citations omitted); Crystal Green v. City of Crystal , 421N.W.2d393 , 394-95 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) ("Developers must challenge dedications prior to final plat approval and registration in order to assure finality of dedication , g ive municipalities an opportunity to change their requirements if their requirements are unreasonable, and prevent municipalities from being sued by developers when the only remed y available to a losing municipality is payment."); Salton Bay Marina, In c. v. Imp erial Irrigation Dist., 172 Cal. App . 3d. 914 , 941 (Cal. App. 1985) ("[M]eaningful governmental fiscal planning would be impossible and legislative control over appropriations emasculated if persons were permitted to simply stand by in the face of administrative action claimed to be unlawful and injurious and year s later assert substantial monetary damages."); County of Imperial v. McDougal, 564 P.2d 14, 17 (Cal. 1977) (landowner who accepts and complies with the conditions of a building permit cannot later sue the issuing public entity for inverse condemnation for the costs of compliance); Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal. App. 3d 74 , 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) ("It is fundamental that a landowner who accepts a building permit and complies with its conditions waives the right to assert the invalidity of 14 the conditions and sue the issuing public entity for the costs of complying with them.") The Stafford Court, however, was not persuaded . In fact, while recognizing the Town's argument that "[i]t is in the public interest ... for the government to have the opportunity to withdraw a condition of approval that is found to constitute a taking and thereby avoid the expense to taxpaye rs of money damages " (Stafford at 628), the Court found that the countervailing public policy of protecting developer interests more convincing. Id. ("The Town does not address the obvious concern that such a standard would pressure landowners to accept the government's conditions rather than suffer the delay in a development plan that litigation would necessitate ."). 2. The Dedications Only Limitation is Rejected The Town had urged the Court to find that the Fort Worth Court of Appeals had erred by extending the land dedication tests from Nol/an and Dolan to the Town's concrete road requirement. Nol/an and Dolan involved, and as a result were particularly concerned with, forced dedications of land . See Ho llan , 483 U.S. at 841 ("We are inclined to be particularly careful. .. where the actual conveyance of property is made a condition to the lifting of a land-use restriction ."); Dolan , 512 U.S . at 385 (distinguishing permit conditions from "a requirement that [Mrs. Dolan] deed portions of the property to the city."). Thus, the Town urged the Court to recognize the limitation found by other.courts in limiting Dolan to land dedication cases. See, e.g., Texas ManufacturedHous. Ass 'n v. Nederland, 101 F.3d 1095 , 1105 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that Nol/an and Dolan do not apply because "the Nederland Ordinance does not 'extract benefits' from [the plaintiff] in the Ho llan sense of requiring some dedication of property ... "); Harris v. City of Wichita, 862 F. Supp. 287, 294 (D. Kan. 1994), aff'd, 74 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1996) ("The Supreme Court's decision in Dolan was based on the facts of that case, namely that the City had required a dedication of property as a condition for granting a redevelopment permit."); Clajon Prods. Corp. v. Petera, 70 F .3d 1566 , 1578-79 & n.21 (10th Cir.1995) ("[W]e believe that the 'essential nexus ' and 'rough proportionality' tests are properly limited to the contexts of development exactions where there is a physical taking or its equivalent."); Southeast Cass Water R esource Dist. v. City of Burlington , 527 N.W.2d 884 , 896 (N.D . 1995) (holding that Dolan is not applicable to a duty to pay for culvert improvements); GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc., v . City of Tucson, 949 P.2d 971 , 978-79 (Ariz . Ct. App. 1997) (holding that Nol/an and Dolan do not apply because "this case· does not involve the City forcing Lightwave 'to dedicate a portion of its public property to public use "'); Sprenger, Grubb & Assocs. v. City of Hailey, 903 P.2d 741 , 747 (Idaho 1995) (Dolan is limited to real property exactions); Waters Landing Ltd. Partners hip v. Montgomery County, 650 A.2d 712 , 724 (Md. Ct. App. 1994) (impact tax "does not require landowners to deed portions of their property to the County"). The Court rejected this distinction , however, noting that "[f]or purposes of determining whether an exaction as a condition of government approval of development is a compensable taking, we see no important distinction between a dedication of property to the public and a requirement that property already owned by the public be improved. The Dolan standard should apply to both ." Stafford at 639-40. 15 3. The Legislative/Adjudicative Distinction is Rejected In Dolan, the Supreme Court expressly distinguished its holding from traditional zoning, exaction and development regulations that did not require the dedication of land from a property owner in an adjudicative manner. The sort of land use regulations discussed in the cases just cited, however, differ in two relevant particulars from the present case. First, they involved essentially legislative determinations classifying entire areas of the city, w hereas here the city made an adjudicative decision to condition petitioner 's application for a building permit on an individual parcel. Second , the conditions imposed were not simply a limitati on on the use petitioner might make of her own parcel , but a requirement that s he deed portions of the property to the city. Dolan , 512 U.S. at 385. As a result, many courts have limited the reach of Dolan to adjudicative deci s ions and found Dolan inapplicable to the application of legi s lati ve ly created standards . See Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 930 P.2d 993, 1000, cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 (1997); Ehrlich v. City of Cu lv er City, 911 P.2d 429 , 439 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S . 929 (1996); San Remo Hot el v. City and County of San Francisco , 41 P.3d 87 , 105 (2002); Krupp v . Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 19 P.3d 687, 695 (Colo .2001) ("Application of the Nollan/Dolan test has been limited to the narrow set of cases whe re a permitting authority, through a specific, discretionary adjudicative determination , conditions continued development on the exaction of private property for public use."); Parking Ass'n of Ga., In c. v. C ity of Atlanta, 450 S.E.2d 200, 203 n. 3 (1994) (Dolan test did not apply to city's legislative determination), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1116 (1995) (Thomas, J ., joined by O'Connor, J., di ssenting from the denial of certiorari, noting conflict in lower courts on whether test from Dolan or Agins applied when a taking is alleged based on a legi s lative act); South east Cass Wat er Res. Dist. v . Burlington Northern R. Co ., 527 N.W.2d 884 , 896 (N.D.1995) (stating that Nollan and Dolan do not "change the constitutional analysis for legi slated poli ce-power regulation"). The Texas Supreme Court, however, was not pers uaded. While we recognize that an ad hoc decision is more likely to constitute a taking than general legislation, we think it entirely possible that the government could "gang up " on particular groups to force extractions that a majority of constituents would not only tolerate but applaud , so long as burdens they would otherwise bear were shifted to others. Nor are we convinced that a workable distinction can always be drawn between actions denominated adjudicative and legislative ... We think that the Town 's argument, and the few courts that have accepted it , make too much of the Supreme Court 's distinction in Dolan. 16 Stafford at 641. 4 . The Taking is Up h eld, but the Attorneys' Fees are Not Having determined that Dolan applied fully to t he street improvement requirement at issue , the Court held that Stafford 's development, which wou ld only account for 18% of the increased traffic on the road in question, could not be charged for 100% of the costs to improve the road. Stafford at 645 ("[C]onditioning development on rebuild ing Simmons Road with concrete and making other changes was simply a way for the Town to extract from Stafford a benefit to which the Town was not entitled."). The Court did provide some good news for Texas c ities in its dec ision . Importantly, the Court held, in contrast to the holdings of most other courts on this issue, that the government did not have to make an advance determination of rough proportionality, but could perform its studies "after the fact " to be used to justify the condition at trial. Stafford at 644 ("Stafford argues that the Town was required to make [the rough proportionality] determination before imposing the condition on development, but we agree with the court of appeals that while the determ ination usually should be made before a condition is imposed , Dolan does not preclude the government from making the determination after the fact.") (emphasis in original). Additionally, the Court upheld the court of appeals determination that Stafford could not recover attorneys ' fees and expert witness fees because its federal takings c laim , which was the only claim for which such fees cou ld be awarded, as a matter of law could not become ripe once Stafford had obtained compensation under the Texas Constitution. Stafford at 645-46. D. A Legislative Response: H.B. 1835 The Texas Legislature expanded the reach of Stafford in its enactment of H.B. 1835 , which became effective September 1, 2005 , and which created Section 212.904 of the Local Government Code. Section 212.904 provides as follows: Sec. 212.904. APPORTIONMENT OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS . (a) If a municipality requires as a condition of approval for a property development project that the developer bear a portion of the costs of municipal infrastructure improvements by the making of dedications, the payment of fees , or the payment of construction costs , the developer 's portion of the costs may not exceed the amount required for infrastructure improvements that are roughly proportionate to the '" . proposed development as approved by a professional engineer who holds a license issued under Chapter i'OOl , Occupations Code, and is retained by the municipality . (b) A developer who disputes the determination made under Subsection (a) may appeal to the governing body of the municipality. At the appeal , the developer may present evidence and testimony under procedures adopted by the governing body. 17 After hearing any testimony and reviewing the evidence, the governing body shall make the applicable determination within 30 days following the final submission of any testimony or evidence by the developer. ( c) A developer may appeal the determination of the governing body to a county or district court of the county in which the development project is located within 30 days of the final determination by the governing body. (d) A municipality may not require a developer to waive the right of appeal authorized by this section as a condition of approval for a development project. ( e) A developer who prevails in an appeal under this section is entitled to applicable costs and to reasonable attorney's fees, including expert witness fees. (f) This section does not diminish the authority or modify the procedures specified by Chapter 395 . Tex. Loe. Gov 't Code Ann .§ 212 .904 . This new law provides developers with the attorneys' fees and expert fees denied the developer in Stafford should they prevail in an appeal under the statute . Among the many unanswered questions presented by Section 212.904 are the following: 1. Does the "roughly proportionate" study requirement apply if the city requires the developer to bear the entire cost of the exaction versus onl y a portion of the cost? 2 . What are the standards for a "roughly proportionate" exaction? 3. Is the legislatively-imposed "roughly proportionate" standard the same as the constitutionally-imposed "rough proportionality" standard discussed in Dolan and Stafford! 4. What criteria does the professional engineer that the city is required to retain to do the "roughly proportionate" utilize? 5. While Section 212.904 requires that the city retain the engineer forthe study, can the city shift the costs of the study in whole or in part to the developer? 6. While a city cannot require a developer to waive its rights to appeal under Section 212 .904, can a city and a developer enter into a development agreement wherein both parties agree that the exaction is "roughly proportionate" without the preparation of the required study? v. WHAT'S A CITY TO DO? 18 In considering who pay s for right-of-way or infrastructure, there are several options available to a municipality, most of which are not feasible due to the timing of the construction of the improvements or the piecemeal acquisition of land for right-of-way. A. On-Site Improvements/Dedications With standard subdivision development, it has never been challenged that cities do not have the right to require a developer to provide, free of charge, such things as street right-of-way, paved streets (constructed in accordance with applicable subdivision ordinance standards), easements for utilities , on-site infrastructure such as sewer lines and water lines, sidewalks and curbs. While technicall y non-residents will utilize those streets and sidewalks along with subdivision residents , no Texas court has ever held that a developer would be entitled to some financial contribution from a municipality in such a case . u , rough proportionality studies are not mandated or on-site · mprovements and land dedications-· f uch were required, every developer could certainlyreceive ome minimal municipal contribution for infrastructure and land dedications since such will not be l00% attributable to the new development. Nevertheless, Section 212.904 recognizes the authority and primacy of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code relative to impact fees and recognize s that Section 212 .904 "does not diminish the authority or modify the procedures specified by Chapter 395 ." Tex. Local Gov 'tCode § 212.904(£). The impact fee statute specifically provides that an "impact fee " does not include "dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-site or off-site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities , or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development." Id.,§ 395.001(4)(B). B. Off-Site Improvements/Dedications The question of who pays off-site improvements and dedications really is the key issue facing many, particularly smaller, cities around the State. The options available to a city are listed below with comments about the feasibility of each option. Option 1: The Rough Proportionality Study. The obvious answer, in light of the recent adoption of Section 212 .904 of the Local Government Code, is that the developer and the municipality make that determination through a rough proportionality study, but is this really a practical answer? For example , if a city 's share of roadway construction is $1 million and the city does not have funds available for such construction , does the subdivision project come grinding to a halt until the city has the funds available for the construction project? In all likelihood , no developer is going to sit back and wait several years for the city to budget the construction project. Further, the city runs a massive legal risk if it denies the subdivision project due to the city 's lack of funds for its share of the roadway construction costs. Nevertheless , ifa city has funds available for the roadway construction project, it certainly may pay its proportionate share of the roadway construction costs. Option 2: Buy the Right-of-Way/Pay for the Public Improvements. This is just another variation of the first option. In most cases cities do not have available the funds to buy all or a portion of the 19 right-of-way needed or to construct the necessary public improvements with the developer paying a proportionate share of the costs . Option 3: Condemn the Right-of-Way or Easements . While the necessary rights-of-way and easements clearly would be obtained for a public purpose, eminent domain is generally not feasible for the reasons specified in Options 1 and 2-the city in all likelihood has not budgeted the funds for such eminent domain proceedings. Further, even if funds are available, most cities do not use eminent domain for piecemeal portions of roadways or public improvement projects . Obviously there are political considerations to be taken into account when a city utilizes eminent domain , especially after the recent United States Supreme Court case of Keio v. City of New London , 545 U .S. 469 (2005), and the furor raised over local governments ' use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Option 4: Assessments . The assessment of abutting property owners for roadway improvements pursuant to Chapter 313 of the Texas Transportation Code or water and sewer assessments pursuant to Chapter 402 of the Texas Local Government Code is a feasible option. Cities around the State have used the assessment process for the construction of capital improvements s uch as roadways , water and sewer lines , and related infrastructure, including the costs of property acquisition and related acquisition costs such as legal fees. Assessments, however, are generally not done piecemeal and are used , for example , to construct a new roadway, not just a portion of an existing roadway . Nevertheless, assessments, while not particularly popular with adjoining landowners , are an available option to pay for capital improvements in certain cases. Option 5: Impact Fees. The adoption of an impact fee ordinance m ay be one of the best responses for dealing with new development, and in light of current case law and statutory requirements, impact fee ordinances will be the best defense available to a city that is challenged for the amount of money it charges for capital improvements attributable to new development. "Impact fees , like other forms of development exactions, are imposed as a condition of development approval to mitigate impacts on public facilities and serv ices generated by the devel op ment project. The principal use of impact fees, which distingui shes them from traditional subdivision exactions , is the financing of off-site capital facilities to support new growth ."2 Further, "[i]mpact fees ... serve as a substitute for denial of development projects that otherwise would not be served by adequate facilities . In essence, development exactions mitigate adverse impacts ofnew development on the municipality 's ability to provide essential facilities and services."3 2 T. Morgan, "The Effect of State Legislation on the Law of Impact Fees, With Special Emphasis on Texas Legislation ," 18th Annual Institute on Planning, Zoning & Eminent Domain§ 7.01at7-2 (1988). 3 Id.,§ 7.02[1] at 7-4 . 20 An impact fee is broadly defined as a contribution ofland, improvements or money imposed as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impacts of the development project. Such development exactions include mandatory dedications of property for rights-of-way, requirements to construct capital improvements, fees in lieu of dedication or construction, impact fees for public facilities , and fees or charges that are assessed against development projects to mitigate environmental or social impacts.4 If Stafford and Dolan have taught us anything, the safest course to follow is to adopt an impact fee ordinance and to require new development to pay for off-site capital facilities to support the new growth and development. While impact fees are often cumbersome to adopt and utilize , and the statute authorizing impact fees (Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code) is not a model of clarity, impact fees nevertheless address the issue of off-site exactions and the extent a local overnme o in assessin costs for ca · · ecessitated b new d \lelopment. Thus, in light of Stafford and Dolan , it has been our advice to clients that adoption of an impact fee ordinance may be the most prudent course of action in light of the guidance from Tex as courts. Option 6: Pro Rata Agreements. In Texas, pro rata agreements may only be utilized for water and wastewater projects and costs, but may not be used for roadways. Section 395 .001(4)(C) of the Texas Local Government Code provides that "lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines " and pro rata agreements are not included in the definition of "impact fees." While a pro rata agreement for water and wastewater proj ects and costs may be feasible, roadway acquisition and construction costs are not permissible in T ex as , thus depriving local governments of another bas is on which to pay those costs.5 - Option 7: Development Agreement. While impact fees surel y address the underl y ing cost issues , we have found that the best way for a city to deal with the exactions issue is to provide that the developer pay all such costs and the city protect itself through a development agreement with appropriate waivers of causes of action and related litigation potential. Certainly every developer will not agree to this option since the result is that the developer still "picks up the tab " for all off- site costs ; however, our ex perience has been that most will do so and will sign a development agreement with waivers of liability. A sample waiver paragraph follows: The Developer hereby agrees that any land or property it donates to City X, as reflected on the Final Plat or as may be donated at a later date by Developer, is roughly proportional to the need for such land and Developer hereby waives any claim therefor that it may have. Developer further ackno w ledges and agrees that all 4 Texas Municipal League Public Policies Briefing Series, "Impact Fees in Texas," § 1.2 at 1-2 (Nov. 1989)(hereinafter "Impact Fees"). 5 In the 2005 legislative session , the Town of Flower Mound requested that Representative Mary Denny support a bill that amended Chapter 395 to include roadway projects as being an eligible subject of a pro rata agreement. House Bill No. 2628 was introduced and would have added "roadway facilities" to Section 395.001 ( 4 )(D); however, that bill died in committee . 21 prerequisites to such a determination of rough proportionality have been met, and that any costs incurred relative to said donation are related both in nature and extent to the impact of Development Y upon the Town and its needs related thereto. Both Developer and the City further agree to _ waive and release all claims one may have against the other related to any and all rough proportionality and individual determination requirements mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Dolan v. Town of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), and its progeny, as well as any other requirements of a nexus between development conditions and the projected impact of the foregoing, including all dedications of land , parkland and any infrastructure referenced herein . Developer specifically reserves its right to appeal the apportionment of municipal infrastructure costs in accordance with Section 212 .904 of the Texas local Government Code, as amended; however, notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer hereby releases the City from any and all liability under Section 212.904 of the Texas Local Government Code, as amended, regarding or related to the cost of those municipal infrastructure improvements required for the development of Development Y. VI. CONCLUSION While the old days of requiring a developer to pay for off-site improvements has changed as a result of Dolan and Stafford, there are still options available to municipalities in addressing these costs. Care must be given , however, to the new jurisprudence on this topic and any response by a local government to the topic of off-site exactions must be carefully tailored so as not to run afoul of case law and Section 212 ,904 of the Local Government Code. 22 h r 7. Perform an e Measures As described in Chapter 6, several performance measures sho uld be monitored to determine the amount of progress being made t oward achieving the goa l s and objectives of the Plan. The measures summarized in Table 7 and descri bed below are intended to quantify the overall goals of the Plan and objectives descr i bed in the previous chapters. These performance measures will be reviewed and updated every two years to ensure that the city continues to use the best available metrics to assess Plan implementation. Performance mon itoring will be led by the SOOT Policy and Pl anning Division, with support from t he SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. Number of bicyclists Triple the SOOT , Volunteer observed at counting number of years groups , Bicycle locations throughout bicyclists advocacy Seattle between 2007 organizations and 2017 Number of reported To be calculated in Reduce the Every two SOOT , Law bi cycle crashes per 2007 bicycle crash years enforcement total number of rate by one agencies , Volunteer bi cyclists counted third between groups , Bicycle and annual traffic 2007 and 2017 advocacy volumes organizations Percentage of Bicycle 65 miles of existi ng Provide 450 Every two SOOT Policy and Facility Network facilities miles of years Planning Division & Completed recommended SOOT Pedestrian and facilities by Bicycle Program 2017 (includes existing) Number of bicycl Approximately 3,000 Provi de 6,000 Every two SOOT Pedestrian and racks installed existing bicycle racks racks by 2017 years Bicycle Program through the SOOT (includes Bi cycle Parking existing) Program Number of Seattle 23 ,338 maps 150,000 bicycle Every year SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycling Guide Maps distributed in 2005 maps to be Bicycle Program or distributed distributed its designated between 2007 representative and 2017 Percentage of To be counted in 100% of targeted Every year SOOT Pedestrian and targeted SOOT staff 2007 staff Bicycle Program who participate In participating in training on bicycle traini ng every year Number of bicycle To be tracked in At least one Every year SOOT Policy and project grant 2007 grant Planning Division applications applied application for for and obtained for every available bicycle programs funding opportunity Num ber of Bicycle To be counted in Depen ds on Every year SOOT Pedestrian and Spot Improvements 2007 needs & Bicycle Program Completed priorities set each year a. This table does not include the performance measures recommended for consideration by non -city agencies or organizations . Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -64 - Chapter 7. Performance Measures Performance Measure Framework This Plan establishes two t ypes of performance measures. The performance measures used to monitor progress towards the goals will quantify long-term trends in bicycle use and safety. The performance measures related to the objectives are strategic-they will calculate the amount of progress that has been made toward specific 2017 performance targets. Several of the performance measures have been used previously by SDOT, while others are new. For each new perfor mance measure, SDOT will collect the data necessary to establish baseline measurements in 2007. A few of the performance measures listed below are recommended for organizations other than SDOT to consider. These measures are important metrics for tracking progress on this Plan , but they will not be included in official SDOT performance reports. Long-Term Performance Measures Long-term performance measures monitor progress towards the goals of increasing bicycle use and improving bicycle safety. Goal 1: Increase use of bicycling in Seattle for all trip purposes. Triple the amount of bicycling in Seattle between 2007 and 2017 1 • Long-Term Performance Measure 1.1 (New): Number of bicyclists observed at counting locations throughout Seattle. Bicycle counts should be taken at up to 30 locations throughout the city every other year to benchmark t he amount of bicycling in the city . Count locations could include Downtown entry points, locations on each of the city's major trails, arterial roadways with bicycle lanes or shared lane markings , and intersections of arterial roadways with ex i sting or planned bicycle facilities. SDOT should continue to support and work with the Cascade Bicycle Club on counts , especially the ones done on Bike to Work Day and on the Burke Gilman Trail. The official counts for this performance measure should be taken around the same date each year, on the same day of the week , and under similar weather conditions. In other cases, one-time before and after counts should be taken to measure increases in bicycle use related to a specific bicycle lane, shared lane marking, or trail project. Additional bicycle counts may be obtained by requiring bicycles to be included in current , manual traffic counts. This data set would not represent all bicycle activity throughout Seattle, but would begin to provide some basic data on the use of bicycle facilities. Counts may also include observations of important bicyclist behaviors , such as wearing helmets, riding on the correct side of the street, obeying traffic controls , and using lights at night. The city will need the assistance of local bicycle advocacy and other organizations to take these counts. In addition, pneumatic tubes should be used to reduce the labor required to count bicyclists on trails . Bicycle counting technologies, such as video and infrared detection should be explored for counts in all types of locations , and the city should move toward adopting these technologies. 'Tripling the amount of bicycling is contingent upon the completion of key connections in the Bicycle Facility Net work. The Plan identifies 20 capital projects to make these key connections (see Chapter 2). The amount of bicyclin g is measured by counting bicyclists at a consistent sample of location s in the city. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -65 - Chapter 7. Performance Measures • Data Collection Responsibility: SDOT, Volunteer groups, Seattle area bicycle advocacy organizations. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Two Years. Long-Term Performance Measure 1.2 (Recommended for PSRC consideration): Bicycle mode split. Bicycle mode split should be documented every five years through the Puget Sound Regional Travel Survey. Documenting mode shift from personal automobile use to bicycle use is an important benchmark for demonstrating that the City of Seattle is achieving its pollution reduction goals and meeting the Kyoto Protocol. PSRC should improve the survey and reporting methodology to capture an accurate sample of bicycling trips and to report data for each jurisdiction in the region separately. This will allow the City of Seattle to benchmark progress towards shifting single-occupant vehicle trips to bicycle trips. • Data Collection Responsibility: PSRC. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Five Years. Goal 2: Improve safety of bicyclists throughout Seattle. Cut the rate of bicycle crashes by one third between 2007 and 2017 2 • Photo taken by Amber Tritto Long-Term Performance Measure 2.1 (New): Number of police reported bicycle crashes per total number of bicyclists observed during the bi-annual bicycle count. This measure would compare bicycle crash trends (as reported in police records) in terms of bicycle exposure. Exposure would approximate the bi-annual bicycle counts at up to 30 locations throughout the city. Note that police-reported crashes do not represent all bicycle collisions 3 • • Data Collection Responsibility: SDOT, Law enforcement agencies, Volunteer groups, Seattle area bicycle advocacy organizations. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Two to Five Years. Strategic Performance Measures Strategic performance measures calculate the amount of progress that has been made toward specific 2017 performance targets. Objective 1: Develop and maintain a safe, connected, and attractive network of bicycle facilities throughout the city. Strategic Performance Measure 1. 1 (New): Percentage of Bicycle Facility Network completed. This measure will track progress toward completing the entire 2The rate of bicycle crashes is the number of police-reported bicycle crashes in a year divided by the number of bicyclists counted at the sample locations. 3A study by Stutts and Hunter of a sample of cases collected at eight hospital emergency rooms in three states, showed that only 56 percent of the pedestrians and 48 percent of the bicyclists were successfully linked to cases reported on their respective state motor vehicle crash fileS'. This study looked at only the most serious crashes (involving emergency room treatment). We can assume that less-severe crashes were accurately reported at an even lower rate. Source : Stutts, J.C. and W.W. Hunter. "Police -reporting of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Treated in Hospital Emergency Rooms," Transportation Research Re co rd No 1635 , Tran spor tation Research Board, 1998 . P. 88 -92. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -66 - Chapter 7. Performance Measures recommended 450-mile Bicycle Facility Network by 2017. An additional option that will be considered is tracking the percentage of network miles completed for different facility types (e .g., bicycle lanes , climbing lanes, shared lane markings, multi-purpose trails, and bicycle boulevards). This performance measure builds on SDOT's existing measure of the number of bicycle lane miles created each year. • Data Collection Responsibility: SOOT Policy and Planning Division and SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program . • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Two Years. Objective 2: Provide amenities that make bicycle transportation more convenient. Strategic Performance Measure 2. 1 (Existing): Number of bicycle racks installed through the SOOT Bicycle Parking Program. This measure will monitor progress towards providing short-term bicycle parking near key destinations throughout Seattle by 2017. It is estimated that 11,000 racks are needed to meet the estimated demand for bicycle parking in key areas of the city (this estimate of 11,000 includes the approximately 3,000 racks that are currently available in the city)4 • SOOT installed 61 racks in 2005. • Data Collection Responsibility: SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Two Years . Strategic Performance Measure 2.2 (Recommended for Sound Transit and KC/METRO consideration): Percentage of estimated 2017 bicycle parking demand met by current bicycle racks and lockers at transit stations in Seattle. Sound Transit and KC/ METRO should provide SOOT with the number of bicycle parking spaces available at each t ransit stop and station in Seattle. Bicycle parking demand for 2017 should be estimated using the PSRC Regional BikeStation Project methodology. • Data Collection Responsibility: Sound Transit, KC/METRO. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Two Years. Strategic Performance Measure 2. 3 (Recommended for KC/METRO and Sound Transit consideration): Number of bicycles carried on KC/METRO and Sound Transit buses. KC/METRO should obtain more complete, year-round data on bike-on-bus boardings. For example, KC/METRO should count bicycle-on-bus boardings each month, and provide SOOT with these counts. This measure would include all routes served by KC/METRO throughout the region, and would not be exclusive to the City of Seattle. 4The city will double the number of bicycle rocks available to 6,000 racks by 2017. However, it is estimated that 11 ,000 racks are needed. The est imated need for 11 ,000 bicycle racks is based on the following assumptions : 1) An average of one bicycle rack is needed per 100 feet of arterial roadway block face in all Urban Village Centers (includes Hub Urban Villages, Urban Centers, and Urban Center Villages). This average of one rack per 100 feet of arterial roadway block face overestimates the number of bicycle racks by counting arterial roadway sidewalks that may be too narrow to install bicycle racks or may have lower bicycle parking demand, but underestimates the number of bicycle racks by not including racks on adjacent non -arterial streets in commercial districts with higher bicycle parking demand . 2) An average of 10 bicycle racks are needed per public school (includes administration buildings, resource centers, etc., and varies depending on the size and location of the school). 3) An average of five bicycle racks are needed per private school (varies depending on the size and location of the school and students living within bicycling distance). 4) An average of five bicycle racks are needed per community center (varies depending on the size and location of the community center). 5) An average of three bicycle racks are needed per library (varies depending on the size and location of the library). Since approximately 3,000 bicycle ra cks are already in place, 8,000 racks will need to be installed between 2007 and 2017 to meet the estimated dem and. Therefore , the city should consider looking for ways to fund, locate, and install additional racks . Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -67 - • Chapter 7. Performance Measures • Data Collection Responsibility: KC/METRO. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Year . Objective 3: Partner with organizations to develop bicycle education , enforcement, and encouragement programs. Strategic Performance Measure 3.1 (Existing): Number of Seattle Bicycling Guide Maps distributed. This measure will monitor progress toward improving bicycle wayfinding and encouraging people to use the city's bicycle facilities. The SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program should continue to track the number of bicycle maps that are distributed. This currently includes paper maps, but in the future should include the number of times online maps are accessed. 150,000 Bicycling Guide Maps should be distributed between 2007 and 2017. 23,338 maps were distributed in 2005 5• • Data Collection Responsibility: SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program or its designated representative. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Year. Strategic Performance Measure 3.2 (Recommended for Seattle area bicycle advocacy organizations consideration): Number of Seattle residents participating in pedestrian or bicycle safety education programs or events. Seattle area bicycle advocacy organizations should track the number of participants in education or encouragement activities (e.g., Bike to Work Day, bicycle commuter classes, bicycle safety training, bicycle camps, etc.), for inclusion in the Bicycle Benchmarking Report. The number of participants in these bicycle activities should triple between 2007 and 2017. • Data Collection Responsibility: Seattle area bicycle advocacy organizations, Volunteer groups. • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Year. Objective 4: Secure funding and implement bicycle improvements. Strategic Performance Measure 4. 1 (New): Percentage of targeted SOOT staff who participate in training on bicycle planning, design, and engineering issues. This measure will help indicate the level of internal training that is provided on bicycle issues. The following types of staff should receive bicycle training: planners , designers, project managers, staff working on projects with signs and paint , staff working on signals , crew chiefs, and field crews. SOOT should take advantage of everyday opportunities to provide these targeted staff with bicycle training. This includes Complete Streets training , Pedestrian and Bicycle Program presentations, field demonstrations of products (e .g., pavement markings, multi -use trail ramps , and bollards), ProWalk/ProBike conference sessions , mobile workshops, walking audits , and out-of-town expert presentations. 100 percent of targeted SOOT staff should receive some type of training every year. s The number of bicycle maps distributed by the city is typically hig her during the year after a revise d version of the map is published. A good goal for distribution is an average of 15 ,000 maps per year . Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -68 - Chapter 7. Performance Measures • Data Collection Responsibility: SOOT Pedestrian and Bi cycle Program . • Data Collection Repo r ting Frequency: Every Year . Strategic Performance Measure 4.2 (New): Amount of grant funding applied for and obtained for bicycle programs. The SOOT Policy and Planning Division should continue to track the amount of bicycle project funding that SOOT applies for and obtains through grant sources . This measure has been collected internally in the past . • Data Collection Responsibility : SOOT Policy and Planning Di vi sion . • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Year. Strategic Performance Measure 4. 3 (Existing): Number of Bicycle Spot Improvements Completed. This measure w i ll track SDOT's responsiveness to public requests for bicycle spot improvements. SOOT completed 49 spot bicycle and pedestrian improvements in 2005 (bicycle and pedestrian improvements were reported together). • Data Collection Responsibility : SOOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program . • Data Collection and Reporting Frequency: Every Year. Bi cycl e spot improvements can fix pavem ent problems. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan -69 - r·~• :. ·. . . . · .. • .··. THE BENCHMARKING PROJECT . Primary Benchmarks in this Report Mode Share : Chapter 2 Public Health : Chapter 3 Safety : Chapter 3 Policies and Funding: Chapter 5 Infrastructure : Chapter 6 Multimodal: Chapter 7 Programs : Chapter 8 Personnel : Chapter 9 Outcome Benchmarks Share of commuters Share of all trips Demographics of trip takers Physical activity levels Overweight and obesity levels Hypertension (high blood pressure) levels Diabetes levels Asthma levels Fatality rates Fatality risk Disparities in mode share and fatalities Demographics of fatalities City and state funding levels Revenue generation for advocacy Legislation City and state policies Bicycle and pedestrian master plans Goals to increase bicycling and walking Goals to increase safety Bicycle Friendly Award Walk Friendly Award Existing infrastructure Planned infrastructure Bicyclist and pedestrian integration with transit Adult and youth bicycle education course participation Bike to Work Day participation Open Streets initiatives and participation City and state-sponsored bicycle ride participation Walk and Bike to School Day participation City and state staffing levels for bicycle and pedestrian programs Bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees Advocacy organization staffing levels Advocacy organization membership 'Advocacy capacity 2014 Be nc hmarking Rep o rt 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Input Benchmarks: Changes 2005-2012 Years of Benchmarking STATE POLICIES 05/06 07/08 09/10 11/12 Data Source #of states with goal to increase walking 16111 22 32 35 State Survey # of states with goal to increase bicycl i ng 16111 22 32 35 State Survey # o! states with bicy_C.1.e and/<:>r ped ~_stria~ master plan 25 28 32 ?.t~te ?~rvev .. #of states with Complete Streets policy 9 17 26 27 NCSC CITY POLICIES # of cities with goal to i ncrease walking 25/50111 20/51 33/51 39/5il City Survey .. # of citie s with goa l to increase bicycling 25/50111 33/51 46/51 47/52 City Survey # o! citi ~.~ .. with~i ".ycle_ ari_~/()rpe.~~~!~i~ri__n.:i~~~e.rpla~ . 35/51 41/51 47/52 ... g~y?~r:Ye.Y . # of cities with Complete Streets policy 8/50111 13/51 19/51 27/52 NCSC STATE FUNDING Per capita fed transportation $to bike/pedl'I $1 .41 $1.58 $2 .73 FHWA FMIS % of spending on bike/ped with fed transportation fundsl'I 1.3% 1.4% 1.9% 2 .1% FHWA FMIS CITY FUNDING Per capita fed transportation $to bike/ped l'I $1.80 $2 .60 $2.78 FHWA FMIS % of sp endiri_g on bi ke /ped wi~~_j'~_d_!r:_'!_n_~portatl._o_~_!_U..rl.~~1~----------·-· 1.5% 2 .4% 3 .3% FHWA FMIS INFRASTRUCTURE IN CITIES M ile s of bicycle facilitie s per sq mile 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.6 City Survey #of bicycle parking spaces at bus stations per lOK people 1.91•1 1.5 2 .0 2.3 APTA ---... #of bicycle parking spaces at rail stations per lOK people 6 .2 8.7 11 .3 APTA #of cities with bicycle racks on 100% of buses 30/50 38/51 41/51 46/52 City Survey --------· - STATE EDUCATION & ENCOURAGEMENT #of states with annual state bicycle and/or pedestrian conference 15 24 26 State Survey # of states with state-sponsored bike ride 14 17 17 State Survey #of states with drivers test questions on bicycling 23 33 38 LAB l'l/State Survey #of states with Share -the-road campaign 33 38 38 LAB l'l/State Survey CITY EDUCATION & ENCOURAGEMENT #of cities with youth bike education courses 29 /51 36/51 46/52 City Survey #of cities with adult bike education course s 33/51 41/51 50/52 City Survey # of cities with Bi ke to Work Day ~vents .. 37/51 43/51 52/52 City Survey #of cities with Open Streets initiatives 13/51 20/51 28/52 City Survey # of cities ".l'~th c i ty-sponsore~ bike ride 23/51 31/51 33/52 City Survey PERSONNEL Bi ke/ped city staff per lOOK pop : avg of cities reporting 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 0 .7 City Surv ey Bike/ped state staff per lOOK pop: avg of states reporting 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 State Survey .... ..... . ....... #of cities with bicycle or pedestrian advisory committee 33/51 36/51 39/52 City Surv ey #of states with b icycle or pedestrian advisory committee 19 24 38 State Survey #of cities with dedicated city-level advocacy organi zation 32/50 34/51 36/51 39/52 Alliance Database #of states with dedicated statewide advocacy organ ization 32 35 43 43 Alliance Database Notes: Cells w ith a da sh H m ean data are un availab le . Data Jn each column re presents the most re cent da ta avail able durin g th e be nchmarking yea rs . ACS 3-yea r estimates are ta ken from the most recent ACS dat a ava ilable and Includ e two years prior. For exampl e, the 3-ye ar estim ate covers 2009-2011 fo r the be nchma rk ing years 2011/2012. (1) Walking and bicyc ling w e re combined in this survey. (2) Ba sed on four-year averages . (3 ) Prior to t he 201 4 Benchmarking Report, t he leas;ue o f Ame rica n Bicyclists supp lied t hese data fro m their Bicycl e Friend ly States surveys. (4) The calc ulation of b icycle parking spac es at bus stations appears inflated for 2005/20 0 6 be cause fewer of the la rg e benchma rke d citi es were included in the APTA data at t ha t ti m e . 2014 Benchmarking Re p o rt 1 7 Six Stages of Performance Measures Monitoring Progress ~{ :-~--,.~1 ... ,,_, .. }f. (: 1 Funds Miles of More Reduced Improved :::i E 1 Spent Sidewalks 1 people heart, health ~ cii 1 t walking lung, an9 0 -1 metabolic ro ~ ' 1 diseases !!.?. -1 CURRENT AVAILABLE DATA 1 ~ , _____________ _ Short Term LongTerm ) x Pedestrian Counts Reduced S eed of Vehicular Traffic Pedestrian Diversit ·a e race sex x Reduced Crash Fre uenc and Severit x * Pedestrian Project Level Data : • ADA Compliance •Number of conflict points with vehicles and bicycles at • Gaps in pedestrian network • Dimensional offset to traffic (buffer zone) • Width of pedestrian facility • Distances crossing traffic • Locations and widths of median refuges •Counts and locations of controlled and uncontrolled intersections. • Crosswalk visibility (i.e ., pavements markings, signage) • Time (delay) to wait for pedestrian phase at signalized intersections Reduced Crash Fre uenc and Severit ** Bicycle Project Level Data : • Gaps in bicycle network • Percentage of heavy trucks • Space allocated for bicycle lane or protected bicycle facil ity • Intersection enhancements for turning bicycles •Signal "call button" access • Conflict points (vehicle, bus and pedestrians) intersections • Adequacy of sightlines to and from decision points • Amount of shade • Locations and quantities of seating • Location of lit pedestrian facilities • Adequacy of snow removal x x •Adequacy of sightlines to and from decision points •Degree of circuitous routing • Bicycle parking •Number of bicycles sold or rented •Adequacy of snow removal " Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Staff liais on: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Name O r i ginal A ddress Phone Email A ddress Term Field of A ppoi n tment Exp ires R epresenta t ion Chairman September 2011 1309 Foxfire (h)979 .764.7287 bbrick@cs tx.gov July 2013 Chairman of Council Blanche Dr. ( w )979 .571.1950 Trans portation Brick Commission or designee Greg Stiles September 2010 4702 (h)979.690.9206 gregstiles@suddenlink.net July 2013 Real Estate Stonebriar (w)979 .774.8352 Banking, Finance or Economics Law Marcy September 2010 1807 (h)979.690.6047 drmarcy@dchealthcenter.com July 2013 Recreation Halterman ~ Springbrook (w)979.696.1995 Health Cox Estates (c) 979.492.4938 Kinesiology Sherry September 2010 2705 (h)979.696 .6793 ellison@txcyber.com July 2013 Running Ellison BrookwayDr (c) 979.420.2553 Walking David September 2010 5001 (h)979.703 .7093 thepropertygroup@s bcglobal.net August Bicycling Russell Congressional ( c )512.293.8063 2012 James September 2011 3705 Ardenne (h)979.690.9474 jbatenhorst@hotmail.com July 2013 Transportation Planning Batenhorst Ct Engineering Architecture Landscape Architecture Jeff Young September 2010 2146 (h)979.690 .193 1 yo un ga ggie 0 2@g ma il.com August Environmental/Ecological Rockcliffe 2012 Sciences Loop Stormwa t er /Floodplain Management Natural Resources The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board shall advise City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and other appointed boards and commissions on all matters concerning bicycling, walking, and greenways within the City of College Station. The Board shall provide recommendations on adopted plans, policies, and standards, as well as have a role in setting priorities, programs and advocacy.