Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/14/2013 - Regular Agenda Packet - City Council
Table of Contents Agenda 3 Consent No. 2a - Minutes Coversheet revised 7 Workshop 8 Regular 13 Special 19 Consent No. 2b - Annual BPO for Authorized Replacement Parts for Sanitation Trucks Coversheet revised 23 Sole Source Provider Letter 24 Consent No. 2c - Annual Concrete Curb, Gutter and Flatwork Price Renewal Agreement Coversheet revised 25 Renewal 26 Request for Price Increase 29 Consent No. 2d - TxDOT’s Advance Funding Agreement for Northpointe Crossing Coversheet revised 30 Agreement 31 resolution 46 Consent No. 2e - Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Manager through Spherion Staffing, LLC Coversheet revised 48 Contract - Spherion 49 Consent No. 2f - Recoat/Repair 5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank Coversheet revised 61 Bid Tab 62 Consent No. 2g - Purchase of Materials for F&B Road Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project Coversheet revised 63 Bid Tab Sheet 64 Consent No. 2h - Purchase of Concrete Poles for the F&B Road Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project Coversheet revised 68 Tabulation 69 Consent No. 2i - Annual Purchase of Various Transformers Coversheet revised 71 Bid Tab Sheet 72 Regular No. 1 - Lincoln Center Expansion Preliminary Design Coversheet revised 74 Regular No. 2 - Public Hearing on 1201 Norton Lane Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coversheet revised 76 1 Background 80 Maps 81 Ordinance 84 P&Z Minutes 88 Regular No. 3 - Public Hearing on 1600 University Drive East Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coversheet revised 94 Background 98 Maps 99 Ordinance 102 P&Z Minutes 106 Regular No. 4 - Public Hearing on Cedar Creek Plaza Rezoning Coversheet revised 112 background 114 maps 115 maps 117 P&Z minutes 118 Ordinance 120 Regular No. 5 - Public Hearing on Impact Fee Update – Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, and 03-02 Coversheet revised 123 Update 125 Memo 208 Ordinance 210 Regular No. 6 - College Station Policy Regarding Municipal Utility Districts Coversheet revised 3 247 Regular No. 7 - City Regulation of Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas – Game Day Housing Coversheet revised 2 248 2 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home ofTexas A&M University~Mayor Council members Nancy Berry Blanche Brick Mayor Pro Tern Jess Fields Karl Mooney John Nichols City Manager Julie M. Schultz Kelly Templin James Benham Agenda College Station City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM City Hall Council Charrlber, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request. Presentation: .:. Presentation recognizing the 3rd Annual Scott and White BCS Marathon and proclaiming December 8, 2013 as Scott & White BCS Marathon Day . • :. Presentation proclaiming the week of November 11 -17, 2012, as Nurse Practitioner Week. .:. Presentation and recognition of Ashley Michalsky for receiving the Distinguished Service Award from the Texas Court Clerks Association. Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 5 :30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer alarm will sound after 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda. Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack other speakers, Councilor staff. Consent Agenda At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Consent Agenda Item. Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. 2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists of ministerial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the Council. a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for: • October 24, 2013 Workshop • October 24, 2013 Regular Council Meeting • October 30,2013 Special Meeting City Council Regular Meeting Page 2 Thursday, November 14,2013 b. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an annual blanket purchase order with Chastang's Bayou City Ford for the purchase of AutoCar replacement parts for authorized repairs on city sanitation vehicles in the amount of $55,000. c. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the renewal of contract #12-0 14 with Brazos Paving, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $544,720.00 for the annual concrete curb, gutter and flatwork blanket purchase order. d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Advance Funding Agreement for Northpointe Crossing. e. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a professional services contract 13-370 for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Manager with Spherion Staffing LLC in an amount not to exceed $814,597, which replaces and terminates Contract 13-352 approved by Council and executed July 26, 2013. f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to award contract 14-003 for $587,500 to Blastco Texas Inc., to recoat and repair the 5 M G water storage tarue g. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the purchase of materials for the F &B Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project, which will be maintained in inventory until the time of the project. The total recon1mended award is $189,139.80 and will be awarded by line item to the lowest responsible bidder. h. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the purchase of Concrete Poles for the F &B Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project. The total recommended award is $291,030 to the lowest responsible bidder Techline, Inc. 1. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the am1ual purchase of various transformers, which will be maintained in electrical inventory and expended as needed. The total recommended award is $528,328.58 and will be awarded by line item to the lowest responsible bidder. Regular Agenda At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Regular Agenda Item. Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be allowed at the discretion of the Mayor. If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 _Thursday, November 14, 2013 in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will be referred to the City Council and City Manager. 1. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the conceptual design for the Lincoln Center Expansion. 2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan -Future Land Use & Character Map from Estate to General Commercial for the property located at 1201 Norton Lane; approximately 5.4 acres at the comer of Wellborn Road and Norton Lane. 3. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan -Future Land Use & Character Map from InstitutionlPublic to General Commercial for the property located at 1600 University Drive East; approximately 4.4 acres at the comer of University Drive and Glenhaven Drive. 4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by approximately 7.4 acres in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No.7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the same tract of land as described by a deed to Texas A&M Foundation Trust Company, trustee of the Wanona Carol Randolph charitable remainder unitrust recorded in Volume 9361, Page 87 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, more generally located at 2900 North Graham Road from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. 5. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 15, "Impact Fees", amending the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan and updating water and wastewater impact fees in Service Areas 92-01,97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, and 03-02. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 11, "Utilities", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by adopting Section 12, relating to the creation of Municipal Utility Districts; establishing procedures for the review and approval to create Municipal Utility Districts within the City or the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; requiring deposits for costs incurred; requiring prerequisite documentation for consent and providing for other matters relating to the subject and amending Chapter 14, "Service Fees", Section 14-6, "Development Services" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by adding Subsection B, relating to the fees to be paid in conjunction with the creation and operation of Municipal Utility Districts. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, adopting a policy on the creation, operation, and dissolution of Municipal Utility Districts located within the City'S incorporated limits or its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction . 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding current City regulations of short-term rentals of homes in residential areas and possible revisions to the same. 8. Adjourn. The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. ---------------------- City.Council Regular Meeting Page 4 Thursday, November 14, 2011 APPROVED: k/;yNeen City Manager Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on the Thursday, Novelnber 14,2013 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. this 8th day of November, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.gov.TheAgendaandNoticearereadilyaccessibletothegeneralpublicatalltimes.Said Notice and Agenda were posted on November 8, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: by Dated this ____day of ____________, 2013 By________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the ____day of _____________, 2013. Notary Public -Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: _____ The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. November 14, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda Item No. 2a City Council Minutes To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for: • October 24, 2013 Workshop • October 24, 2013 Regular Council Meeting • October 30, 2013 Special Meeting Attachments: • October 24, 2013 Workshop • October 24, 2013 Regular Council Meeting • October 30, 2013 Special Meeting 7 WKSHP102413Minutes Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP CITY OF COLLEGE STATION OCTOBER 24, 2013 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry, Mayor Council: Blanche Brick Jess Fields Karl Mooney (absent) John Nichols Julie Schultz James Benham City Staff: Kathy Merrill, Interim City Manager Carla Robinson, City Attorney Ian Whittenton, Records Management Coordinator Faye Scott, Deputy Local Registrar 1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Berry at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 2. Executive Session In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, §551.072-Real Estate, §551.074-Personnel, and §551.087-Economic Development, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2013 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to: A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to wit: • College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-02023. 8 WKSHP102413Minutes Page 2 • Patricia Kahlden, individ. and as rep. of the Estate of Lillie May Williams Bayless v. Laura Sue Streigler, City of College Station and James Steven Elkins, No. 11-003172- CV-272, in the 272ndDistrict Court of Brazos County, TX • Cause No. 12-002918-CV-361; Tom Jagielski v. City of College Station; In the 361 st Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas • Robyn Taylor, individually and as next friend of Faith Taylor, a minor child v. Lincoln Recreation Center, Cause No. 13-001244-CV-361, in the 361st District Court, Brazos County, Texas B. Deliberation on the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property; to wit: • Property located generally northwest of the intersection of First Street and Church Avenue in College Station. C. Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer; to wit: • City Manager D. Deliberation on economic development negotiations regarding an offer of financial or other incentives for a business prospect; to wit: • Economic incentives for a proposed development located near the intersection of Holleman South and Rock Prairie Road West in College Station. • Economic incentives for a proposed development located generally near State Highway 6 in the College Station Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The Executive Session adjourned at 6:09 p.m. 3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session. No action was required from Executive Session. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda. Items 2e, 2g, 2i, 2j, 2n, and 2o were pulled for clarification. 2e: Chuck Gilman, Director of Public Works, directed questions on this item to Ben Roper. 2e: Ben Roper, Director of Information Technologies, clarified the reason and method for the replacement. 2g: Chuck Gilman, Director of Public Works, gave information on the funding source of the project. 2i: Carla Robinson, City Attorney, clarified the ability of the council to vote on certain parts of the item, while separating others for a separate vote. 9 WKSHP102413Minutes Page 3 2j: Billy Couch, Assistant Police Chief, clarified the intention of the ordinance with regards to regulation, enforcement, and economic considerations. 2n: Bob Cowell, Director of Planning and Development, clarified use of certain accounts in funding these projects and the economic impact of these homes in the market. 2o: Jeff Kersten, Director of Fiscal Services, clarified the 2013 property tax roll. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding consideration of options for future city fiber optic cable use. Ben Roper, Director of Information Technologies, presented on fiber policy direction, needed from Council as a result of participation in the Next Generation Bandwidth RFI released by the Research Valley Partnership. Council direction was requested on the following three items; (1) Should fiber be considered as a basic infrastructure installation when installing or conducting major renovation to 4 lane major arterial and higher classification streets, (2) Should the city consider leasing to RFI responder(s) inner ducts in fiber conduit that is not in use by the city, or held in reserve for future use, and (3) Should the city consider leasing up to four dark fiber strands to potential responder(s) to the Next Generation RFI. Councilmember Benham, Research Valley Partnership Board Liaison, spoke to the benefits of preparing the conduit or fiber upfront and future economic and legal considerations. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the strategic change for policy Item 1. This approval is with the understanding that any financial considerations would be approved on a per-project basis and this does not obligate the City to any expenditures at the current time but that the Council approves this strategic direction change and approves the use of conduit and dark fiber as Items 2 and 3 relate to the RVTC’s current efforts with the RFI and for Item 1 that is not in relation to the RVTC’s RFI but as a broader policy change for Public Works to the due extent of applicable law. The motion carried unanimously. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding current City regulations of short-term rentals of homes in residential areas and possible revisions to the same. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to table this to the next Council Workshop on November 14th , 2013. The motion carried unanimously. 7. Council Calendar Oct. 30 Special Council Meeting in Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m. Nov. 4 Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board Meeting in City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room 1 at 3:00 p.m. Nov. 4 Chamber Annual Banquet at the CS Hilton at 6:00 p.m. Nov. 5 Voting day. Nov. 6 Council Transportation & Mobility Committee at Room 203 Conference Room A - Municipal Court Building, 3:30 p.m. 10 WKSHP102413Minutes Page 4 Nov. 7 P &Z Workshop/Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. (Blanche Brick, Liaison) Nov. 14 Executive Session/Workshop/Regular Meeting at 4:30, 6:00 & 7:00 p.m. Council reviewed the calendar. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: a Councilmember may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Fields desires a report and discussion of the rental registration program, specifically the ordinance itself, listed second and limited in discussion time on for the October 30th Special Workshop Meeting. Councilmember Benham desires a report and discussion of retractable bollards on Boyett Street to be added to a future item. 9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter Board, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS, Compensation and Benefits Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Design Review Board, Economic Development Committee, Gigabit Broadband Initiative, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Research Valley Technology Council, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments. Councilmember Brick reported on the Chamber Transportation Committee. Councilmember Fields reported on the Audit Committee, the agenda set for the next year’s audit. Councilmember Shultz reported on the Research Valley Partnership. Mayor Berry reported that the Research Valley Partnership and Kaneka Corporation from Japan entered an agreement with Texas A&M University to open a research and development facility. Councilmember Nichols reported on the Subcommittee for Mobility and Transportation. 11 WKSHP102413Minutes Page 5 Councilmember Benham reported on the Research Valley Technology Council. 10. Adjournment MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the College Station City Council at 9:38 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2013. ________________________ Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary 12 RM102413 Minutes Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION OCTOBER 24, 2013 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry, Mayor Council: Blanche Brick Jess Fields Karl Mooney (absent) John Nichols Julie Schultz James Benham City Staff: Kathy Merrill, Interim City Manager Carla Robinson, City Attorney Ian Whittenton, Records Management Coordinator Faye Scott, Deputy Local Registrar Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Regular Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Berry at 7:13 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request . MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to approve Councilmember Mooney’s Absence Request. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Bienski, City of Bryan, presented Mayor Berry with The Brazos Boot trophy, officially marking the A&M Consolidated 2013 Football victory over Bryan High School. Barbara Moore, Neighborhood and Community Relations Coordinator, gave recognition to the Emerald Forest HOA for the Little Free Library. Recognized were Sandra and Steve Nash, Chip Van Zandt, and members of Scout Group 1074. 13 RM102413 Minutes Page 2 Mayor Berry thanked all of the city departments who worked hard during the recent storm cleanup. Citizen Comments Michal Luther, 614 Welsh Ave., would like to warn the City of College Station about the dangers of the destruction of technologies, including fiber cable, due to natural and man made disasters. Linda Harvell, 504 Guernsey, HPC and 75th Committee Chair, gave an update on the activities of the 75th Anniversary Committee and events surrounding the committee’s activities. Events include: VIP Sponsor event November 12th at 5:30 p.m. at Bush Library, We’ve Never Been Licked will be shown free of admission November 14th at the Bush Library, Homecoming/Reunion event on November 15th, Vintage Car Show and free admission to the Library Exhibit on November 16th. Special thanks to Mike Neu and the Parks Department. Mayor Berry bestow ed the The Brazos Boot to Committee Chair Harvell for display in the 75th Anniversary Exhibit. Lisa Halperin, 1811 Shadowood Dr., voiced support for the comprehensive planning process, the UDO in general, and gave a special thanks to Jennifer Prochazka. Gene Hawkins, 1805 Lawyer Place, spoke about the comprehensive plan and the City’s failure to address land uses with regards to neighborhood plans. CONSENT AGENDA 2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for: • October 7, 2013 Workshop • October 7, 2013 Regular Council Meeting 2b. Presentation, possible action and discussion to approve an increase in expenditure authorization for City solid waste disposal fees to the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc in the amount of $175,000 for a total of $1,652,497 for fiscal year 2013. 2c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on ratification of a Service Contract between the City of College station and Air Tech Brazos Valley Contracting, in the amount of $58,572 for a new replacement chiller in City Hall to include all labor and materials. 2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of construction contract number 13-386 to Vox Construction, LLC in the amount of $383,424.10 for the construction of Creek View Neighborhood Park. 2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 10-24-13- 2e, that will authorize City staff to negotiate for the purchase of an easement needed for the Fiber Optic Infrastructure Project in the general location of the intersection of Holleman Drive South and Saddle Lane. 14 RM102413 Minutes Page 3 2f. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the Purchase of a portable heavy truck lifts, safety jack stands and accessories, from Vehicle Service Group in the amount of $69,999.99. 2g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding award of a construction contract to G.W. Williams in the amount of $480,365.95 for the Hike and Bike Trail Completion Phase II. 2h. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between the Cities of College Station and Bryan for the construction costs of a traffic signal at the intersection of Wellborn Road with F&B and Old College. The City of College Station’s portion is estimated not to exceed $210,000. 2i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion authorizing Allen Boone Humphries Robinson, LLP (ABHR), to perform additional legal work related to Municipal Management Districts #1 and #2 in an amount not to exceed $50,000. 2j. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding Ordinance 2013-3533, adding Section 22 “Pedicabs” to Chapter 4 “Business Regulations” of the City of College Station Ordinances. 2k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a resolution awarding a contract for Northgate Substation Underground Manholes and Conduit System to Power Secure Inc. in the amount of $455,064.13. 2l. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution awarding a contract for Annual Pad-Mount Equipment Repair and Restoration to Utility Restoration Services Inc. in the amount of $102,370. 2m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of the purchase of an additional radio console and related equipment for the Utility Dispatch Operations Center from Motorola Solutions in the amount of $63,503.64 for the purpose of expanding communication capabilities. 2n. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a funding agreement for a grant of HOME Investment Partnership funds to B/CS Habitat for Humanity, Inc in the amount of $65,000 for the construction of two affordable single-family homes at 1117 Phoenix. 2o. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on approval of the 2013 Property Tax Roll in the amount of $26,407,914.56. 2p. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to approve a consulting contract with First Southwest Company in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for financial advisory services. 2q. Presentation, possible action and discussion on Resolution 10-24-13-2q, stating that the City Council has reviewed and approved the City's Investment Policy, Broker-Dealer List and Investment Strategy. 15 RM102413 Minutes Page 4 2r. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Receipt Imaging Services Addendum to the JPMorgan Chase Participation Agreement for the automated review and approval process for procurement card processing. 2s. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a funding agreement between the City of College Station and Keep Brazos Beautiful for FY14 in the amount of $46,240. 2t. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a funding agreement between the City of College Station and College Station Noon Lions Club for FY14 in the amount of $10,000. 2u. Presentation, possible action and discussion on renewing the annual price agreement for the purchase of fleet oils and lubricants with Kolkhorst Petroleum Co., Inc. for an annual expenditure of $100,940.40. (Bid No. 12-004). 2v. Presentation, possible action, and discussion authorizing the payment of an economic development incentive in the total amount of $693,900 to Radakor, LLC. Items 2e, 2i, 2j, 2n, 2s, 2t, and 2v were pulled for a separate vote. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Benham, the City Council voted six (6) for and none opposed, to approve the Consent Agenda, less items 2e, 2i, 2j, 2n, 2s, 2t, and 2v. The motion carried unanimously. (2e) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Nichols and a second by Councilmember Benham, the City Council voted six (6) for and none opposed, to approve item 2e. The motion carried unanimously. (2i) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Shultz, the City Council voted four (4) for and two (2) against, with Councilpersons Nichols and Fields opposed, to limit the scope of the item to advisory legal services only and not the drafting of a plan. The motion carried. (2j) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted five (5) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields voting against, to approve the item as written. The motion carried. (2j) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Benham, the City Council voted six (6) for and none opposed, to amend the ordinance as written renaming Q as Display of Rates and Fares, minus Q1, Q3 and renumbering Q2 and Q4 to Q1 and Q2, removing section R, and renumbering section S as section R. The motion carried unanimously. (2n) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Nichols and a second by Councilmember Shultz, the City Council voted four (4) for and two (2) opposed, with Councilmembers Fields and Benham voting against, to approve a grant of HOME Investment Partnership funds to B/CS Habitat for Humanity, Inc. in the amount of $65,000 for the construction of two affordable single-family homes at 1117 Phoenix. The motion carried. 16 RM102413 Minutes Page 5 (2s) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Brick and a second by Councilmember Shultz, the City Council voted four (4) for and two (2) opposed, with Councilmembers Fields and Benham voting against, to approve a funding agreement between the City of College Station and Keep Brazos Beautiful for FY14 in the amount of $46,240. The motion carried. (2t) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Shultz and a second by Councilmember Benham, the City Council voted four (4) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields voting against and Councilmember Nichols abstaining, to a funding agreement between the City of College Station and College Station Noon Lions Club for FY14 in the amount of $10,000. The motion carried. (2v) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Nichols and a second by Councilmember Benham, the City Council voted five (5) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields voting against, to authorize the payment of an economic development incentive in the total amount of $693,900 to Radakor, LLC. The motion carried. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on the Annual Review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Bob Cowell, Director of Planning and Development, gave an introduction of the UDO’s purpose and its changes from year to year. Jennifer Prochazka, Principal Planner, Gave a report on this year’s annual review of the UDO, the scope of its combined work, and the expected impact on the community on the community at large. At approximately 8:35 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. David Sahm, 1017 James Parkway, expressed his support for several components of the UDO; including the Southside Plan. Robert McGeachin, 1208 Glade St., expressed his desire to see the Council address the issue of non-related persons inhabiting a residence zoned for single family housing. He also states he believes that new development does not pay for itself. Buck Pruitt, 2302 Scotney Ct., expressed his concern on the cities used as comparisons for College Station and the uses of their own UDO in comparison to the City of College Stations use of its UDO. Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional Ct., states that he generally supports the comprehensive plan with the exception that he would like to rezone land he owns. He also presented the council with a map of the properties in question. 17 RM102413 Minutes Page 6 Kim Eubanks, 408 Kings Lake Drive, McKinney TX, owns land adjacent to the previous speaker and reiterated that he and Mr. Jett desire the lots to be rezoned from agricultural to general commercial. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:59 p.m. Upon a request by the Mayor, Brad Corrier, Planning and Zoning Commission, addressed the council on any perceived issues with the Comprehensive Plan or UDO. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted six (6) for and none opposed, to approve the Annual Review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The motion carried unanimously. 3. Adjournment. MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 9:19 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2013. ________________________ Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary 18 SM103013Minutes Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION OCTOBER 30, 2013 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry, Mayor Council: Blanche Brick Jess Fields Karl Mooney John Nichols Julie Schultz James Benham City Staff: Carla Robinson, City Attorney Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary 1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Special Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Berry at 5:07 p.m. on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the College Station Medical District and the authorization of the formation of Municipal Management Districts located within the District, an area generally located along Rock Prairie Road east of SH6 to its intersection with William D Fitch Parkway and along Rock Prairie Road west of SH6 to its intersection with Rio Grande Boulevard. Bob Cowell, Executive Director of Planning and Development, updated the Council on the activities and initiatives of Rock Prairie MMD #1 and #2. The College Station Medical District is envisioned as a unique place to work, visit, live, recreate, and seek health care – all oriented around health and wellness. The area, which consists largely of a number of land uses, businesses, and property owners acting independently of one another, seeks to integrate the whole through district management, physical improvements, etc. 19 SM103013Minutes Page 2 Keys to its success include significant private investment (the Med, Scott & White, and Others), a shared commitment to the vision, significant infrastructure investment (Rock Prairie Road Bridge, Rock Prairie Road, Barron Road, Sanitary Sewer, Lick Creek Greenway Trail, etc.), a regulatory structure (tailored development regulations and standards), and a management structure. He emphasized that time is of the essence. Already, in addition to the Master Plan there have been significant accomplishments to date – both public and private. There have been two Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones initiated which will help steer tax dollars into this area to address infrastructure needs. Legislation has been approved to enable the creation of two management districts. TxDOT and the City have partnered in the design of an enhanced Rock Prairie Road Bridge, which will add capacity. Additionally, the City is securing right-of-way on both Rock Prairie East and West to accommodate future widening of the road and has partnered with private developers to complete the extension of Normand and Arnold Drive. Scott & White completed and opened their new hospital and medical office building. The Med and Aerofit are nearing completion on their new Wellness Facility. The Strategic Behavioral Health Hospital is under construction as the result of a public/private partnership involving the City, County, the MED, and private developers. Design is nearing completion for the Lick Creek Greenway Trail with construction soon to follow. The preliminary design is complete for the Barron Road extension, with final design of it and the Lakeway Drive extension to follow soon. He provided a brief explanation of what an MMD is and noted the primary difference between the two districts is the board number and the assessment taxation authority. The Council must grant consent to form the MMDs. He reminded the Council of Consent Conditions previously raised by Council, such as: • Board Size (addressed in Legislation); • Board Appointment Process (addressed in Legislation); • Ability to Levy Ad Valorem Tax (addressed in Legislation); • Financial Feasibility of Debt (interest rates, terms, etc); • Location of Board Meetings; • Notification of Board Meetings; • Recording and Posting of Board Meetings; • Approval of MMD Staff/Consultant Salaries; • Approval of Annual MMD Budget; and • Sunset of District. Other conditions the Council may want to consider include Council approval of any assessments/service fees and how the St. Joseph’s facility might be annexed into the District if they request it. Council requested that the MMD board meetings be posted at City Hall and held in Council chambers (or in any venue that the Council is able to meet that provides for video recording, etc.), recorded, and video streamed for transparency. Mr. Cowell suggested this be conditioned upon “unless otherwise required by state law (the organizing meeting must be in the district). Additionally, the board’s check register should be posted online. It was also requested that “approval of annual MMD budget” be changed to an annual plan review, including the proposed budget, without any veto power, and an outside audit. 20 SM103013Minutes Page 3 This will be brought before the stakeholders, and he will present a final revised list and language for conditions to the Council for further consideration and refinement at a future date. No action was required at this time. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion amending the Economic Development Agreement among the City of College Station, the Research Valley Partnership, and Asset Plus Realty Corporation. Randall Heye, Assistant to the City Manager, presented a brief overview of the amendments. The RVP has approved the amendments, and staff recommends these amendments as well. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, with Councilmember Fields absent from the dais, to approve the amendments to the Economic Development Agreement among the City of College Station, the Research Valley Partnership, and Asset Plus Realty Corporation. The motion carried. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember Nichols, to reconsider the previous motion, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the amendments to the Economic Development Agreement among the City of College Station, the Research Valley Partnership, and Asset Plus Realty Corporation. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Presentation, Discussion, Action regarding an Ordinance and Resolution Relating to the Creation of Municipal Utility Districts within the City of College Station and its Extra- Territorial District. Bob Cowell, Executive Director of Planning and Development, provided the Council with a draft ordinance and resolution to cover the creation of Municipal Utility Districts within the City of College Station and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The ordinance lays out why the City wants a policy, the value a MUD can provide, and the role they play in the City’s development. It also spells out the specific sections in the Government Code and covers the times in which the City would consider consent to the creation of a MUD. It also lays out the two tests which must be met before consent. No action was required at this time. 5. Presentation and discussion of the Rental Registration Program. Bob Cowell, Executive Director of Planning and Development, reminded Council this was requested to be brought back for discussion purposes. He reported that an estimated 80%-90% of rental units are registered. He noted that in some instances of law enforcement, attempts are made to contact the property owner. If unable to do so, they will contact the local point-of- contact. Obtaining a local point-of-contact was the primary purpose behind the rental registration. 21 SM103013Minutes Page 4 Council concerns included safety issues, whether or not the registration fee covers the expense of the program, how and when property owners are contacted, code enforcement, and administration penalties. 6. Adjournment MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the special meeting of the College Station City Council at 8:02 p.m. on Wednesday, October 30, 2013. ________________________ Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary 22 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2b Annual BPO for Authorized Replacement Parts for Sanitation Trucks To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an annual blanket purchase order with Chastang’s Bayou City Ford for the purchase of AutoCar replacement parts for authorized repairs on city sanitation vehicles in the amount of $55,000. Relationship to Strategic Goals: 1. Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of an annual blanket purchase order with Chastang’s Bayou City Ford. Summary: Previous annual blanket purchase orders issued to Chastang’s Bayou City Ford, Houston, TX have not exceeded $50,000; however it is estimated that $55,000 will be needed for the coming year based on historical spending trends for replacement parts. Inflation is the primary cause for the cost increase. Chastang’s Bayou City Ford is the sole source provider for AutoCar parts and services. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Fleet Maintenance Account. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: No Attachment(s): 1. Sole Source Provider Letter 23 24 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No 2c Annual Concrete Curb, Gutter and Flatwork Price Renewal Agreement To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, PE, PMP, Public Works Director Agenda Caption: Presentation possible action and discussion regarding the renewal of contract #12-014 with Brazos Paving, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $544,720.00 for the annual concrete curb, gutter and flatwork blanket purchase order. Relationship to Strategic Goals: 1. Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends renewal of the annual blanket order to Brazos Paving Inc. in the amount not to exceed $544,720.00. Summary: Repair and replacement of concrete flatwork, curb and gutters is contracted on an as needed basis by the Public Works Department and College Station Utilities. The construction contractor hired by the city under this contract repairs or replaces concrete infrastructure such as pavement, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and drainage channels that has either failed or been damaged. This is the second renewal for the annual blanket order awarded in bid#12-009, contract #12-014. The contractor has requested a 3.8% increase to the original quote due to material price increases. This request is within the increase terms in the contract #12-014. Staff has no objections to requested 3.8% price increase. Budget Financial Summary: Funding for this service comes from the operating budgets for streets, drainage, water and wastewater. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments 1. Renewal Letter 2. BPI Letter – Bid 12-009 Vender request Concrete Curb , Gutter and Flatwork 25 W CONTRACT AGREEMENT ROUTING FORM CITOF I40I 17Howeof7exxAillUniomitr CONTRACT PROJECT BID f RFP Contract Description Concrete CurbGutter and FlatworkRenewal Project Name Name of Contractor Brazos Paving Inc CONTRACT TOTAL VALUE 55472000 Grant Funded Yes No If yes what is the grant number Debarment Check Yes No NA Davis Bacon Wages Used Yes ED No 0 NASection3PlanInclYesNoNABuyAmericaRequiredL7Yes0No0iNA Transparency Report M Yes r No 0 NA NEW CONTRACT a RENEWAL 2 CHANGE ORDER OTHER BUDGETARY AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Include number of bids solicited number of bids received funding source budget vs actual cost summary tabulation This is misted to old 12009 second renewal wlm a 38 inaeese to the original quote and funding is available in the upending budge of the street maintenance division If required CRC Approval Date Council Approval Date 4 Agenda Item No Section to be completed by Risk an P Jchasing Only Insurance Certificates NA Performance Bond Payment Bon SI ATU ES OM N IN APPROVAL D Oc 1 DEPART T CTOR 98MI ERING CONTRACT DATE a o i3 LEGAL DEPARTMENT DATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUSINESS SERVICES DATE APPROVED EXECUTED CITY MANAGER DATE MAYOR if applicable DATE CITY SECRETARY if applicable DATE Onginals sent to C50 On Scanned into Laserfiche on Onginals sent to Fiscal on 26 Or CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home ofTeA6M University October 14 2013 ATTN Billy Prewitt Brazos Paving Inc PO Box 714 Bryan TX 77806 RE Renewal Bid 12 009 Contract 12 014 Annual Price Agreement for Concrete Curb Gutter Flatwork Dear Mr Prewitt The City of College Station appreciates the services provided by Brazos Paving Inc this past year We would like to exercise our option to renew the above referenced price agreement for the term of November 18 2013 through November 17 2014 with your requested increase of 38 from the original quote for an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Dollars and 00100 55472000 If this meets with your companys approval please complete the attached renewal acceptance and return it no later than October 18 2013 We will then issue your company a new purchase order effective November 18 2013 through November 17 2014 Should you have any questions please call me at 979 764 3437 Sincerely Heather Pavelka Buyer Attachment PO Box 9960 1101 Texas venue College Station TI 77842 ww vxtxgov 27 RENEWAL ACCEPTANCE By signing herewith I acknowledge and agree to renew the Annual Price Agreement for Concrete Curb Gutter Flatwork as stated in Bid 12 009 Contract 12 014 and in accordance with all terms and conditions previously agreed to and accepted with an increase of 38 to the original quote for an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Dollars and 00 100 55472000 I understand this renewal term will be for the period beginning November 18 2013 through November 17 2014 This is the second renewal BRAZOS PAVING INC CITY OF COLLEGE STATION B By Printed N e City Manager Title rOSw Date Date 3 APPROVED 9C City Attorney Date U Executive Director Business Services Date 28 From:Billy Prewitt To:Heather Pavelka Cc:martinjackson@bpitx.com Subject:RE: City of College Station Contract Renewal Date:Friday, October 11, 2013 12:48:24 PM Heather, Sorry about cutting it so close to the deadline. I have increases mainly in the Ready-mix concrete. Below are the new prices I am requesting for 2013-2014. Flatwork $435.00/CY Curb & Gutter $25.84/LF Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Billy Prewitt BPI From: Heather Pavelka [mailto:hpavelka@cstx.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:08 AM To: Billy Prewitt Cc: Marshall Wallace Subject: City of College Station Contract Renewal Billy, Please see the attached renewal letter in regards to Contract 12-014, Annual Price Agreement for Concrete Curb, Gutter & Flatwork. Please review the renewal, and return 3 signed originals no later than October 11, 2013. Also, please include an up to date insurance certificate which meets the City’s insurance requirements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Heather Pavelka Buyer, Purchasing Division City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Office: (979) 764-3437 Fax: (979) 764-3899 Email: hpavelka@cstx.gov 29 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2d TxDOT’s Advance Funding Agreement for Northpointe Crossing To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Advance Funding Agreement for Northpointe Crossing. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure, and Multi-Modal Transportation. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval. Summary: As part of the Northpointe Crossing project, landscape and hardscape items would be constructed on TxDOT’s right of way (ROW) along FM 60 (University Drive) and BUS 6 (Texas Avenue). The Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) outlines the responsibilities regarding construction and maintenance of those items – which remain the responsibility of the developer, but must be endorsed by the City. The items covered by this would include landscaping such as trees and irrigation to meet City’s Northgate standards, and hardscape items such as pedestrian benches and trash receptacles to meet the City’s Northgate standards. Budget & Financial Summary: No funds will be exchanged between the City and TxDOT. The project budget enclosed an enumerated in Attachment “D” reflects the costs of those items mentioned above, provided and installed by the developers contractor. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. TxDOT AFA 2. Resolution 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2e Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Manager To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Alison Pond, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a professional services contract 13-370 for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Manager with Spherion Staffing LLC in an amount not to exceed $814,597, which replaces and terminates Contract 13-352 approved by Council and executed July 26, 2013. Relationship to Strategic Goals: 1. Financially sustainable City 2. Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): In response to increasing input from staff concerning the functionality of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, in late 2011, the City began an internal review of the ability of the system to meet current business requirements. As a result of this internal review, the City determined that a more complete analysis and evaluation was needed. In July 2012, RFP 12-092 for “Consultation on ERP Assessment and Evaluation” was released. A Project Manager was necessary to lead and manage the execution of the remaining pieces of this project. A contract awarded to Wilson/Kleemann dba Spherion Staffing was approved by Council and executed July 26, 2013. Negotiations and further refinement of the agreement continued as details of the Project Management function evolved. Both the City and Spherion Staffing, LLC, have agreed to the terms and conditions in this replacement contract, the execution of which terminates the original contract. Summary: The next phase of the ERP system implementation is expected to continue over the coming 30-36 months. The Project Manager is expected to perform traditional project manager duties regarding management of the schedule, budget, and scope triad in addition to working closely with City management, staff and consultants, and in leading change management throughout the project. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds have been designated through the previously request ERP funding allocation. The Project Management piece is allocated a total of $800,000. Attachments: Contract will be on file in the City Secretary’s Office on Council day. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2f Recoat/Repair 5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: David Coleman, Director of Water Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to award contract 14-003 for $587,500 to Blastco Texas Inc., to recoat and repair the 5 MG water storage tank. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core services and infrastructure Recommendation: Staff recommends approval Summary: The five million gallon (MG) water storage tank is one of two “ground storage reservoirs” at the Dowling Road Pump Station. These tanks are essential parts of the water distribution system, providing surge capacity and the required chlorine contact time. The coating systems on the five MG tank are at the end of their useful life and must be replaced to prevent structural damage to the tank. Since it is made of steel, any uncoated surfaces will rust quickly when exposed to air, water and chlorine. Bids for this work were requested under solicitation #14-001 and sixteen bids were received. Both staff and the consulting engineer agree that the low bidder, Blastco Texas out of Houston, is both responsive and responsible. We therefore recommend they be awarded the contract, including Bid Alternate 1. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $685,000 are budgeted in the Water Capital Improvement Projects Fund. A total of $50,132 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $634,868 for construction and remaining expenditures. Please note; one bid was received from a local company, Marek Brothers Construction in College Station. However, their bid was 36% higher than the low bidder, which exceeds our limit under the preference policy for local companies. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes. Attachments: Bid Tabulation Contract (on file with City Secretary) 61 City of College Station - Purchasing DivisionBid Tabulation for #14-001"5 MG Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation"Open Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 @ 2:00 p.m.Blastco Texas(Houston, TX)A&M Construction & Utilities, Inc.(Rowlett, TX)MK Painting, Inc.(Wyandotte, MI)L and T Painting, Inc.(Clinton Twp., MI)Graydaze Contracting(N. Charleston, SC)N.G. Painting, L.P.(Kerrville, TX)MC Sandblasting & Painting, Inc.(Cedar Springs, MI)Horizon Bros. Painting(Howell, MI)Tank Pro, Inc.(Northport, AL)L.C. United Painting Co.(Sterling Heights, MI)GML Coatings, LLC(Rosharon, TX)Marek Brothers Const., Inc.(College Station, TX)Utility Service Co., Inc.(Perry, GA)Classic Protective Coatings, Inc.(Menomonie, WI)Caldwell Tanks, Inc.(Louisville, KY)TMI Coatings, Inc.(St. Paul, MN)ITEM QTY/UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE1 1 Lump SumFurnish material and labor to replace the interior coating system ofthe 5 MG water storage tank per the Technical Specifications$330,000.00 $306,000.00 $340,000.00 $340,000.00 $221,676.00 $350,000.00 $347,200.00 $365,000.00 $425,953.00 $394,000.00 $453,204.00 $320,750.00 $490,300.00 $528,150.00 $462,275.00 $589,000.002 1 Lump SumFurnish material and labor to replace the exterior coating system ofthe 5 MG water storage tank per the Technical Specifications$200,000.00 $259,000.00 $245,000.00 $250,000.00 $270,937.00 $238,000.00 $257,100.00 $230,000.00 $211,081.00 $264,000.00 $213,087.00 $427,805.00 $251,000.00 $259,600.00 $353,200.00 $420,000.003 1 Lump SumFurnish material and labor to perform the repair items on the 5 MGwater storage tank per the Technical Specifications$47,500.00 $55,000.00 $35,000.00 $38,000.00 $137,760.00 $45,000.00 $35,100.00 $55,000.00 $31,565.00 $40,000.00 $65,200.00 $40,000.00 $67,000.00 $52,000.00 $66,250.00 $70,000.00$577,500.00 $620,000.00 $620,000.00 $628,000.00 $630,373.00 $633,000.00 $639,400.00 $650,000.00 $668,599.00 $698,000.00 $731,491.00 $788,555.00 $808,300.00 $839,750.00 $881,725.00 $1,079,000.00A.1 1 Lump SumFurnish material and labor to pressure wash all blast-cleaned areasof the 5 MG water storage tank interior to reduce soluble saltcontent to less than the specified limits per the TechnicalSpecifications$10,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,927.00 $5,000.00 $35,000.00 $695,000.00 $5,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $69,980.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $22,500.00 $89,000.00A.21 Lump Sum(+/-)Alternate exterior coating system. Add to or deduct amount fromBase Bid Amount to install alternate coating system per theTechnical Specifications. (Indicate + or -)No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid-$8,394.00No Bid$10,000.00-$20,000.00No Bid No Bid-$13,500.00 -$827.00 -$10,000.00No Bid$8,500.00-$2,000.00A.31 Lump Sum(+/-)Alternate interior coating system. Add to or deduct amount fromBase Bid Amount to install alternate coating system per theTechnical Specifications. (Indicate + or -)No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid-$6,870.00No Bid$25,000.00-$30,000.00No Bid No Bid-$6,000.00 -$524.00 -$15,000.00No Bid$6,320.00-$2,000.00***Bids are currently being evaluated by the City Department and Consultant***TOTAL BASE BID (ITEMS 1-3)BASE BIDBID ALTERNATESPage 1 of 162 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2g Purchase of Materials for F&B Road Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the purchase of materials for the F&B Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project, which will be maintained in inventory until the time of the project. The total recommended award is $189,139.80 and will be awarded by line item to the lowest responsible bidder. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder providing the best value to the City as follows: Priester-Mell & Nicholson $ 1,982.00 Techline $ 150,704.70 KBS $ 30,349.50 Texas Electric Cooperatives $ 285.00 Wesco $ 5,818.60 TOTAL $189,139.80 Summary: Five (5) sealed competitive bids and one (1) letter of no bid were received and opened on October 9, 2013. Line items were awarded to the lowest responsible bidders for their respective bid items. Upon Council approval, purchase orders will be issued to the vendors recommended for award. The materials will be placed and maintained in the electrical inventory and expensed as needed for the project. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Fund. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A Attachments: Bid Tabulation #14-003 63 City of College Station Purchasing Division ITB 14-003 Tabulation Purchase of Materials for F and B Road Double Circuit Feeder Opened October 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Page 1 Indicates a recommended awardIndicates the vendor took an exception to the bidIndicates the vendor miscalculated a totalIndicates a low bid which is not recommended for award Item Number City of College Station Inventory Number Description Manufacturer and Catalog Number Order Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. 1 280-016-00012 #4 soft drawn copper, 1000 ft reels Alan Wire 4SSBBC-1000 ft reels 7,000 feet $0.58 $4,060.00 1 Service Wire B50541000 $0.54 $3,780.00 1 $0.54 $3,780.00 1 2 280-040-00002 3/8" guy wire "High strength"Seal Wire 3/8HSA 3,000 feet $0.32 $960.00 1 National Strand 3/8" AHS $0.29 $870.00 stk National Strand 3/8 HS - 500'CL $0.39 $1,170.00 2 National Strand 3 285-002-00003 3.5 ft power extension Hubbell 12655 50 each $0.00 $39.40 $1,970.00 stk $40.60 $2,030.00 stk Maclean J23378.3 4 285-002-00006 double helix anchor & triple eye adapter Hubbell 12654-3AE 10 each $0.00 $106.50 $1,065.00 stk $89.50 $895.00 4 Mclean D6632TU 5 285-002-00007 triple helix anchor & triple eye adapter Hubbell 12654-3AEJ 15 each $0.00 $140.00 $2,100.00 stk $131.70 $1,975.50 4 Maclean D6636TU 6 285-003-00001 MOV lightning arrestor 10kV Ohio Brass PDV-100-Optima- 213709-7324 110 each $47.28 $5,200.80 2-4 Siemens 3EK7-100-3AB4-Z-P12P31M81Q51 $25.37 $2,790.70 2-3 $27.95 $3,074.50 stk Cooper UH510050A1A1B1A 7 285-022-00043 #4H3 copper connector Blackburn #4H3 150 each $0.86 $129.00 stock Burndy KS203 $1.48 $222.00 2-3 $1.10 $165.00 1 Penn Union SW-4 8 285-022-00045 two bolt alum. Connector Hubbell GA9821GAA 100 each $0.00 $38.00 $3,800.00 stk $40.70 $4,070.00 12-14 9 285-022-00046 single bolt alum. Connector Hubbell GA9842L 100 each $0.00 $12.74 $1,274.00 stk -6 Quoting GA9482GL "G" - grommets $11.55 $1,155.00 5 Maclean AVC-842 10 285-035-00008 polymer bell insulator Ohio Brass 401035-0215 190 each $13.58 $2,580.20 1-2 ARP $12.69 $2,411.10 2-3 $11.50 $2,185.00 stk Salisbury 9503-USI 11 285-035-00013 vise-top insulator Preformed IP-35-VTM2 550 each $23.59 $12,974.50 2 Exception: 466 each only $22.15 $12,182.50 1-2 Exception: 466 in stock at this time. Cannot provide anymore at this time due to a design change by PLP. I also have 8 ea in stock. $21.25 $11,687.50 6 Hendrix HPI-35VTM-02 12 285-036-00002 12" guy strain insulator Chance GS16012CP 100 each $0.00 $11.56 $1,156.00 2-3 $9.75 $975.00 stk Mclean GCTE15-12 13 285-047-00027 small hotline clamp Hubbell BC20 110 each $0.00 $6.30 $693.00 stk $6.15 $676.50 2 CMC HLB - 2/0 14 285-047-00050 3/8" guy deadend grip Preformed GDE-1107 150 each $2.28 $342.00 stock $1.93 $289.50 stk $2.30 $345.00 stk 15 285-047-00054 7' yellow guy guard Chance 84-FRG-YEL 50 each $0.00 $4.90 $245.00 2-3 $2.20 $110.00 stk Electric Materials 70-7YTIE 16 285-047-00088 8' deadend crossarm PUPI DA3000096E2B7X2 50 each $190.00 $9,500.00 2-4 $182.00 $9,100.00 6 Shakespeare IDB096G12242 $192.00 $9,600.00 stk 17 285-047-00093 8' standard crossarm PUPI TB220009603X2 80 each $83.00 $6,640.00 2-4 $95.00 $7,600.00 6 Shakespeare STB096N12602 $78.00 $6,240.00 stk 18 285-047-00094 10' standard crossarm PUPI TB220012005X2 70 each $95.00 $6,650.00 2-4 $108.00 $7,560.00 6 Shakerspeare STB120N12602 $94.00 $6,580.00 stk 19 285-047-00098 double tee guy Hughes AS2720-A4.5 30 each $0.00 $67.00 $2,010.00 10-12 $67.50 $2,025.00 8-10 Priester Mell & Nicholson Techline KBS 64 City of College Station Purchasing Division ITB 14-003 Tabulation Purchase of Materials for F and B Road Double Circuit Feeder Opened October 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Page 2 Indicates a recommended awardIndicates the vendor took an exception to the bidIndicates the vendor miscalculated a totalIndicates a low bid which is not recommended for award Item Number City of College Station Inventory Number Description Manufacturer and Catalog Number Order Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Priester Mell & Nicholson Techline KBS 20 285-047-00099 10 deadend crossarm PUPI DA3000120E2B9X2 10 each $212.00 $2,120.00 2-4 $208.00 $2,080.00 6 Shakespeare IDB120G12242 $215.00 $2,150.00 3 21 285-047-00104 crossarm saddle pins Hubbell 143221P 550 each $0.00 $14.20 $7,810.00 stk-2 $14.50 $7,975.00 6 Powerline P33242 22 285-047-00107 fiberglass ridge pins MacLean G1MDR118DS4 80 each $0.00 $32.00 $2,560.00 6-8 Hubbell RPM-184 $34.00 $2,720.00 6 23 285-047-00121 12' standard crossarm PUPI TB2500144SPX2 2 each $160.00 $320.00 2-4 $204.00 $408.00 6 Shakespeare HTB144N12402 $165.00 $330.00 3 24 285-047-00122 12' deadend crossarm PUPI DA3020144E4SPX2 2 each $600.00 $1,200.00 2-4 $380.00 $760.00 6 Shakespeare XDB144G12482 $625.00 $1,250.00 3 25 285-047-00123 795 deadend shoe Hubbell ADEZ116N 220 each $0.00 $16.10 $3,542.00 4 $15.25 $3,355.00 2 Mclean HDS0-116N 26 285-047-00124 795 to 477 stirrup Hubbell AHLS954022E 110 each $0.00 $24.40 $2,684.00 stk-3 $23.50 $2,585.00 1 Richards ALC1000 27 285-047-00125 795 super top tie Hubbell/Chance STT140 60 each $0.00 $5.60 $336.00 stk $7.85 $471.00 12 28 285-074-00022 795 auto splice Hubbell/Fargo GL1385A 20 each $0.00 $52.75 $1,055.00 stk $49.00 $980.00 6 Maclean 7660VIP 29 320-020-00007 5/8 x 30 DA bolt Joslyn J8878 50 each $0.00 $4.90 $245.00 stk-2 Chance 8878 $4.00 $200.00 1 Powerline P8878 30 320-020-00015 5/8 x 14 machine bolt Joslyn J8814 150 each $1.20 $180.00 2-4 Allied 8226 $1.19 $178.50 stk Chance 8814 $1.20 $180.00 stk Powerline P8814 31 320-020-00020 3/4 x 14 machine bolt Chance C8914 300 each $1.78 $534.00 2-4 Allied 8244 $2.34 $702.00 stk-2 $2.10 $630.00 stk Powerline P8914 32 320-020-00023 5/8 x 14 oval eye bolt Joslyn J9414 50 each $2.93 $146.50 2-4 Allied 4105 $3.28 $164.00 stk Chance 29964 $2.95 $147.50 stk Powerline P9414 33 320-020-00026 5/8 x 14 SU bolt Hubbell 7744 50 each $2.88 $144.00 2-4 Allied 1715 $5.07 $253.50 stk $4.40 $220.00 stk P2348-1/2 Powerline 34 320-020-00030 square galvanized washers Hubbell 6814 500 each $0.26 $130.00 2-4 Allied 11550 $0.28 $140.00 stk $0.26 $130.00 stk Powerline P1076 35 320-020-00031 4 x 4 square washers Hubbell 6818 500 each $1.09 $545.00 2-4 Allied 11557 $1.32 $660.00 2-3 $1.47 $735.00 2 Maclean J1080 36 320-020-00039 3/4 lock nuts Chance 3513 500 each $0.23 $115.00 2-4 Allied 22011 $0.35 $175.00 stk $0.31 $155.00 stk Line Hardware SLN-34 37 320-022-00007 5/8 lock nuts Chance 3512 500 each $0.13 $65.00 2-4 Allied 22010 $0.20 $100.00 stk $0.175 $87.50 stk Line Hardware SLN-58 38 280-058-00021 795 MCM ACC cable (Arbutus)Southwire Arbutus 4960 ft non- returnable reels 101,000 feet $1.31 $132,310.00 2-4 Nexans Arbutus $1.086 $109,686.00 9 General Cable Arbutus AAC 795 MCM $1.150 $116,150.00 6-8 Condumex Arbutus Bid Certificiation Y Y Y Recommended Award Total $1,982.00 $150,704.700 $30,349.500 65 City of College Station Purchasing Division ITB 14-003 Tabulation Purchase of Materials for F and B Road Double Circuit Feeder Opened October 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Page 3 Indicates a recommended awardIndicates the vendor took an exception to the bidIndicates the vendor miscalculated a totalIndicates a low bid which is not recommended for award Item Number City of College Station Inventory Number Description Manufacturer and Catalog Number Order Quantity Unit of Measure 1 280-016-00012 #4 soft drawn copper, 1000 ft reels Alan Wire 4SSBBC-1000 ft reels 7,000 feet 2 280-040-00002 3/8" guy wire "High strength"Seal Wire 3/8HSA 3,000 feet 3 285-002-00003 3.5 ft power extension Hubbell 12655 50 each 4 285-002-00006 double helix anchor & triple eye adapter Hubbell 12654-3AE 10 each 5 285-002-00007 triple helix anchor & triple eye adapter Hubbell 12654-3AEJ 15 each 6 285-003-00001 MOV lightning arrestor 10kV Ohio Brass PDV-100-Optima- 213709-7324 110 each 7 285-022-00043 #4H3 copper connector Blackburn #4H3 150 each 8 285-022-00045 two bolt alum. Connector Hubbell GA9821GAA 100 each 9 285-022-00046 single bolt alum. Connector Hubbell GA9842L 100 each 10 285-035-00008 polymer bell insulator Ohio Brass 401035-0215 190 each 11 285-035-00013 vise-top insulator Preformed IP-35-VTM2 550 each 12 285-036-00002 12" guy strain insulator Chance GS16012CP 100 each 13 285-047-00027 small hotline clamp Hubbell BC20 110 each 14 285-047-00050 3/8" guy deadend grip Preformed GDE-1107 150 each 15 285-047-00054 7' yellow guy guard Chance 84-FRG-YEL 50 each 16 285-047-00088 8' deadend crossarm PUPI DA3000096E2B7X2 50 each 17 285-047-00093 8' standard crossarm PUPI TB220009603X2 80 each 18 285-047-00094 10' standard crossarm PUPI TB220012005X2 70 each 19 285-047-00098 double tee guy Hughes AS2720-A4.5 30 each Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. $0.675 $4,725.00 1 Service Wire 4 SOLID SD BARE CU $0.58 $4,060.00 1 Alan Wire - Solid Bare Copper 0411R2 $0.57 $3,990.00 4-6 Southwire- Solid Bare Copper $0.344 $1,032.00 3-4 Bekaert 3/8" HS 500FT COILS $0.32 $960.00 1 Seal Wire 3/8 HS $0.00 $0.00 $39.69 $1,984.50 4-5 Maclean D6616U $0.00 $0.00 $87.48 $874.80 4-5 Maclean D6632TU Exception: Bid Std Qty of 25 $0.00 $0.00 $128.87 $1,933.05 4-5 Maclean D6636TU Exception: Bid Std Qty of 25 $0.00 $34.25 $3,767.50 3-4 GE 9L20AXX410AHS $27.33 $3,006.30 2-3 Maclean 2HPOLO-0C00100 $0.00 $0.93 $139.50 3-4 Penn Union SEL4 Exception: quoted box qty of 100 $0.89 $133.50 1-2 BURNDY K520-3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11.10 $1,110.00 5-6 Maclean AVC-842 $0.00 $13.30 $2,527.00 6 Salisbury 9503U-SI $18.00 $3,420.00 2-3 Maclean DS35-M Exception: Bid Qty of 198 $0.00 $0.00 $22.72 $12,496.00 2-3 Preformed currently has 466 in stk, but is subject to prior sale (13 std pkg)$0.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 3-4 Aluma-Form FGS21-12CT $9.68 $968.00 2-3 Maclean GCTE15-12 $0.00 $7.72 $849.20 3-4 Richards BHLC-100 $6.78 $745.80 stk-6 Maclean C1520 $0.00 $2.33 $349.50 3-4 $2.25 $337.50 8 Mclean DE-51107 $2.25 $337.50 stk Preformed = GDE-1107 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.30 $10,015.00 6 $196.00 $9,800.00 3-4 AlumaForm FDA30-2-96-EB-FG $0.00 $87.45 $6,996.00 6 $100.53 $8,042.40 3-4 AlumaForm FTA20L-4-96-A $0.00 $100.00 $7,000.00 6 $116.12 $8,128.40 3-4 AlumaForm FTA30L-6-120-A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Wesco AlternatesTexas Electric Cooperatives Wesco 66 City of College Station Purchasing Division ITB 14-003 Tabulation Purchase of Materials for F and B Road Double Circuit Feeder Opened October 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Page 4 Indicates a recommended awardIndicates the vendor took an exception to the bidIndicates the vendor miscalculated a totalIndicates a low bid which is not recommended for award Item Number City of College Station Inventory Number Description Manufacturer and Catalog Number Order Quantity Unit of Measure 20 285-047-00099 10 deadend crossarm PUPI DA3000120E2B9X2 10 each 21 285-047-00104 crossarm saddle pins Hubbell 143221P 550 each 22 285-047-00107 fiberglass ridge pins MacLean G1MDR118DS4 80 each 23 285-047-00121 12' standard crossarm PUPI TB2500144SPX2 2 each 24 285-047-00122 12' deadend crossarm PUPI DA3020144E4SPX2 2 each 25 285-047-00123 795 deadend shoe Hubbell ADEZ116N 220 each 26 285-047-00124 795 to 477 stirrup Hubbell AHLS954022E 110 each 27 285-047-00125 795 super top tie Hubbell/Chance STT140 60 each 28 285-074-00022 795 auto splice Hubbell/Fargo GL1385A 20 each 29 320-020-00007 5/8 x 30 DA bolt Joslyn J8878 50 each 30 320-020-00015 5/8 x 14 machine bolt Joslyn J8814 150 each 31 320-020-00020 3/4 x 14 machine bolt Chance C8914 300 each 32 320-020-00023 5/8 x 14 oval eye bolt Joslyn J9414 50 each 33 320-020-00026 5/8 x 14 SU bolt Hubbell 7744 50 each 34 320-020-00030 square galvanized washers Hubbell 6814 500 each 35 320-020-00031 4 x 4 square washers Hubbell 6818 500 each 36 320-020-00039 3/4 lock nuts Chance 3513 500 each 37 320-022-00007 5/8 lock nuts Chance 3512 500 each 38 280-058-00021 795 MCM ACC cable (Arbutus)Southwire Arbutus 4960 ft non- returnable reels 101,000 feet Bid Certificiation Recommended Award Total Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Unit Cost Total Cost Delivery Time If bidding an alternate, or equal item please list the manufacturer and catalog number. Blank boxes will be assumed to be bid as requested. Wesco AlternatesTexas Electric Cooperatives Wesco $223.00 $2,230.00 6 $228.72 $2,287.20 3-4 AlumaForm FDA30-2-120-EB-FG $0.00 $15.90 $8,745.00 8-10 $14.80 $8,140.00 3-4 Maclean J33242 $0.00 $36.40 $2,912.00 3-4 $32.18 $2,574.40 6-7 Maclean GIMDR118D54 $0.00 $172.00 $344.00 6 $181.36 $362.72 3-4 AlumaForm FTA25-4-144-A $0.00 $653.00 $1,306.00 6 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13.95 $3,069.00 2-3 Maclean HDS0116 $0.00 $0.00 $29.77 $3,274.70 4-5 Maclean HLS-795-E $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $33.58 $671.60 6-7 Maclean 7660V1P $0.00 $3.05 $152.50 1-2 Power Line R8878 $4.18 $209.00 2-3 Maclean J8878 $0.00 $1.28 $192.00 1-2 Power Line R8814 $1.26 $189.00 stk-6 Maclean J8814 Exception (std pkg 20)$0.00 $2.00 $600.00 1-2 Power Line R8914 $2.59 $777.00 2-3 Maclean J8914 $0.00 $2.65 $132.50 1-2 Power Line R9414 $3.46 $173.00 2-3 Maclean J9414 $0.00 $4.10 $205.00 1-2 Power Line R2348-1/2 $5.62 $281.00 2-3 Maclean J2348-1/2 Exception: Std Pkg 20 $0.00 $0.29 $145.00 1-2 Power Line R1076 $0.28 $140.00 6-7 Maclean J1076 $0.00 $0.00 $1.39 $695.00 2-3 Maclean J1080 $0.00 $0.29 $145.00 1-2 Power Line R8584 $0.43 $215.00 2-3 Maclean J8584 $0.00 $0.19 $95.00 1-2 Power Line R8583 $0.19 $95.00 6-7 Maclean J8583 Exception: Bid Qty of 800 $0.00 $1.17 $118,170.00 1-2 CME ARBUTUS 3700 NRR $1.22 $123,220.00 14-15 Nexans - Arbutus Exception: Bid Qty of 99,180 $1.26 $127,260.00 stk-10 Southwire - Arbutus Exception: Bid Qty of 104,265 YY $5,818.60$285.00 67 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2h Purchase of Concrete Poles for the F&B Road Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Utilities Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the purchase of Concrete Poles for the F&B Double Circuit Electric Feeder Project. The total recommended award is $291,030 to the lowest responsible bidder Techline, Inc. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder Techline, Inc. providing the best value to the City. Summary: Three (3) sealed competitive bids were received and opened on October 23, 2013 with Techline, Inc. being the lowest responsible and complete bidder. These poles will be used to construct a double circuit electric feeder line from the Northgate Substation to the Bio-Corridor area to provide needed capacity and reliability for the planned and proposed projects in the Bio-Corridor development. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Capital Improvement Project Fund. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A Attachments: Bid Tabulation #14-007 68 Page 1 Pole #Length MEI #Price Delivery (weeks)Price Delivery (weeks)Price Delivery (weeks) E00101390 C70 10252 $3,130.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $3,025.00 6- 8 wks E00101365 C55 10253 $2,393.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101368 C55 10253 $2,393.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101391 C85 10254 $15,589.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$15,165.00 6- 8 wks E00101344 C55 10255 $2,393.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101332 C60 10256 $4,099.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,082.00 $4,041.00 6- 8 wks E00101333 C60 10256 $4,099.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,082.00 $4,041.00 6- 8 wks E00101341 C55 10257 $3,950.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $3,892.00 6- 8 wks E00101340 C75 10258 $12,286.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$11,932.00 6- 8 wks E00101407 C55 10259 $2,393.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101321 C65 10259 $2,683.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $2,621.00 6- 8 wks E00101406 C55 10269 $2,342.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,289.00 6- 8 wks E00101322 C65 10269 $2,683.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $2,621.00 6- 8 wks E00101353 C85 10271 $16,920.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$16,431.00 6- 8 wks E00101379 C75 10272 $13,973.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$13,569.00 6- 8 wks E00101359 C75 10272 $13,973.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$13,569.00 6- 8 wks E00101374 C75 10272 $13,973.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$13,569.00 6- 8 wks E00101393 C65 10275 $3,273.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $3,205.00 6- 8 wks E00101346 C60 10276 $2,734.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,671.00 6- 8 wks E00101394 C55 10277 $2,563.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,504.00 6- 8 wks E00101323 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101324 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101325 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101326 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101327 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101328 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101329 C60 10321 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,437.00 6- 8 wks E00101395 C55 10322 $2,342.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101354 C65 10322 $2,683.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,621.00 6- 8 wks E00101343 C55 10323 $2,342.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101363 C55 10325 $2,342.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101400 C75 10326 $6,744.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$6,563.00 6- 8 wks E00101392 C55 10332 $2,342.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,847.00 $2,314.00 6- 8 wks E00101389 C65 10344 $2,910.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,376.00 $2,843.00 6- 8 wks E00101369 C40 10408 $2,100.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,318.00 $2,034.00 6- 8 wks E00101334 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101335 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101336 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101337 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101338 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101402 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101403 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101404 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101405 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101342 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks City of College Station ITB 14-007 Tabulation Purchase of Concrete Poles for F&B Road Overhead Feeder Project Opened October 25, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Texas Electric Cooperative StressCrete Inc.Techline 69 Page 2 Pole #Length MEI #Price Delivery (weeks)Price Delivery (weeks)Price Delivery (weeks) City of College Station ITB 14-007 Tabulation Purchase of Concrete Poles for F&B Road Overhead Feeder Project Opened October 25, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Texas Electric Cooperative StressCrete Inc.Techline E00101345 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101360 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101361 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101362 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101364 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101366 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101367 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101370 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101371 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101372 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101375 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101376 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101377 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101378 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101380 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101381 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101382 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101383 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101384 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101385 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101386 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101387 C55 10250-1 $2,334.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$2,914.00 $2,277.00 6- 8 wks E00101330 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101331 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101339 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101401 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101373 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101388 C60 10250-1 $2,496.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,023.00 $2,432.00 6- 8 wks E00101396 C55 10251-1 $2,563.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,504.00 6- 8 wks E00101397 C55 10251-1 $2,563.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,504.00 6- 8 wks E00101398 C60 10251-1 $2,734.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,671.00 6- 8 wks E00101355 C60 10251-1 $2,734.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,671.00 6- 8 wks E00101356 C60 10251-1 $2,734.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,200.00 $2,671.00 6- 8 wks E00101349 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101399 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101347 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101348 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101350 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101351 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101352 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101357 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks E00101358 C65 10251-1 $2,932.00 6-8 wks a.r.o.$3,552.00 $2,864.00 6- 8 wks Note: Award is based on the lowest complete bid. StressCrete did not bid all items. $298,499.00Recommended Award $244,365.00 $291,030.00 70 November 14, 2013 Consent Agenda Item No. 2i Annual Purchase of Various Transformers To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the annual purchase of various transformers, which will be maintained in electrical inventory and expended as needed. The total recommended award is $528,328.58 and will be awarded by line item to the lowest responsible bidder. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder providing the best value to the City as follows: Stuart C. Irby $ 157,404.55 HD Supply $ 208,847.36 Texas Electric Cooperatives $ 23,740.00 Techline $ 71,407.00 Priester-Mell & Nicholson $ 34,152.00 Wesco $ 13,553.67 KBS $ 19,224.00 TOTAL $528,328.58 Summary: Seven (7) sealed competitive bids and one (1) letter of no bid were received and opened on September 24, 2013. Electric staff evaluated the bids for compliance to the needed specifications. Line items were awarded to the lowest responsible bidders for their respective bid items. Upon Council approval, purchase orders will be issued to the vendors recommended for award. The materials will be placed and maintained in the electrical inventory and expensed as needed. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Fund. Various projects may be expensed as supplies are pulled from inventory and issued. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A Attachments: Bid Tabulation #13-101 71 Page 1 Vendor Manufacturer Quantity Unit Price Total Delivery Item #1 25 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Irby Ermco 30 $1,399.75 $41,992.50 10-12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00031 Item #2 37.5 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Irby Ermco 25 $1,524.17 $38,104.25 10-12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00059 Item #3 50 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Irby Ermco 20 $1,639.57 $32,791.40 10-12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00032 Item #4 25 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Typ TEC Ermco 5 $1,475.00 $7,375.00 9-11 weeks Inventory #285-086-00061 Item #5 50 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/240 TEC Ermco 1 $1,565.00 $1,565.00 9-11 weeks Inventory #285-086-00062 Item #6 75 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Irby Ermco 10 $2,079.12 $20,791.20 10-12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00033 Item #7 100 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Irby Ermco 10 $2,372.52 $23,725.20 10-12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00034 Item #8 167 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 TEC Ermco 5 $2,960.00 $14,800.00 9-11 weeks Inventory #285-086-00035 Item #9 250 KVA Padmount Transformer 240/120 Wesco ABB 3 $4,517.89 $13,553.67 6-8 weeks Inventory #285-086-00036 Item #10 75 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 Techline Howard 2 $5,365.00 $10,730.00 12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00037 Item #11 112.5 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 Techline Howard 2 $5,926.00 $11,852.00 12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00038 Item #12 150 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 Techline Howard 3 $6,358.00 $19,074.00 12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00039 Item #13 225 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 Techline Howard 3 $7,461.00 $22,383.00 12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00040 Item #14 300 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 HD Supply GE Prolec 3 $8,910.53 $26,731.59 7 weeks Inventory #285-086-00041 City of College Station Purchasing Divison ITB 13-101 Tabulation Summary Annual Purchase of Various Transformers Opened Septemeber 24, 2013 at 2:00 P.M. 72 Page 2 Vendor Manufacturer Quantity Unit Price Total Delivery City of College Station Purchasing Divison ITB 13-101 Tabulation Summary Annual Purchase of Various Transformers Opened Septemeber 24, 2013 at 2:00 P.M. Item #15 500 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 PM&N CG Power 1 $10,127.00 $10,127.00 7-9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00042 Item #16 750 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 HD Supply GE Prolec 1 $15,474.74 $15,474.74 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00043 Item #17 1000 KVA Padmount Transformer 208/120 KBS Cooper 1 $19,224.00 $19,224.00 16-18 weeks Inventory #285-086-00044 Item #18 112.5 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 2 $5,840.00 $11,680.00 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00045 Item #19 150 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 1 $6,097.89 $6,097.89 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00046 Item #20 225 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 Techline Howard 1 $7,368.00 $7,368.00 12 weeks Inventory #285-086-00047 Item #21 300 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 2 $8,632.63 $17,265.26 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00048 Item #22 500 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 1 $9,641.05 $9,641.05 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00049 Item #23 750 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 1 $12,229.47 $12,229.47 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00050 Item #24 1000 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 1 $14,266.32 $14,266.32 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00051 Item #25 1500 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 2 $19,329.47 $38,658.94 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00052 Item #26 2000 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 PM&N CG Power 1 $24,025.00 $24,025.00 7-9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00053 Item #27 2500 KVA Padmount Transformer 480/277 HD Supply GE Prolec 2 $28,401.05 $56,802.10 9 weeks Inventory #285-086-00054 GRAND TOTAL: $528,328.58 73 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 1 Lincoln Center Expansion Preliminary Design To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the conceptual design for the Lincoln Center Expansion. Relationship to Strategic Goals: 1. Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide comments and directions to allow staff to proceed with the development of bidding documents Summary: The expansion of the Lincoln Center is one of the facility expansion projects included in the 2008 Bond Authorization. The original scope for the project developed in 2008 included an 8,000-10,000 SF facility expansion and additional parking. As part of the preliminary design, staff completed a thorough condition assessment and use assessment of the existing Lincoln Center. The condition assessment confirmed that the structure and major operating systems are in good condition, but portions of the existing building need to the updated. The use assessment confirmed that renovations are necessary to provide operational flexibility and to make efficient use of the existing space. Additionally, during the preliminary design phase asbestos was identified in the several locations throughout the facility. Additional parking is not currently included in the scope of the project. Sufficient parking spaces are available; however on-site traffic circulation improvements are included in the project scope to help improve traffic flow and increase the safety of passengers being dropped off or picked up. Therefore, staff is recommending some renovations to the existing Lincoln Center to help preserve the city’s existing asset, provide operational flexibility, and abate the asbestos. Additionally, staff is recommending a new 15,000 SF facility that will include a new gym and meeting/activity rooms. Staff feels that the renovations to the existing building combined with the new facility will provide a lot of operational flexibility and provide additional meeting space and help offset the space lost with the closure of the Conference Center. On August 20th and 27th staff conducted public meetings on this project to get input and feedback from the community. Additionally, staff presented these improvements to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on October 8th . Positive feedback was received during all three meetings. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $4,285,000 are currently budgeted for this project in the Parks Capital Improvement Projects Fund. A total of $54,510 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $4,230,490 for design and construction. 74 Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A Attachments: 1. None 75 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 2 1201 Norton Lane Comprehensive Plan Amendment To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Estate to General Commercial for the property located at 1201 Norton Lane; approximately 5.4 acres at the corner of Wellborn Road and Norton Lane. Relationship to Strategic Initiatives: Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse Growing Economy, Sustainable City Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing for this item at their October 17, 2013 meeting where they recommended 3-1 approval. Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map amendments: REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Changed or changing conditions in the subject area or the City: The subject tract and properties immediately surrounding the area have been designated as Estate on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map. The applicant has stated that the Estate designation has made it difficult for the property to sell and develop. Other than market opportunities, there appears to be no change in conditions in the subject area that would invalidate the current land use and character designations for the area. 2. Scope of the request: This request is to introduce a commercial land use and character into an area that is otherwise suburban and single-family in character. The request would enable a land use that is more intense than surrounding land uses and enable traffic generation and other service demands in excess of current land uses. 3. Availability of adequate information: Staff can determine trips generated by the proposed land use and subtract trips already generated by current use to assess impact. In addition, Staff has 2009 TxDOT traffic counts on Wellborn Road and 2011 projected traffic volumes created by the Travel Demand Model. The current land use is Estate with no improvements and generating no vehicles per day (VPD). The proposed General Commercial designation may generate approximately 2,700 VPD. TxDOT’s 2009 traffic counts along Wellborn Road in this area are 4,800 VPD. The City’s travel demand model projected to 2011 indicates a volume of 10,500 VPD. Adding the proposed land use trip generation of 2,700 VPD to 10,500 VPD, the volumes on Wellborn Road equals 13,200 VPD. Wellborn Road in this area has a capacity of 76 approximately 20,000 VPD with a Level of Service (LOS) “D” of approximately 16,666 VPD. 4. Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the Plan: The goal for College Station’s Future Land Use and Character is to create a community with strong, unique neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a protected and enhanced natural environment. Relevant Strategies identified in the Plan to achieve this goal include: • Establish and protect distinct boundaries between various character areas: o The current Future Land Use and Character Map depicts retaining the distinct single-family character from other more developed areas. o The proposed land use and character designation represents the only intrusion of General Commercial character into the otherwise Estate character area. • Promote public and private development and design practices that ensure distinct neighborhoods, districts, and corridors: o The Wellborn Community, south of the subject tract, was designated as an area for further study in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In 2013, a Plan was adopted to enhance the area’s character. To that end, the Plan established the following goals and reinforced the land use and character designation for the area: Be a community of rural character positioned for contextually appropriate growth that embodies and sustains the uniqueness and history of the area; Promote a multi-modal transportation network that responds to the low density, rural context of the community. • Provide a diversified economy generating quality, stable, full-time jobs; bolstering the sales and property tax base; and contributing to a high quality of life: o The proposed land use amendment may generate jobs to stimulate the local economy, bolster sales and the tax base. • Provide improved mobility though a safe, efficient, and well-connected multi- modal transportation system designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses: o The proposed General Commercial land use designation and the existing Estate land use designation generate different trip rates and so must be evaluated against the capacity of the current transportation network. Furthermore, though outside the Wellborn District Plan area, the strategy in the Plan was to limit the general commercial land use to correspond to the widening of Wellborn Road by TxDOT in the future to ensure roadway capacity. 77 5. Consideration of the Future Land Use & Character and/or Thoroughfare Plans: The subject tract is designated as Estate on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map. Estate is intended for areas that are not likely to be the focus of extensive infill development. This area consists of larger-lot homes along Wellborn Road that were developed prior to annexation. The proposed General Commercial designation is intended for an intense level of development activity and consists of uses that are permitted in the General Commercial zoning district. The applicant states as a justification for the request that developments south of this property consist of commercial use and noise from the Wellborn Road and the railroad make this property unsuitable for residential development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a considerable amount of Estate across Wellborn Road and the railroad to protect the existing large lot, rural single-family character. In this area, Wellborn Road will remain rural in context as per the Wellborn District Plan. Wellborn Road will also remain a four-lane Minor Arterial in functional classification. Norton Lane is a private roadway and access considerations will need to be discussed between the applicant and co-owners. 6. Compatibility with the surrounding area: As stated previously, the subject property is located in an area designated as Estate and currently developed as a large-lot single- family. With the proposed General Commercial development, an increased amount of traffic and infrastructure demands can be expected. The Unified Development Ordinance requires screening and buffering to General Commercial properties. 7. Impacts on infrastructure including water, wastewater, drainage, and the transportation network: Water service to the tract may be provided by an existing 12-inch water main running along the east side of Wellborn Road and a 2-inch waterline along the south side of Norton Lane. Domestic and fire flow demands may necessitate future water main extensions at the time of site development. These utilities will be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. There is currently an 8-inch sanitary sewer main along the east side of Wellborn Road available to serve the property. Although the proposed General Commercial Land Use will be creating more density, preliminary analysis of the system has indicated that there is available capacity to serve this type of development. The subject tract is located in the Hopes Creek drainage basin. No portion of the property has been designated FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. Development of the subject tract will be required to meet the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Design Guidelines, and site development impacts on the drainage system will be evaluated further at that time. 78 The current land use is Estate with no improvements and generating no vehicles per day (VPD). The proposed General Commercial designation may generate approximately 2,700 VPD. TxDOT’s 2009 traffic counts along Wellborn Road in this area are 4,800 VPD. The City’s travel demand model projected to 2011 indicates a volume of 10,500 VPD. Adding the proposed land use trip generation of 2,700 VPD to 10,500 VPD the volumes on Wellborn Road equals 13,200 VPD. Wellborn Road in this area has a capacity of approximately 20,000 VPD with a level of Service (LOS) “D” of approximately 16,666 VPD. Though there seems to be capacity, further limitations may be needed to restrict commercial development until the decision to widen Wellborn Road to its four-lane ultimate configuration is made. 8. Impact on the City’s ability to provide, fund, and maintain services: No indication exists that the City will have any difficulty in providing or funding services to the subject property based on the requested land use and character designation. 9. Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas: There have not been any areas studied as floodplain on the subject lot; however, a change in character in this area could lead to increases in population, traffic, etc. and may impact this natural area. 10. Contribution to the overall direction and character of the community as captured in the Plan’s vision and goals: The goal for College Station’s Future Land Use and Character is to create a community with strong, unique neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a protected and enhanced natural environment. This request recognizes and promotes economic opportunity and the property is located adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. Background 2. Aerial, Small Area Map (SAM), and Future Land Use & Character Map 3. Ordinance 79 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: October 17, 2013 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: November 14, 2013 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Southern Trace HOA Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: Two (2) at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: Two (2) at the time of this report. ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North Estate A-O Agricultural Open Single-family residential South Estate A-O Agricultural Open Single-family residential East Estate A-O Agricultural Open Single-family residential West (across Wellborn Road) Rural N/A (ETJ) Single-family residential DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: June 1995 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open Final Plat: This property is unplatted. Site development: The site is currently undeveloped. 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 17, 2013, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Jodi Warner, Brad Corrier, and Jerome Rektorik COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jim Ross and Bo Miles CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie Schultz CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson, Teresa Rogers, Morgan Hester, Jenifer Paz, Alan Gibbs, Danielle Singh, Erika Bridges, Robin Cross, Timothy Green, and Brittany Caldwell 1. Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order 2. 3. Pledge of Allegiance No one spoke. Hear Citizens 4. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve Meeting Minutes. • September 19, 2013 ~ Workshop • September 19, 2013 ~ Regular 4.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on Absence Requests from meetings. • Jim Ross ~ October 17, 2013 4.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Indian Lakes Phase 17 consisting of 19 residential lots on approximately 36.4 acres generally located east of Matoska Ridge Drive in the Indian Lakes Subdivision, approximately one mile southwest of State Highway 6 South in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Case #13-00900191 (M.Hester) 88 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 4.4 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Creek Meadows Section 3 Phase 1 consisting of 24 residential lots on approximately 5.9 acres generally located at the corner of Creek Meadows Boulevard North and Greens Prairie Trail. Case #12-00500009 (M.Hester) 4.5 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plan for Reatta Corner Subdivision consisting of two commercial lots on approximately 3.661 acres generally located at 4001 Victoria Avenue, southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue. Case #13-00900186 (J.Paz) 4.6 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Reatta Corner Subdivision consisting of two commercial lots on approximately 3.661 acres generally located at 4001 Victoria Avenue, southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue. Case #13-00900187 (J.Paz) 4.7 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Castlegate II Section 103 consisting of 39 single-family residential lots on approximately 9.6 acres generally located at the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Norwich Drive. Case #13-00900181 (M.Robinson) Commissioner Warner motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 4.1 - 4.7 with the addition of Commissioner Miles being added to Item 4.2 for the October 17th meeting. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. Regular Agenda No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a waiver request to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-8.3.H.2, “Platting and Replatting in Older Subdivisions,” regarding average lot width and public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Breezy Heights Addition Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 being a Replat of Breezy Heights Addition 1.26 acres, Block 1 consisting of 4 lots on approximately 1.3 acres located at 900 Hereford Street. Case # 13-00900159 (T.Rogers) Staff Planner Rogers presented the waiver request to average lot width and the replat and recommended approval. Trey Guseman, 3131 Briarcrest Drive Suite 111, Bryan, Texas, stated that the lots were replatted into four lots at an earlier Planning and Zoning meeting, but after speaking with the neighbors decided that the existing historic house would remain and three lots could front Welsh Avenue. Commissioner Corrier motioned to approve the waiver request to average lot width. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 89 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Corrier seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by rezoning approximately 7.4 acres in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No. 7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the same tract of land as described by a deed to Texas A&M Foundation Trust Company, trustee of the Wanona Carol Randolph charitable remainder unitrust recorded in Volume 9361, Page 87 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, more generally located at 2900 North Graham Road from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. Case #13-00900189 (T.Rogers) Staff Planner Rogers presented the rezoning and recommended approval. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Institutional/Public to General Commercial for approximately 4.4 acres for the property located at 1600 University Drive East at the corner of University Drive East and Glenhaven Drive. Case #13-00900196 (M.Hester) Staff Planner Hester presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and gave the following options for action: • Denial – The property would remain Institutional/Public as currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan; • Accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation; • Propose an alternative land use and character designation for the property. 90 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding buffer requirements. Jesse Durden, 2809 Earl Rudder Freeway South, College Station, Texas, gave a presentation in support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and stated that the property is a great location for a General Commercial use because of it being a gateway into the City. He also said that General Commercial conforms with the existing uses on University Drive. Cully Lipsey, 1021 University Drive East, College Station, Texas, representing Scott & White, read letters from Pappas and Scott & White. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Janet Fanguy, 705 Summerglen, College Station, Texas, expressed concern about the potential of a restaurant being located on the property and the traffic and noise that would produce. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. There was more discussion amongst the Commission regarding buffers. Commissioner Corrier motioned to recommend that the City Council accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, then withdrew his motion, then seconded the motion again, motion passed (4-0) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Estate to General Commercial for approximately 5.4 acres for the property located at 1201 Norton Lane at the corner of Wellborn Road and Norton Lane. Case #13-00900193 (M.Hester) Staff Planner Hester presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and gave the following options for action: • Denial – The property would remain Institutional/Public as currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan; • Accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation; • Propose an alternative land use and character designation for the property. J L Taylor, representative for the church, said that there were inquires on the property, but only for commercial, not residential. The concerns were the railroad tracks and FM 2154. There was general discussion amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 91 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Ray Bomnskie, 4691 River Valley Drive, College Station, Texas, said that the property would be difficult to sell with the Estate designation due to the property being located next to a mobile home park and its proximity to the railroad tracks. Janette Dale, 3130 Norton Lane, College Station, Texas, stated that she was opposed to a large-commercial development on the property. Juan Rocha, 14097 FM 2154, College Station, Texas, stated that he felt that the property is better suited for a residential development. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the rezoning. Commissioner Corrier motioned to recommend that the City Council accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (3-1). Commissioner Rektorik was in opposition. 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. (B.Cowell) Executive Director Cowell gave an overview of the item. Principal Planner Prochazka presented the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Ron Gay, 1106 Deacon Drive, College Station, Texas, representing St. Thomas Aquinas Church, stated that the church would like a larger sign. Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional Court, College Station, Texas, requested a change to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he was currently developing Aggieland Business Park and recently acquired a 5.5-acre tract on State Highway 47 that he was interested in changing from Business Park to General Commercial. John Dylan, 351 Adriatic Parkway, McKinney, Texas, stated that he was the owner of the 20-acre tract adjacent to Mr. Jett’s property. He said that he was in support and concurred with Mr. Jett’s recommendation for the land use to be changed from Business Park to General Commercial. Kim Eubanks, 351 Adriatic Parkway, McKinney, Texas, bought the property 6 years ago with Mr. Dylan and agreed that the land use be changed to General Commercial. 92 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. The Commission concurred with the potential land use change from Business Park to General Commercial and said that it could be considered as part of a study of the area. 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion regarding future agenda items. 12. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services 93 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item #3 1600 University Drive East Comprehensive Plan Amendment To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Institution/Public to General Commercial for the property located at 1600 University Drive East; approximately 4.4 acres at the corner of University Drive and Glenhaven Drive. Relationship to Strategic Initiatives: Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse Growing Economy, Sustainable City Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing for this item at their October 17, 2013 meeting where they recommended 4-0 approval. Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map amendments: REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Changed or changing conditions in the subject area or the City: The subject tract is designated as Institutional/Public and properties immediately surrounding the area have been identified as Neighborhood Conservation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map. The current development on the subject property is operated by Scott & White and the applicant has stated that due to the relocation and expansion of the core Scott & White operations to the City’s Medical District, the offices will be relocating and this property would be better suited as a commercial land use. 2. Scope of the request: This request is located in an area that is designated as Institutional/Public on the Comprehensive Plan and buffers an adjacent Neighborhood Conservation land use designation from University Drive. The request is to introduce a commercial land use and character into an area that is suburban in character. This request would enable a land use that is more intense than surrounding land uses south of University Drive East and enable traffic generation in excess of current uses. 3. Availability of adequate information: The existing water/waste water facilities are able to support a development with densities comparable to those north of University Drive East. Staff can determine trips generated by the proposed land use and subtract trips already generated by current use to assess impact. Additionally, Staff has 2009 TxDOT traffic counts on University Drive and 2011 projected traffic volumes created by the Travel Demand Model. Results will be discussed later. 94 4. Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the Plan: The goal for College Station’s Future Land Use and Character is to create a community with strong, unique neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a protected and enhanced natural environment. Relevant Strategies identified in the Plan to achieve this goal include: • Establish and protect distinct boundaries between various character areas: o University Drive currently serves as a district boundary between intense general commercial development and a more suburban development in the area of the subject tract. o The current Future Land Use and Character Map depicts retaining the surrounding neighborhood as a Neighborhood Conservation area. Additionally, The Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay was put in place to maintain its character. o The proposed land use and character designation would permit dense commercial character adjacent to a Neighborhood Conservation area. • Promote public and private development and design practices that ensure distinct neighborhoods, districts, and corridors: o In 2008, a single-family overlay was put in place on the neighborhood that immediately abuts the subject property, Phase 3 of the Glenhaven Estates Subdivision. The intent of the overlay is to put additional restrictions on new construction, redevelopment, or additions to any structure within the Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay according to the median pattern of development in the neighborhood. • Provide a diversified economy generating quality, stable, full-time jobs; bolstering the sales and property tax base; and contributing to a high quality of life: o The proposed land use amendment would generate jobs to stimulate the local economy, bolster sales and the tax base. o Existing underutilized General Commercial land use areas are located within the immediate vicinity of this property. • Provide improved mobility though a safe, efficient, and well-connected multi- modal transportation system designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses: o The proposed General Commercial land use and the existing Institutional/Public land uses generate different trip rates and so must be evaluated against the capacity of the current transportation network. The current land use designation is Institutional/Public and generates approximately 749 vehicles per day (VPD). The proposed General Commercial land use designation may generate approximately 2,200 VPD, a net increase of 1,451 VPD. TxDOT’s 2009 traffic counts along University Drive East in this area are 34,000 VPD and the City’s travel demand model projected to 2011 indicates a volume of 42,000 VPD. In this area, 95 University Drive East has a capacity of 60,000 VPD with a Level of Service (LOS) “D” being at 50,000 VPD. University Drive East’s capacity is sufficient; however, changes will have to be made to the traffic signal timing along this corridor. 5. Consideration of the Future Land Use & Character and/or Thoroughfare Plans: The proposed General Commercial designation is for an intense level of development activity and consists of uses permitted in the General Commercial zoning district. The applicant states as a justification for the request that the Scott & White clinic will relocate to the new hospital in the Medical District, leaving this property with an office land use that will no longer be marketable. Adjacent property, across Glenhaven Drive, owned by the same party is currently zoned General Commercial though also designated Institutional/Public on the Comprehensive Plan. A Suburban Commercial land use and character desgination is intended for properties that are commercially marketable, but adjacent to single-family uses. This designation was created with the intent of being sensitive to residential areas by considering the relationship of the two land uses. Two examples of this type of land use designation buffering neighborhoods from high-classification roadways are Edelweiss Gardens, located along Rock Prairie Road, and the Raintree subdivision, located off of State Highway 6. The Thoroughfare Plan designations for University Drive and Glenhaven Drive need not change in context or classification due to the proposed land use. University Drive East’s capacity is sufficient; however, changes will have to be made to the traffic signal timing along this corridor. 6. Compatibility with the surrounding area: As stated previously, the subject property is located in an area designated as Institutional/Public that currently abuts a single- family area. The current land use acts as a buffer between areas designated Neighborhood Conservation from University Drive East. Permitted development within this designation is office (as the property is currently zoned), small-scale retail, or institutional developments such as schools or libraries. With the proposed General Commercial land use and character designation, an increased amount of traffic can be expected. The Unified Development Ordinance requires screening and buffering to adjacent properties. Permitted development would include all uses within the General Commercial zoning district. 7. Impacts on infrastructure including water, wastewater, drainage, and the transportation network: Water service to the tract may be provided by an existing 16-inch water main running along the south side of University Drive East and an 8-inch waterline along the west side of Glenhaven Drive. Domestic and fire flow demands may necessitate future water main extensions at the time of site development. There are currently two 8-inch sanitary sewer mains extending across Glenhaven Drive to serve the property. The proposed General Commercial land use may create more intensity; 96 however, preliminary analysis of the system has indicated that there is available capacity to serve this type of development. The subject tract is located in the Carters Creek drainage basin. No portion of the property has been designated FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. Development of the subject tract will be required to meet the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Design Guidelines, and site development impacts on the drainage system will be evaluated further at that time. The current land use designation is Institutional/Public and generates approximately 749 vehicles per day (VPD). The proposed General Commercial land use designation may generate approximately 2,200 VPD, a net increase of 1,451 VPD. TxDOT’s 2009 traffic counts along University Drive East in this area are 34,000 VPD and the City’s travel demand model projected to 2011 indicates a volume of 42,000 VPD. In this area, University Drive East has a capacity of 60,000 VPD with a level of service (LOS) “D” being at 50,000 VPD. University Drive East’s capacity is sufficient; however, changes will have to be made to the traffic signal timing along this corridor. 8. Impact on the City’s ability to provide, fund, and maintain services: No indication exists that the City will have any difficulty in providing or funding services to the subject property based on the requested land use and character designation. 9. Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas: The subject tract is located in the Carters Creek drainage basin. No portion of the property has been designated FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. 10. Contribution to the overall direction and character of the community as captured in the Plan’s vision and goals: The goal for College Station’s Future Land Use and Character is to create a community with strong, unique neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a protected and enhanced natural environment. Additionally, the Economic Development goal for College Station is to provide a diversified economy generating quality, stable, full -time jobs; bolstering the sales and property tax base; and contributing to a high quality of life. This request recognizes and promotes economic opportunity and the property is located adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. Background 2. Aerial, Small Area Map (SAM), and Future Land Use & Character Map 3. Ordinance 97 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: October 17, 2013 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: November 14, 2013 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Summerglen HOA Post Oak Forest HOA Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: Three (3) at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: Four (4) at the time of this report. ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North (across University Drive East) General Commercial General Commercial with OV Corridor Overlay Restaurants and retail South Neighborhood Conservation T Townhome with NPO Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay Glenhaven Estates (Single-family residential) East (across Glenhaven Drive) Institutional/Public General Commercial with OV Corridor Overlay Scott & White Clinic West Neighborhood Conservation T Townhome with NPO Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay Glenhaven Estates (Single-family residential) DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: August 1958 Zoning: O Office with OV Corridor Overlay Final Plat: June 1985 Glenhaven Estates Phase 6 Site development: Scott & White Offices 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 17, 2013, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Jodi Warner, Brad Corrier, and Jerome Rektorik COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jim Ross and Bo Miles CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie Schultz CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson, Teresa Rogers, Morgan Hester, Jenifer Paz, Alan Gibbs, Danielle Singh, Erika Bridges, Robin Cross, Timothy Green, and Brittany Caldwell 1. Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order 2. 3. Pledge of Allegiance No one spoke. Hear Citizens 4. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve Meeting Minutes. • September 19, 2013 ~ Workshop • September 19, 2013 ~ Regular 4.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on Absence Requests from meetings. • Jim Ross ~ October 17, 2013 4.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Indian Lakes Phase 17 consisting of 19 residential lots on approximately 36.4 acres generally located east of Matoska Ridge Drive in the Indian Lakes Subdivision, approximately one mile southwest of State Highway 6 South in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Case #13-00900191 (M.Hester) 106 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 4.4 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Creek Meadows Section 3 Phase 1 consisting of 24 residential lots on approximately 5.9 acres generally located at the corner of Creek Meadows Boulevard North and Greens Prairie Trail. Case #12-00500009 (M.Hester) 4.5 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plan for Reatta Corner Subdivision consisting of two commercial lots on approximately 3.661 acres generally located at 4001 Victoria Avenue, southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue. Case #13-00900186 (J.Paz) 4.6 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Reatta Corner Subdivision consisting of two commercial lots on approximately 3.661 acres generally located at 4001 Victoria Avenue, southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue. Case #13-00900187 (J.Paz) 4.7 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Castlegate II Section 103 consisting of 39 single-family residential lots on approximately 9.6 acres generally located at the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Norwich Drive. Case #13-00900181 (M.Robinson) Commissioner Warner motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 4.1 - 4.7 with the addition of Commissioner Miles being added to Item 4.2 for the October 17th meeting. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. Regular Agenda No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a waiver request to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-8.3.H.2, “Platting and Replatting in Older Subdivisions,” regarding average lot width and public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Breezy Heights Addition Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1 being a Replat of Breezy Heights Addition 1.26 acres, Block 1 consisting of 4 lots on approximately 1.3 acres located at 900 Hereford Street. Case # 13-00900159 (T.Rogers) Staff Planner Rogers presented the waiver request to average lot width and the replat and recommended approval. Trey Guseman, 3131 Briarcrest Drive Suite 111, Bryan, Texas, stated that the lots were replatted into four lots at an earlier Planning and Zoning meeting, but after speaking with the neighbors decided that the existing historic house would remain and three lots could front Welsh Avenue. Commissioner Corrier motioned to approve the waiver request to average lot width. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 107 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Corrier seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by rezoning approximately 7.4 acres in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No. 7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the same tract of land as described by a deed to Texas A&M Foundation Trust Company, trustee of the Wanona Carol Randolph charitable remainder unitrust recorded in Volume 9361, Page 87 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, more generally located at 2900 North Graham Road from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. Case #13-00900189 (T.Rogers) Staff Planner Rogers presented the rezoning and recommended approval. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Institutional/Public to General Commercial for approximately 4.4 acres for the property located at 1600 University Drive East at the corner of University Drive East and Glenhaven Drive. Case #13-00900196 (M.Hester) Staff Planner Hester presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and gave the following options for action: • Denial – The property would remain Institutional/Public as currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan; • Accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation; • Propose an alternative land use and character designation for the property. 108 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding buffer requirements. Jesse Durden, 2809 Earl Rudder Freeway South, College Station, Texas, gave a presentation in support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and stated that the property is a great location for a General Commercial use because of it being a gateway into the City. He also said that General Commercial conforms with the existing uses on University Drive. Cully Lipsey, 1021 University Drive East, College Station, Texas, representing Scott & White, read letters from Pappas and Scott & White. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Janet Fanguy, 705 Summerglen, College Station, Texas, expressed concern about the potential of a restaurant being located on the property and the traffic and noise that would produce. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. There was more discussion amongst the Commission regarding buffers. Commissioner Corrier motioned to recommend that the City Council accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, then withdrew his motion, then seconded the motion again, motion passed (4-0) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Estate to General Commercial for approximately 5.4 acres for the property located at 1201 Norton Lane at the corner of Wellborn Road and Norton Lane. Case #13-00900193 (M.Hester) Staff Planner Hester presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and gave the following options for action: • Denial – The property would remain Institutional/Public as currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan; • Accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation; • Propose an alternative land use and character designation for the property. J L Taylor, representative for the church, said that there were inquires on the property, but only for commercial, not residential. The concerns were the railroad tracks and FM 2154. There was general discussion amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 109 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Ray Bomnskie, 4691 River Valley Drive, College Station, Texas, said that the property would be difficult to sell with the Estate designation due to the property being located next to a mobile home park and its proximity to the railroad tracks. Janette Dale, 3130 Norton Lane, College Station, Texas, stated that she was opposed to a large-commercial development on the property. Juan Rocha, 14097 FM 2154, College Station, Texas, stated that he felt that the property is better suited for a residential development. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the rezoning. Commissioner Corrier motioned to recommend that the City Council accept the applicant’s proposal of amending the Comprehensive Plan to a General Commercial designation. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (3-1). Commissioner Rektorik was in opposition. 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. (B.Cowell) Executive Director Cowell gave an overview of the item. Principal Planner Prochazka presented the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. Ron Gay, 1106 Deacon Drive, College Station, Texas, representing St. Thomas Aquinas Church, stated that the church would like a larger sign. Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional Court, College Station, Texas, requested a change to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he was currently developing Aggieland Business Park and recently acquired a 5.5-acre tract on State Highway 47 that he was interested in changing from Business Park to General Commercial. John Dylan, 351 Adriatic Parkway, McKinney, Texas, stated that he was the owner of the 20-acre tract adjacent to Mr. Jett’s property. He said that he was in support and concurred with Mr. Jett’s recommendation for the land use to be changed from Business Park to General Commercial. Kim Eubanks, 351 Adriatic Parkway, McKinney, Texas, bought the property 6 years ago with Mr. Dylan and agreed that the land use be changed to General Commercial. 110 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. The Commission concurred with the potential land use change from Business Park to General Commercial and said that it could be considered as part of a study of the area. 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion regarding future agenda items. 12. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services 111 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 4 Cedar Creek Plaza Rezoning To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by approximately 7.4 acres in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No. 7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the same tract of land as described by a deed to Texas A&M Foundation Trust Company, trustee of the Wanona Carol Randolph charitable remainder unitrust recorded in Volume 9361, Page 87 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, more generally located at 2900 North Graham Road from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their October 17, 2013 meeting and voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Staff also recommended approval of the request. Summary: This request is to rezone the property from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map amendments: REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated as Business Park on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map. The proposed rezoning is consistent with this designation in addition to the land use designations surrounding the subject tract which include Business Park and Suburban Commercial. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: The proposed rezoning will allow for the development permitted in BPI Business Park Industrial which is intended to generate lower traffic counts and be located in an area designated as Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent properties to the north, west, and south are designated as Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties which have developed to the east contain retail sales and service, warehousing, and fabrication uses, which are compatible with the BPI Business Park Industrial designation. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The proposed rezoning for uses permitted by the district is appropriate for this area due to its location and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The 112 current PDD zoning of the property allows Research and Development uses that are similar to the permitted uses allowed in BPI Business Park Industrial; however the applicant has stated the PDD concept plan does not allow flexibility in the location and amount of these permitted uses, which would be allowed by the BPI zoning district. The PDD was created in 2011, since that time the BPI zoning district was created for business park designations in September 2012. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The applicant has stated the property has been difficult to market with the present PDD zoning. It does not allow flexibility in the amount and location of the permitted uses. The applicant feels the permitted uses allowed under the proposed zoning would be in demand and marketable in the City of College Station. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: Water service will be provided by Wellborn Special Utility District. Sanitary sewer lines will need to be extended with site development to tie into an existing 12-inch wastewater main along Rock Prairie Road West. There is adequate sanitary sewer capacity in the downstream system to accommodate the proposed zoning. Drainage is generally to the southwest within the Hopes Creek Drainage Basin. Drainage and other public infrastructure required with site development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. North Graham Road is classified as a two-lane major collector on the Thoroughfare Plan, though it is currently constructed to a rural roadway section. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. Background Information 2. Aerial & Small Area Map (SAM) 3. Rezoning Map 4. Draft P&Z Commission Meeting Minutes 5. Ordinance 113 BACKGROUND INFORMATION NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: October 17, 2013 Advertised Council Hearing Date: November 14, 2013 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: The Barracks HOA Buena Vida HOA Williamsgate HOA Property owner notices mailed: 5 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report. ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Zoning Land Use North Business Park R Rural Vacant South (across N. Graham Rd.) Business Park R Rural Residential and Agricultural East Suburban Commercial PDD Planned Development District and CI Commercial Industrial Retail West Business Park R Rural Manufactured Home DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: November 2002 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open (upon annexation) PDD Planned Development District (August 2011) Final Plat: This property is currently unplatted. Site development: Vacant 114 115 116 117 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 17, 2013, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Jodi Warner, Brad Corrier, and Jerome Rektorik COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jim Ross and Bo Miles CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie Schultz CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson, Morgan Hester, Jenifer Paz, Alan Gibbs, Danielle Singh, Erika Bridges, Robin Cross, Timothy Green, and Brittany Caldwell 1. Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by rezoning approximately 7.4 acres in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No. 7, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the same tract of land as described by a deed to Texas A&M Foundation Trust Company, trustee of the Wanona Carol Randolph charitable remainder unitrust recorded in Volume 9361, Page 87 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, more generally located at 2900 North Graham Road from PDD Planned Development District to BPI Business Park Industrial. Case #13-00900189 (T.Rogers) Regular Agenda Staff Planner Rogers presented the rezoning and recommended approval. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0). 118 October 17, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 12. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services 119 120 121 122 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 5 Impact Fee Update – Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, and 03-02 To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 15, “Impact Fees”, amending the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan and updating water and wastewater impact fees in Service Areas 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, and 03-02 Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure, and a Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): At their meeting on September 19th, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, unanimously recommended acceptance of the report to update the fees. Summary: At the September 26, 2013 Council Meeting, the City Council approved a resolution to set a public hearing for this meeting to evaluate impact fees and a proposal to amend the associated land use assumptions and capital improvements plan as required by state law every 5 years. If approved, this item will amend Chapter 15, “Impact Fees” of the Code of Ordinances. The affected impact fees are 92-01 (Graham Road – Sewer), 97-01 (Spring Creek – Sewer), 97-02B (Alum Creek Sewer), 99-01 (Harley Water), and 03-02 (Steeplechase). The “Water and Wastewater Impact Fees” Report was prepared by our consultant Rimrock Consulting Company. This report contains the technical data which is the basis for the 2013-2023 fee calculation: land use and planning data, unit usage statistics and capital improvements plan. Actual fee calculation is shown in Section 3.0 of the report, specifically note Tables 3-2A through 3-2E. Current fees and proposed maximum fee calculated in the subject report are provided below. Impact Fee Area Effective Buildout LUE Anticipated Buildout LUE LUE Adjustment Current Impact Fee Rate Proposed Impact Fee Rate 92-01 Graham 1551 1710 + 159 $ 316.07 $339.63 97-01 Spring Creek 4425 8565 + 4140 $ 98.39 $144.01 97-02B Alum 3232 2656 - 576 $ 59.42 $44.71 99-01 Harley 450 396 - 54 $ 769.91 $996.03 03-02 Steeplechase 2838 7051 + 4213 $ 357.74 $144.87 * per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) A summary of the Water and Wastewater impact Fees Report is provided in the attached 5- Year Update Report. Note the above “Proposed Fees” are the maximum fee allowed based on the updated analysis, however Council may chose to enact fees less than the maximum. Also note that the Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee as defined by ordinance. As attested to by the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the attached 5-year Update Report, on September 19, 2013 the 123 Advisory Committee unanimously recommended the report be forwarded to City Council and supported the information in the report to update the impact fees. Budget & Financial Summary: This update proposes maximum fees for 97-02B and 03- 02-01 to be decreased from the current fees. The future revenue expected to be recovered if the maximum fee is adopted is $103,638 and $938,033, respectively. As of report date $22,306 and $135,436 have been collected, respectively. The proposed maximum fees for 92-01, 97-01 and 99-01; however, are increased from the current fees. The future revenue expected to be recovered if the maximum fee is adopted is $43,473, $844,043, and $279,884, respectively. This would increase the recovery $3,016, $267,379, and $63,540, respectively from the current fees. As of report date $323,502, $582,099, and $64,741 have been collected, respectively. Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. “Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update” Report by Rimrock Consulting Company 2. 5-Year Update Report Memo – Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, and 03-02. 3. Ordinance 124 1 RIMROCK Consulting Company WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE The City of College Station Rimrock Consulting Company PO Box 163643 Austin, TX 78716 512-442-1435 rimrok@earthlink.net 125 D13-0242.01 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE The City of College Station City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840-2499 979-764-3500 Prepared by: Rimrock Consulting Company PO Box 163643 Austin, TX 78716 512-442-1435 Contact: Mickey Fishbeck, AICP rimrok@earthlink.net September, 2013 © Rimrock Consulting Company, 2013 126 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 1 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE The City of College Station 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 70th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 336 (subsequently Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code) regulating various types of utility fees, defined in the legislation as "impact fees". Such fees include not only traditional impact fees, but also lot, acreage, frontage and other typical utility fees, as well as facility dedication requirements. The legislation laid out very specific requirements for the technical development of impact fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of impact fee programs. College Station has five small-area impact fees for water and sewer lines in defined subareas of the City. This report represents an update of these programs (as required by Chapter 395 every five years) with a new planning period: 2013-2023. Section 2.0 of this report contains the technical data which is the basis for the 2013-2023 fee calculation: land use and planning data, unit usage statistics and capital improvements plan. Actual fee calculation is shown in Section 3.0. That discussion presents a particular fee development model - - the Equity Residual Model -- which responds to the requirements of Chapter 395 and constitutional issues. Section 4.0 contains recommendations from the consultants and the Advisory Committee. Section 5.0 contains a copy of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, and Section 6.0 contains various administrative documents (resolution and public notices). Finally, references are provided in Section 7.0. 127 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 2 2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR FEE CALCULATION This chapter presents water and wastewater impact fee technical development. Impact fee areas are 92-01 (Graham Road Sewer Extension); 97-01 (Spring Creek Sewer Line); 97-02B (Alum Creek Sewer Line); 99-01 (Harley Water Line); and 03-02 (Steeplechase Sewer Line). 2.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS Chapter 395 requires the following in the land use and planning assumptions: • Definition of the service area • Projections in changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population within the service area for the next 10 years and full buildout • Land use assumptions differentiated by at least residential, commercial and industrial land uses The following sections provide a discussion of these assumptions. 2.1.1 Service Area Definition Figure 2-1 illustrates the impact fee service areas. The service areas represent the general geographic basis for planning the utility capital improvement programs, used to formulate the fees. 2.1.2 Land Use Assumptions Table 2-1 shows current and projected land use assumptions for area impact service area. City Staff calculated the approximate current acreages of land uses for residential, commercial and industrial land uses as well as various other land uses. Land uses for 2013 and for full buildout were provided by Staff; land uses for 2023 were interpolated. There are five parts of the land use table: Table 2-1A presents data for Area 92-01 (Graham Road Sewer Extension); Table 2-1B is for Area 97-01 (Spring Creek Sewer Line); 97-02B (Alum Creek Sewer Line) is shown in Table 2-1C; 99-01 (Harley Water Line) is portrayed in Table 2-1D; and Table 2-1E represents 03-02 (Steeplechase Sewer Line). Maps provided by City staff also show planned buildout land uses for each area from the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 128 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 3 Figure 2-1: Impact Fee Service Areas 129 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 4 TABLE 2-1A POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2013 2023 Full Buildout LAND USE ACRES %ACRES %ACRES % Business Park 15.2 3.02%20.5 4.07%24.3 4.81% General Suburban 196.6 38.93%196.8 38.97%196.9 38.99% Institutional/Public 38.3 7.58%38.3 7.58%38.3 7.58% Medical Use 0.0 0.00%8.8 1.75%15.0 2.97% Natural Areas - Protected 0.0 0.00%15.9 3.15%27.0 5.35% Natural Areas - Reserved 0.0 0.00%4.0 0.79%6.8 1.35% Neigborhood Conservation 15.2 3.01%15.3 3.02%15.3 3.03% Suburban Commercial 66.6 13.19%70.8 14.02%73.7 14.59% Urban 16.9 3.35%16.9 3.35%16.9 3.35% Right-of-Way 90.8 17.99%90.8 17.99%90.8 17.99% Subtotal Developed Land Uses 439.7 87.06%478.1 94.67%505.0 100.00% Undeveloped 65.3 12.94%26.9 5.33%0.0 0.00% TOTAL GROSS ACRES 505.0 100.00%505.0 100.00%505.0 100.00% Population 2,725 2,725 2,725 Population per Urban Acres 6.20 5.70 5.40 Population per Total Acres 5.40 5.40 5.40 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 92 01 Graham Rd Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 9 3).xlsx.. Assumes full buildout by 2030, per Jennifer Prochazka, 8 30 2013. Figure 2-2: Current Land Uses, Graham Road Sewer Figure 2-3: Future Land Uses, Graham Road Sewer 130 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 5 TABLE 2-1B POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2013 2023 Full Buildout LAND USE ACRES %ACRES %ACRES % Estate 112.7 4.70%113.7 4.74%117.8 4.91% General Commercial 37.9 1.58%42.4 1.77%60.3 2.52% General Suburban 296.1 12.35%307.4 12.82%352.5 14.71% Institutional/Public 70.0 2.92%70.7 2.95%73.6 3.07% Medical 0.0 0.00%17.1 0.71%85.7 3.58% Natural Areas - Protected 0.0 0.00%21.4 0.89%107.2 4.47% Natural Areas - Reserved 0.0 0.00%53.4 2.23%267.6 11.16% Restricted Suburban 261.7 10.92%319.0 13.31%548.6 22.89% Suburban Commercial 31.1 1.30%36.2 1.51%56.7 2.37% Urban 38.6 1.61%84.1 3.51%266.4 11.11% Utilities 1.3 0.05%1.3 0.05%1.3 0.05% Village Center 0.0 0.00%12.3 0.51%61.5 2.57% Right-of-Way 394.0 16.44%394.0 16.44%394.0 16.44% Subtotal Developed Land Uses 1,243.4 51.87%1,473.0 61.45%2,393.2 99.84% Undeveloped 1,153.6 48.13%924.0 38.55%3.8 0.16% TOTAL GROSS ACRES 2,397.0 100.00%2,397.0 100.00%2,397.0 100.00% Population 5,193 6,525 11,864 Population per Urban Acres 4.18 4.43 4.96 Population per Total Acres 2.17 2.72 4.95 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 01 Springcreek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx. Figure 2-4: Current Land Uses, Spring Creek Sewer Line Figure 2-5: Future Land Uses, Spring Creek Sewer Line 131 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 6 TABLE 2-1C POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR AREA 97-01B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2013 2023 Full Buildout LAND USE ACRES %ACRES %ACRES % Business Park 1.2 0.16%13.8 1.83%24.1 3.20% Estate 0.0 0.00%3.0 0.40%5.4 0.72% General Suburban 6.0 0.80%132.9 17.68%236.7 31.48% Natural Areas - Protected 0.0 0.00%2.4 0.32%4.4 0.59% Natural Areas - Reserved 0.0 0.00%64.5 8.58%117.3 15.60% Restricted Suburban 28.9 3.84%92.1 12.24%143.7 19.11% Rural 0.2 0.03%0.2 0.03%0.2 0.03% Suburban Commercial 0.0 0.00%0.1 0.01%0.2 0.03% Urban 55.4 7.37%75.8 10.07%92.4 12.29% Utilities 9.7 1.29%9.7 1.29%9.7 1.29% Right-of-Way 107.1 14.24%107.1 14.24%107.1 14.24% Subtotal Developed Land Uses 208.5 27.73%501.6 66.70%741.2 98.57% Undeveloped 543.5 72.27%250.4 33.30%10.8 1.43% TOTAL GROSS ACRES 752.0 100.00%752.0 100.00%752.0 100.00% Population 183 2,306 4,042 Population per Urban Acres 0.88 4.60 5.45 Population per Total Acres 0.24 3.07 5.38 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 02B Alum Creek Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. Figure 2-6: Current Land Uses, Alum Creek Sewer Line Figure 2-7: Future Land Uses, Alum Creek Sewer Line 132 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 7 TABLE 2-1D POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE WATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2013 2023 Full Buildout LAND USE ACRES %ACRES %ACRES % General Commercial 8.0 5.16%9.2 5.94%23.0 14.84% General Suburban 0.0 0.00%0.2 0.15%0.6 0.39% Medical Use 12.9 8.32%19.6 12.65%49.0 31.61% Natural Areas - Reserved 0.0 0.00%5.1 3.28%12.7 8.19% Suburban Commercial 1.0 0.65%26.3 16.98%65.8 42.45% Right-of-Way 3.9 2.52%3.9 2.52%3.9 2.52% Subtotal Developed Land Uses 25.8 16.65%64.3 41.51%155.0 100.00% Undeveloped 129.2 83.35%90.7 58.49%0.0 0.00% TOTAL GROSS ACRES 155.0 100.00%155.0 100.00%155.0 100.00% Population 0 0 0 Population per Urban Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 Population per Total Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 99 01 Harley Water Line (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. Figure 2-8: Existing Land Uses, Harley Water Line Figure 2-9: Future Land Uses, Harley Water Line 133 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 8 TABLE 2-1E POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2013 2023 Full Buildout LAND USE ACRES %ACRES %ACRES % Business Park 0.2 0.03%12.4 1.60%23.6 3.05% Estate 0.0 0.03%0.1 0.02%0.1 0.01% General Suburban 74.1 9.57%151.6 19.58%222.8 28.78% Restricted Suburban 8.1 1.05%68.4 8.84%123.9 16.00% Rural 0.1 0.01%0.3 0.03%0.4 0.05% Suburban Commercial 14.3 1.85%17.3 2.24%20.1 2.60% Urban 76.8 9.92%198.0 25.57%309.4 39.96% Right-of-Way 74.0 9.56%74.0 9.56%74.0 9.56% Subtotal Developed Land Uses 247.6 31.98%522.1 67.43%774.3 100.00% Undeveloped 526.7 68.02%252.2 32.57%0.0 0.00% TOTAL GROSS ACRES 774.3 100.00%774.3 100.00%774.3 100.00% Population 911 8,259 15,016 Population per Urban Acres 3.68 15.82 19.39 Population per Total Acres 1.18 10.67 19.39 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 03 02 Steeplechase Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. Figure 2-10: Existing Land Uses, Steeplechase Sewer Line Figure 2-11: Future Land Uses, Steeplechase Sewer Line 134 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 9 2.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLAN Chapter 395 requires the following elements be included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) used as the basis for impact fees: • Table of service usage for each category of capital improvements and a conversion table of service units per acre (or other measure) of at least residential, commercial and industrial land uses • Projections of total service units for new development, within the service area: ≅ At full buildout ≅ Within 10 years or less • Description of existing capital improvements, including: ≅ Existing capital improvements within the service area ≅ Analysis of total capacity of existing improvements ≅ Analysis of current usage of existing improvements ≅ Analysis of commitments for usage of existing capacity ≅ Costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace for existing needs • Description of capital improvements needed to serve new development within the next 10 years or less (based on adopted service area, land use and unit usage assumptions), including: ≅ All or portions of the existing CIP ≅ All or portions of the future CIP ≅ Costs associated with both existing and future CIP facilities needed for new development In addition, the legislation provides that the CIP may include construction price, survey and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including "soft" costs), and the costs of consulting work to the develop Chapter 395 fees. This section provides those components of the impact fee study. 2.2.1 Table of Service Usage Various assumptions used in the development of the CIP are shown in Table 2-2. This constitutes a “table of service usage for each category of capital improvements”. 135 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 10 Table 2-2 CAPACITY DEMAND FOR EACH NEW LUE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION AREA BASIS CAPACITY PER LUE FOR WATER/SEWER LINES Area 92-01 Graham Road Sewer Line Peak Day 1,068 gallons daily Area 97-01 Spring Creek Sewer Line Peak Day 1,068 gallons daily Area 97-02B Alum Creek Sewer Line Peak Day 1,068 gallons daily Area 99-01 Harley Water Line Peak Day 668 gallons daily Area 03-02 Steeplechase Sewer Line Peak Day 1,068 gallons daily SOURCE: College Station City Staff. 2.2.2 Conversion Tables Section 395.014(a)(4) of the Impact Fee Act requires: . . . an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial . . . Two different types of conversion tables are used. The first, Table 2-3, shows conversion of land uses into living units equivalent. The second, Table 2-4, shows the manner of fee collection, which is based on the size of the water meter (for both water and sewer fees). 2.2.2.1 Converting Projected Land Uses into Projected Living Units Equivalent Table 2-3 shows the number of LUE’s per acre for various types of land uses for each service area. These revise the figures in the impact fee ordinance, based on the new Comprehensive Plan, as interpreted by City Staff. These conversions are used to project growth in LUE’s over the next ten years, based on changes in land uses in each of the service areas. 136 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 11 Table 2-3 CONVERSION OF LAND USES TO LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LUEs PER ACRE (a) LAND USE Water Sewer Harley Graham Spring Crk Alum Crk Steeplechase Business Park 2.00 2.00 2.00 Estate 1.00 1.00 1.00 General Commercial 5.50 5.50 General Suburban 8.00 6.97 6.97 8.00 Institutional/Public 2.50 2.50 Medical 5.55 5.55 5.50 Natural Areas - Protected Natural Areas - Reserved Neighborhood Conservation 4.00 Restricted Suburban 4.00 4.11 4.00 Rural 0.33 0.33 Suburban Commercial 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 Urban 5.92 5.92 20.00 Utilities Village Center 35.00 Reserved from Development Right-of-Way Undeveloped Sources: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 01 Springcreek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx; College Station Impact Fee Update 92 01 Graham Rd Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 9 3).xlsx; College Station Impact Fee Update 03 02 Steeplechase Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx; College Station Impact Fee Update 99 01 Harley Water Line (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx; and College Station Impact Fee Update 97 02B Alum Creek Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. Not all uses are found in all areas. 137 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 12 2.2.2.2 Converting Water Meter Size to Living Units Equivalent for Fee Collection Table 2-4 illustrates the use of water meters of various sizes in determining the LUE capacity for any individual customer, used for both water and sewer, for all classes of customers. Water meter size was selected as the unit determinant for fee collection for the following reasons: • It allows the use of an American Water Works Association (AWWA) published standard. • This standard includes both safe continuous flow and safe maximum flow which will thereby accommodate all requests for service. • These standards are those used by building owners, professional engineers and architects, and City staff for sizing meters and plumbing fixtures. • Meters are a physical element which can be maintained and controlled by the City, thus allowing the monitoring of the accuracy of meter sizing. • The City can require any necessary replacement of meters which can be shown to have been sized to small for a development and collect additional impact fees required by the change in meters. • Particularly in the larger meter sizes, the builder may have to pay for more capacity than needed for the development, thus resulting in a potential payment above actual costs. However, these large-meter customers will be able to use that excess capacity if later building expansions occur or if use patterns change. Moreover, the capacity purchased would be a marketable amenity which would add value to the property. • The use of water meter size allows equitable cost assignment to each of the three customer classes identified in Chapter 395 (residential, commercial and industrial). Since water meter size is the basis for calculation of both water and wastewater fees, the base fee should be applied to the smallest meter size used by the City. The following policies were suggested by the Consultants: • The standard used for the ratio of the continuous duty maximum flow rate would be derived from AWWA C700-C703 (in gpm). • The City's smallest water meter (5/8") would be the base unit for impact fee assessment. (The use of this water meter has been discontinued by the City, and all new or replacement meters will be ¾” in diameter. However, 10 gpm (the capacity of the 5/8” meter) is equivalent to one LUE according to City engineers. Thus the table of equivalencies will remain the same, and since no customer can purchase a 5/8” meter in the future, the ¾” meter will, by policy, be charged for one LUE of service.) 138 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 13 • The ratio of each larger meter's continuous duty maximum flow rate to the rate of the base meter would determine the fee multiplier and the scale for other calculations relating to this fee. • The Impact Fee Ordinance should have the schedule published as shown in Table 2-4, which includes both compound and turbine meters. • The use of a turbine meter, in connection with displacement meters in a compound meter installation, would require the use of the turbine meter schedule. • The impact fee assessment should be adjusted when the City determines that unique water pressure conditions of the system result in a meter size which is not indicative of actual flow (as when pressure is unusually low or high). In this instance, the ordinance should provide for individual review. Table 2-4 LUE EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES AND SIZES OF WATER METERS METER TYPE METER SIZE CONTINUOUS DUTY MAXIMUM RATE (gpm) RATIO TO 5/8" METER SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4" 10 1.000 SIMPLE 3/4" 15 1.000 SIMPLE 1" 25 2.500 SIMPLE 1-1/2" 50 5.000 SIMPLE 2" 80 8.000 COMPOUND 2" 80 8.000 TURBINE 2" 100 10.000 COMPOUND 3" 160 16.000 TURBINE 3" 240 24.000 COMPOUND 4" 250 25.000 TURBINE 4" 420 42.000 COMPOUND 6" 500 50.000 TURBINE 6" 920 92.000 COMPOUND 8" 800 80.000 TURBINE 8" 1600 160.000 COMPOUND 10" 1150 115.000 TURBINE 10" 2500 250.000 TURBINE 12" 3300 330.000 SOURCE: AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703. By policy, a ¾” meter will be charged for one LUE of service. 139 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 14 Typically, some concern is expressed that water meters are not always a reasonable means of calculating wastewater flows, particularly for certain consumptive types of commercial uses (car washes, restaurants) or industrial processes. Additionally, any land use might have a large meter for irrigation purposes, thus overrepresenting its wastewater flows. However, experience has indicated that few such customers choose to have a separate wastewater meter because of the installation and maintenance expense incurred. Because no alternative means for assessing flow is technically feasible, the consultants recommend that the water meter also be adopted as the basis for wastewater impact fees. However, given the potential that some consumptive commercial and industrial customers may be considerably overcharged for sewer capacity demand when water meter size is used for calculating wastewater impact fees, the Consultant also recommends that the ordinance provide for exceptions. Specifically, the ordinance should permit individual wastewater customers to present data, prepared by a professional engineer, documenting expected wastewater flow below that indicated by meter-size determinations for a lower sewer fee. 2.2.3 Projected Service Units for New Development Chapter 395 also requires the projection of service units for new development in the service area. Table 2-5 shows projections of living units equivalent, as derived by applying the conversion factors in Table 2-3 to the land use projections in Table 2-1. As required by the legislation, projections are shown for both 2023 and ultimate buildout. 140 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 15 TABLE 2-5A ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LAND USE LUEs PER ESTIMATED LUEs ACRE (a)2013 2023 Buildout Business Park 2.00 30 41 49 General Suburban 8.00 1,000 1,001 1,002 Institutional/Public 2.50 95 95 96 Medical Use 5.55 0 25 30 Natural Areas - Protected 0.00 0 0 0 Natural Areas - Reserved 0.00 1 1 1 Neigborhood Conservation 4.00 47 47 47 Suburban Commercial 4.55 241 260 317 Urban 0.00 168 168 168 Right-of-Way 0.00 0 0 0 Undeveloped 0.00 0 0 0 Totals 1,582 1,638 1,710 Population per LUE 1.72 1.66 1.59 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 92 01 Graham Rd Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 9 3).xlsx. 141 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 16 TABLE 2-5B ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LAND USE LUEs PER ESTIMATED LUEs ACRE (a)2013 2023 Buildout Estate 1.00 35 36 40 General Commercial 5.50 208 233 332 General Suburban 6.97 1,129 1,207 1,580 Institutional/Public 2.50 175 177 184 Medical 5.50 0 94 171 Natural Areas - Protected 0.00 0 0 0 Natural Areas - Reserved 0.00 0 0 0 Restricted Suburban 4.00 1,052 1,281 2,200 Suburban Commercial 4.55 21 44 279 Urban 5.92 84 353 1,626 Utilities 0.00 0 0 0 Village Center 35.00 0 430 2,153 Right-of-Way 0.00 0 0 0 Undeveloped 0.00 0 0 0 Totals 2,704 3,855 8,565 Population per LUE 1.92 1.69 1.39 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 01 Springcreek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx. 142 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 17 TABLE 2-5C ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT FOR AREA 97-02B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LAND USE LUEs PER ESTIMATED LUEs ACRE (a)2013 2023 Buildout Business Park 2.00 2 27 48 Estate 1.00 0 3 5 General Suburban 6.97 8 892 1,623 Natural Areas - Protected 0.00 1 1 1 Natural Areas - Reserved 0.00 0 0 0 Restricted Suburban 4.11 88 348 483 Rural 0.33 0 0 0 Suburban Commercial 4.55 0 1 1 Urban 5.92 239 360 495 Utilities 0.00 0 0 0 Undeveloped 0.00 0 0 0 Totals 338 1,631 2,656 Population per LUE 0.54 1.41 1.52 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 02B Alum Creek Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. 143 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 18 TABLE 2-5D ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE WATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LAND USE LUEs PER ESTIMATED LUEs ACRE (a)2013 2023 Buildout General Commercial 5.50 44 51 127 General Suburban 0.00 0 0 0 Medical Use 5.50 71 108 270 Natural Areas - Reserved 0.00 0 0 0 Suburban Commercial 0.00 0 0 0 Right-of-Way 0.00 0 0 0 Undeveloped 0.00 0 0 0 Totals 115 158 396 Population per LUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 99 01 Harley Water Line (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. 144 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 19 TABLE 2-5E ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LAND USE LUEs PER ESTIMATED LUEs ACRE (a)2013 2023 Buildout Business Park 2.00 0 24 47 Estate 1.00 0 0 0 General Suburban 8.00 261 931 1,542 Restricted Suburban 4.00 16 257 479 Rural 0.33 0 0 0 Suburban Commercial 4.55 65 79 97 Urban 20.00 234 2,657 4,886 Undeveloped 0.00 0 0 0 Totals 576 3,949 7,051 Population per LUE 1.58 2.09 2.13 Source: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 03 02 Steeplechase Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. 145 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 20 2.2.4 CIP Development for Existing and Future Needs Several steps were necessary in order to perform the required inventory of existing facilities; develop the 10-year CIP; and allocate the capacity and associated costs to the appropriate customer groups. First, as discussed above, projected service demands for each service area were expressed in LUE's, shown in Table 2-6. These demands were then used to project specific facility needs for both existing and future customers. Table 2-7 presents the inventory of facilities as required in Chapter 395. It shows the required allocation of existing and future CIP facility needs for existing development; future development within the next ten years; and excess capacity for subsequent future development. For each generation of utility customers, these tables show facility needs which will be met by Existing Facilities and Future Facilities. Cost allocations are also shown in Table 2-7. Costs were allocated proportionately among existing customers, 2013-2023 growth, and post-2023 growth. Using these allocations, costs for 2013-2023 growth were expressed on a per-LUE basis. 146 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 21 TABLE 2-6B ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE FOR AREA 97-01 SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VOLUME FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE 2013 2023 BUILDOUT PEAK FLOW (MGD) (a):2.888 4.117 9.147 Gallons per LUE daily 1,068 1,068 1,068 TOTAL LUE'S 2,704 3,855 8,565 (a) Peak 1,068 gals/LUE/daily Existing Capacity details are contained in TABLE 2-7B TABLE 2-6A ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE FOR AREA 92-01 GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VOLUME FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE 2013 2023 BUILDOUT PEAK FLOW (MGD) (a):1.690 1.775 1.826 Gallons per LUE daily 1,068 1,068 1,068 TOTAL LUE'S 1,582 1,662 1,710 (a) Peak 1,068 gals/LUEdaily Existing Capacity details are contained in TABLE 2-7A 147 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 22 TABLE 2-6C ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE FOR AREA 97-02B ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VOLUME FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE 2013 2023 BUILDOUT PEAK FLOW (MGD) (a):0.361 1.742 2.837 Gallons per LUE daily 1,068 1,068 1,068 TOTAL LUE'S 338 1,631 2,656 (a) Peak 1,068 gals/LUE/daily Existing Capacity details are contained in TABLE 2-7C TABLE 2-6D ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE WATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VOLUME FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE 2013 2023 BUILDOUT PEAK FLOW (MGD) (a):0.077 0.106 0.264 Gallons per LUE daily 668 668 668 TOTAL LUE'S 115 158 396 (a) Peak 668 gals/LUE/daily Existing Capacity details are contained in TABLE 2-7D 148 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 23 TABLE 2-6E ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE FOR AREA 03-02 STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VOLUME FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE 2013 2023 BUILDOUT PEAK FLOW (MGD) (a):0.615 4.217 7.530 Gallons per LUE daily 1,068 1,068 1,068 TOTAL LUE'S (b)576 3,949 7,051 (a) Peak 1,068 gals/LUEdaily (e) Existing Capacity details are contained in TABLE 2-7E 149 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 24 TABLE 2-7A CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FACILITY CAPACITY 2013-2023 TOTAL FACILITY TYPE / NAME CONSTRUCTION COST CURRENT 2013-2023 POST-2023 CAPITAL COST PER TOTAL CUSTOMERS GROWTH GROWTH COST LUE MAJOR COLLECTION LINES EXISTING FACILITIES % Phase I $372,994 100.00%92.51%3.28%4.20%$12,251 Phase II $46,735 100.00%100.00%0.00%0.00%$0 Phase III $53,789 100.00%92.51%3.28%4.20%$1,767 Subtotal Existing Facilities $473,519 100.00%93.25%2.96%3.79%$14,017 FUTURE FACILITIES % None Subtotal Future Facilities $0 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%$0 TOTAL COLLECTION LINES $473,519 100.00%93.25%2.96%3.79%$14,017 $249.58 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $473,519 $14,017 $249.58 150 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 25 TABLE 2-7B CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FACILITY CAPACITY 2013-2023 TOTAL FACILITY TYPE / NAME CONSTRUCTION COST CURRENT 2013-2023 POST-2023 CAPITAL COST PER TOTAL CUSTOMERS GROWTH GROWTH COST LUE MAJOR COLLECTION LINES EXISTING FACILITIES % Phase I $631,215 100.00%31.57%13.44%54.99%$84,861 Phase II $813,752 100.00%31.57%13.44%54.99%$109,401 Subtotal Existing Facilities $1,444,967 100.00%31.57%13.44%54.99%$194,262 FUTURE FACILITIES % Subtotal Future Facilities $0 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%$0 TOTAL COLLECTION LINES $1,444,967 100.00%31.57%13.44%54.99%$194,262 $168.71 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,444,967 $194,262 $168.71 151 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 26 TABLE 2-7C CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING FOR AREA 97-02B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FACILITY CAPACITY 2013-2023 TOTAL FACILITY TYPE / NAME CONSTRUCTION COST CURRENT 2013-2023 POST-2023 CAPITAL COST PER TOTAL CUSTOMERS GROWTH GROWTH COST LUE MAJOR COLLECTION LINES EXISTING FACILITIES % Phase I $214,271 100.00%12.73%48.67%38.60%$104,294 Subtotal Existing Facilities $214,271 100.00%12.73%48.67%38.60%$104,294 FUTURE FACILITIES % Subtotal Future Facilities $0 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%$0 TOTAL COLLECTION LINES $214,271 100.00%12.73%48.67%38.60%$104,294 $80.67 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $214,271 $104,294 $80.67 152 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 27 TABLE 2-7D CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE WATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FACILITY CAPACITY 2013-2023 TOTAL FACILITY TYPE / NAME CONSTRUCTION COST CURRENT 2013-2023 POST-2023 CAPITAL COST PER TOTAL CUSTOMERS GROWTH GROWTH COST LUE MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES EXISTING FACILITIES % Phase I $342,978 100.00%29.04%10.97%59.99%$37,628 Subtotal Existing Facilities $342,978 100.00%29.04%10.97%59.99%$37,628 FUTURE FACILITIES % Subtotal Future Facilities $0 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%$0 TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINES $342,978 100.00%29.04%10.97%59.99%$37,628 $866.00 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $342,978 $37,628 $866.00 153 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 28 TABLE 2-7E CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FACILITY CAPACITY 2013-2023 TOTAL FACILITY TYPE / NAME CONSTRUCTION COST CURRENT 2013-2023 POST-2023 CAPITAL COST PER TOTAL CUSTOMERS GROWTH GROWTH COST LUE MAJOR COLLECTION LINES EXISTING FACILITIES LUEs Sanitary Sewer Facilities $1,130,147 3,800 576 3,224 0 $958,841 Subtotal Existing Facilities $1,130,147 3,800 576 3,224 0 $958,841 FUTURE FACILITIES LUEs None Subtotal Future Facilities $0 0 0 0 0 $0 TOTAL COLLECTION LINES $1,130,147 3,800 576 3,224 0 $958,841 $284.30 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,130,147 $958,841 $284.30 154 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 29 2.2.5 Summary of CIP Analysis and Capital Cost Allocation Capital costs for each area are summarized in Table 2-8. In addition to capital costs, the City is permitted to add the costs of the study to the fee amount, as is shown in the table. Study costs were divided by five (the number of areas studied), with one-fifth of the cost allocated to each study area. Then, the study costs allocated to each area were divided by the number of projected LUE’s, to yield a study cost per LUE. Table 2-8 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS UTILITY AREA FACILITY TYPE COST/LUE* WASTEWATER 92-01 Major Collection $249.58 Graham Rd. Study Costs $100.60 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 92-01 Graham Road Wastewater $350.18 WASTEWATER 97-01 Major Collection $168.71 Spring Creek Study Costs $4.91 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 97-01 Spring Creek Wastewater $173.61 WASTEWATER 97-02B Major Collection $80.67 Alum Creek Study Costs $4.37 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 97-02B Alum Creek Wastewater $85.04 WATER 99-01 Major Transmission $866.00 Harley Study Costs $130.03 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 99-01 Harley Water Line $996.03 WASTEWATER 03-02 Major Collection $284.30 Steeplechase Study Costs $2.72 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 03-02 Steeplechase Wastewater $287.02 * An LUE is equal to use by a typical household with a 5/8" water meter (existing customers) or a ¾” water meter for new customers. Totals may not add due to rounding. 155 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 30 3.0 FEE CALCULATION Chapter 395 states that the maximum fee amount may not exceed the full capital cost per unit. The statute also requires: a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan. The Equity Residual Model was used to calculate actual debt service credits. Section 3.1 describes that model. Section 3.2 shows the derivation of fee credits for each service area. Section 3.3 compares maximum fee amounts using this approach with the 50%-credit approach allowed in the legislation. 3.1 EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL The Equity Residual methodology provides that each new user contributes "equity" in the City systems comparable to that owned by other existing users. Once that equity payment is made through the impact fee, each new user would pay the remainder of his or her capital-related cost of service through rate or tax payments equal to the rate or tax payments of existing users. This minimizes cross- subsidization (one user group paying for the costs of another) and provides for full cost recovery for the utilities. All users then pay for excess capacity in the system. 3.1.1 Definition of Terms Terms which will be used throughout the conceptual presentation of this approach are defined below: Cost of Service (Construction) - The full off-site construction costs associated with providing one unit of service, including costs of all facilities required to provide a single unit of service. Construction costs include engineering design costs and other cost components permitted by Chapter 395. Cost of Service (Bonding) - Costs incurred in the issuance of bonds, such as ratings, fees for financial advisors, bond counsel, etc. Cost of Service (Interest) - The interest cost applied to construction costs and bonding costs when payments are made over time. 156 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 31 Cost of Service (Full) - The sum of payments made for a single unit of service. This is equivalent to capital construction costs only when cash payments are made instead of bond financing. For bonded improvements, full cost of service includes construction, bonding and interest costs. Debt Service - Regular principal and interest payments made by the City to repay bonded costs of facilities. Equity - Value of contributions made toward full payment of cost of service; full cost of service minus outstanding debt service payments. Existing Users - All users of the utilities prior to the adoption of a particular impact fee ordinance. Existing Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand in existence as of the date of the proposed impact fee ordinance. Future Users - New development after the date of impact fee ordinance adoption. Future Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand occurring on or after the date of impact fee ordinance adoption. Indebtedness (Debt Service Payback) - Total amount outstanding for all debt service payments at the time an impact fee ordinance is adopted. Times Coverage - Excess revenue collections required by bond covenants to ensure the City's ability to meet its debt service revenue requirements (for water and sewer utilities). Minimum times coverage is generally 25% over the amount of debt service; for greater security, greater times coverage is preferred. User Class - A group of users with historically documented, common use characteristics. 3.1.2 Conceptual Methodology Figure 3-1 presents a conceptual illustration of the Equity Residual methodology, and will b e referenced throughout this section. 157 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 32 3.1.2.1 Components of Capital Cost of Service For purposes of this conceptual discussion, costs are defined for a common measurement of capacity and demand; that service unit of measurement is "Living Unit Equivalent", or LUE. Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive group of facilities required to provide service. This value is the Construction Cost of Service (see Figure 3-1). If a facility is funded through bonding, however, three additional costs are incurred for each service unit of demand: bonding costs, interest costs, and times coverage costs. Bonding costs for bond issues are statistically small -- in the neighborhood of 3% to 15%. On the other hand, interest costs can effectively double or triple costs, depending on the current interest rate and term of the bonds. Times coverage, although an expense for utility rate payers, is not actually a cost of service; these revenues are excess funds which can be carried over from one year to another to finance system improvements, pay overhead and maintenance costs, or meet other expenses. Therefore, times coverage is not included as a cost of service element in the Equity Residual model, and is not shown on Figure 3-1. 3.1.2.2 Methods for Recovering Costs of Service Generally speaking, costs can be financed through either the public sector or the private sector. Financing through the public sector is primarily accomplished by bonding projects and recovering costs through rates/taxes. Financing through the private sector occurs when a developer or builder contributes assets, either facilities or cash, and passes along this cost (including carrying and financing costs) to the ultimate buyer or renter of the development. An impact fee is one mechanism for private financing; other examples are developer contribution, developer cost participation in City facilities, etc.. Whether private or public financing is more cost-effective is determined by many variables, including interest rates, term, mark-up percentage, bonding costs, etc.. The Equity Residual methodology recognizes and utilizes the concept that all users pay part or all of their cost of service through public-sector financing by virtue of the fact that they pay rates/taxes to retire debt service. The central tenet of the Equity Residual approach is that future users will partially pay for their own costs of service through rate or tax payments in an amount typically equal to the remaining debt service payback for existing users. The remainder of their costs of service, or the "residual" amount, will be subject to payment through an impact fee. Thus, future users will be permitted to pay a portion of their costs of service through rates or taxes, similar to existing users. However, existing users will not, in the long-term, bear the cost of facilities for future users. Thus, the Equity Residual approach allows future users to pay their costs of service partially through the public 158 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 33 sector (with rate or tax payments equal to existing users) and partially through the private sector (through an impact fee). The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of this conceptual approach. Figure 3-1 3.1.2.3 System Equity and Remaining Indebtedness for Existing LUE Demand On the left side of Figure 3-1 is a representation of the Cost of Service for each unit of existing demand and the method for paying those costs. Theoretically, each existing unit of service has a full cost associated with it, consisting of construction costs, bonding costs, and interest costs. (Prior to the adoption of impact fees, construction costs were generally bonded and thus subjected to bonding and interest costs.) 159 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 34 Users in this group have, for the most part, been permitted to pay their full Cost of Service through the rates without an up-front cash payment of costs, as shown in the second bar for existing service demand. The second left-hand bar is divided into two segments: system equity and remaining indebtedness. Existing users, on the date an impact fee ordinance is adopted, will have theoretically paid some portion of their full Cost of Service through past rate payments. Thus, they have a certain amount of "equity" in the existing City system. This is shown on the bottom portion of the second bar. Existing users also have a corresponding amount of remaining indebtedness to be paid through future rate payments over the next 20-30 years. This is depicted on the top portion of the bar. These two payment components -- equity and remaining indebtedness -- thus describe the Total Payment of each user's Full Cost of Service for existing service unit demand. 3.1.2.4 Calculation of Cost of Service for Future Service Unit Demand On the right side of Figure 3-1 is a depiction of the Cost of Service for future LUE demand. The Cost of Service for future users will be higher than that for existing users due to inflation and possibly due to technological and regulatory changes. If these new facilities are bonded, they will have not only construction-related costs, but also bonding and interest costs (similar to those for existing users). These latter costs will also be higher than comparable costs for existing users because bonding and interest costs are directly proportional to the higher new construction costs. 3.1.2.5 Fairness Between Users Through the Rate Structure A key concept in the Equity Residual methodology is that rate payments of future users are dedicated to retirement of debt for facilities for future needs, while rate payments of existing users are used to pay for facilities for existing needs. Application of this concept has two primary results: • Cross-subsidization between existing and future users is minimized; and • Future users enter the City systems on an equal basis with existing users. This approach is effected by purposefully setting the total payback indebtedness of future users to the same amount as the total payback for existing users. Thus, in Figure 3-1, the remaining indebtedness for each service unit of existing demand is the same as for each service unit of future demand. In order to accomplish this equalization, however, future users will have to submit a "system equity" payment to contribute their remaining Cost of Service and to put them on a par status with existing users (see discussion below). 160 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 35 3.1.2.6 Equity Residual and Equity Contribution for Future LUE Demand The second bar in the right-hand diagram of Figure 3-1 shows the payment methods for future users. At the top of the bar is indebtedness equal to that of existing users. This indebtedness includes construction and bonding costs (both principal payments) and interest payments. Below the indebtedness payback are shown the components of the remaining Cost of Service, or that portion which must be paid to achieve fairness through the rate structure. This portion of the Cost of Service has been designated "System Equity", similar to past debt payments by existing users. System Equity has three components, as do all Costs of Service: construction cost, bonding cost, and interest cost. If the construction costs in the System Equity portion of the Cost of Service were to be paid in cash, corresponding bonding and interest costs would be avoided. The remaining construction costs, or "residual", would be the actual payment necessary to achieve fairness -- or equity -- in the system. This residual cost is the amount which should be subjected to payment in an impact fee. In sum, the Equity Residual approach to funding improvements will result in a payment for Cost of Service for future service demand which has the following characteristics: • A portion of the Cost of Service will be paid through the rates or taxes; the total payback on this portion of the Cost of Service will equal that for total capital indebtedness for existing users reflected in the rate structure; • New users will contribute equity status in the system by paying the remaining, unbonded portion of construction costs ("residual") through an impact fee; • Bonding and interest costs associated with residual construction costs will be avoided. • This approach will result in full cost recovery for growth from payments made by future users. 3.1.2.7 Balancing Rate and Fee Payments Over Time Chapter 395 requires that impact fee programs have a planning horizon of ten years or less. Equity among feepayers within the ten-year period can be enhanced if the Equity Residual Model is used to adjust fees each year to acknowledge that earlier feepayers will pay more through their rates than later feepayers as debt service is retired. Figure 3-2 illustrates this concept. This figure illustrates that in early years of an impact fee or a construction program, there may be little difference between existing 161 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 36 and new customers, and impact fees are relatively low since new customers pay the majority of their capital costs through rates/taxes to retire debt service. In later years, however, new customers will make relatively lower debt service payments since much of the debt is already retired when they connect to the system, and impact fees are correspondingly higher. If impact fees are properly designed, customers at every point in time will pay their full and equal cost through a combination of debt service and fees. As shown in the example in Figure 3-2, customers who connect during each year of the 20-year time frame pay $5,000 in capital construction costs, through a varying combination of rates and fees. Figure 3-2: Payment of Capital Costs Through Combination of Impact Fees and Rates Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 $0 $1000 $2000 $3000 $4000 $5000 Construction Costs Paid in Rates/Taxes 162 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 37 3.2 CALCULATION OF FEE CREDITS Table 3-1 contains calculations of rate credits for each of the service areas, using the Equity Residual Approach. (Area 99-01, Harley Water Line, is not funded by debt, and thus the calculated rate credit is zero and not shown in Table 3-1.) This table shows the dollar amount of capital debt service payback proportionately attributed to each LUE of existing service. TABLE 3-1A CATEGORIZATION OF UTILITY DEBT FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY TOTAL DEBT FACILITY TYPE / NAME PRINCIPAL ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING TOTAL FOR CURRENT PER CURRENT MAJOR COLLECTION Phase I 1993 $196,927 $14,091 100%92.51%$8.24 Phase II 1993 $24,674 $1,766 100%100.00%$1.12 Phase III 1993 $28,399 $2,032 100%92.51%$1.19 Subtotal Wastewater Collection $250,000 $17,889 $10.54 OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL $250,000 $17,889 $10.54 Source for outstanding principal: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 92 01 Graham Rd Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 9 3).xlsx. 163 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 38 TABLE 3-1B CATEGORIZATION OF UTILITY DEBT FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY TOTAL DEBT FACILITY TYPE / NAME PRINCIPAL ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING TOTAL FOR CURRENT PER CURRENT MAJOR COLLECTION Phase I 1998 $314,523 $110,742 100%31.57%$12.93 Phase II 1998 $405,477 $142,766 100%31.57%$16.67 Subtotal Wastewater Collection $720,000 $253,508 $29.60 OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL $720,000 $253,508 $29.60 Source for outstanding principal: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 01 Springcreek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx. TABLE 3-1C CATEGORIZATION OF UTILITY DEBT FOR AREA 97-02B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY TOTAL DEBT FACILITY TYPE / NAME PRINCIPAL ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING TOTAL FOR CURRENT PER CURRENT MAJOR COLLECTION Phase I 1998 $396,000 $139,429 100%12.73%$52.50 Subtotal Wastewater Collection $396,000 $139,429 $52.50 OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL $396,000 $139,429 $52.50 Source for outstanding principal: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 97 02B Alum Creek Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. 164 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 39 3.3 MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION Table 3-2 shows the remainder of the fee calculation process. According to Chapter 395, the City may either calculate actual rate credits, or it may simply multiply the construction costs by 50% to approximate a fee credit. Table 3-2 performs both fee calculations. The higher fee between the two credit approaches is then shown in the right-most column. Table 3-3 shows maximum fee amounts for each area for various sizes of water meters, using the maximum allowable fees calculated in Table 3-2. TABLE 3-1E CATEGORIZATION OF UTILITY DEBT FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE WASTEWATER UTILITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY TOTAL DEBT FACILITY TYPE / NAME PRINCIPAL ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING TOTAL FOR CURRENT PER CURRENT MAJOR COLLECTION Sanitary Sewer Facilities 2004 $1,000,000 $677,642 100%15.16%$178.33 Subtotal Wastewater Collection $1,000,000 $677,642 $178.33 OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL $1,000,000 $677,642 $178.33 Source for outstanding principal: City of College Station, 2013, College Station Impact Fee Update 03 02 Steeplechase Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. 165 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 40 TABLE 3-2A DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALTERNATIVE ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT UTILITY / FACILITY TYPE CONSTRUCTION A B A B HIGHER OF COSTS Rate 50%Rate 50%A or B Credit Adjustment Credit Adjustment WASTEWATER UTILITY Major Collection $249.58 $10.54 $124.79 $239.04 $124.79 $239.04 CIP/Study Costs $100.60 $0.00 $50.30 $100.60 $50.30 $100.60 Subtotal Wastewater $350.18 $10.54 $175.09 $339.63 $175.09 $339.63 TOTALS $350.18 $10.54 $175.09 $339.63 $175.09 $339.63 TABLE 3-2B DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALTERNATIVE ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT UTILITY / FACILITY TYPE CONSTRUCTION A B A B HIGHER OF COSTS Rate 50%Rate 50%A or B Credit Adjustment Credit Adjustment WASTEWATER UTILITY Major Collection $168.71 $29.60 $84.35 $139.11 $84.35 $139.11 CIP/Study Costs $4.91 $0.00 $2.45 $4.91 $2.45 $4.91 Subtotal Wastewater $173.61 $29.60 $86.81 $144.01 $86.81 $144.01 TOTALS $173.61 $29.60 $86.81 $144.01 $86.81 $144.01 166 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 41 TABLE 3-2C DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR AREA 97-02B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALTERNATIVE ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT UTILITY / FACILITY TYPE CONSTRUCTION A B A B HIGHER OF COSTS Rate 50%Rate 50%A or B Credit Adjustment Credit Adjustment WASTEWATER UTILITY Major Collection $80.67 $52.50 $40.34 $28.18 $40.34 $40.34 CIP/Study Costs $4.37 $0.00 $2.19 $4.37 $2.19 $4.37 Subtotal Wastewater $85.04 $52.50 $42.52 $32.55 $42.52 $44.71 TOTALS $85.04 $52.50 $42.52 $32.55 $42.52 $44.71 TABLE 3-2D DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALTERNATIVE ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT UTILITY / FACILITY TYPE CONSTRUCTION A B A B HIGHER OF COSTS Rate 50%Rate 50%A or B Credit Adjustment Credit Adjustment WATER UTILITY Major Collection $866.00 $0.00 $433.00 $866.00 $433.00 $866.00 CIP/Study Costs $130.03 $0.00 $65.02 $130.03 $65.02 $130.03 Subtotal Water $996.03 $0.00 $498.02 $996.03 $498.02 $996.03 TOTALS $996.03 $0.00 $498.02 $996.03 $498.02 $996.03 167 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 42 TABLE 3-2E DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALTERNATIVE ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT UTILITY / FACILITY TYPE CONSTRUCTION A B A B HIGHER OF COSTS Rate 50%Rate 50%A or B Credit Adjustment Credit Adjustment WASTEWATER UTILITY Major Collection $284.30 $178.33 $142.15 $105.98 $142.15 $142.15 CIP/Study Costs $2.72 $0.00 $1.36 $2.72 $1.36 $2.72 Subtotal Wastewater $287.02 $178.33 $143.51 $108.70 $143.51 $144.87 TOTALS $287.02 $178.33 $143.51 $108.70 $143.51 $144.87 168 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 43 TABLE 3-3A MAXIMUM AND EFFECTIVE IMPACT FEES FOR VARIOUS WATER METER SIZES FOR AREA 92-01, GRAHAM ROAD WASTEWATER LINE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEE AMOUNTS METER TYPE METER SIZE MULTIPLIER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4"1.000 $339.63 $339.63 SIMPLE 3/4"1.000 $339.63 $339.63 SIMPLE 1"2.500 $849.09 $849.09 SIMPLE 1-1/2"5.000 $1,698.17 $1,698.17 SIMPLE 2"8.000 $2,717.08 $2,717.08 COMPOUND 2"8.000 $2,717.08 $2,717.08 TURBINE 2"10.000 $3,396.34 $3,396.34 COMPOUND 3"16.000 $5,434.15 $5,434.15 TURBINE 3"24.000 $8,151.23 $8,151.23 COMPOUND 4"25.000 $8,490.86 $8,490.86 TURBINE 4"42.000 $14,264.65 $14,264.65 COMPOUND 6"50.000 $16,981.72 $16,981.72 TURBINE 6"92.000 $31,246.37 $31,246.37 COMPOUND 8"80.000 $27,170.75 $27,170.75 TURBINE 8"160.000 $54,341.51 $54,341.51 COMPOUND 10"115.000 $39,057.96 $39,057.96 TURBINE 10"250.000 $84,908.61 $84,908.61 TURBINE 12"330.000 $112,079.36 $112,079.36 169 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 44 TABLE 3-3B MAXIMUM AND EFFECTIVE IMPACT FEES FOR VARIOUS WATER METER SIZES FOR AREA 97-01, SPRINGCREEK WASTEWATER LINE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEE AMOUNTS METER TYPE METER SIZE MULTIPLIER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4"1.000 $144.01 $144.01 SIMPLE 3/4"1.000 $144.01 $144.01 SIMPLE 1"2.500 $360.04 $360.04 SIMPLE 1-1/2"5.000 $720.07 $720.07 SIMPLE 2"8.000 $1,152.12 $1,152.12 COMPOUND 2"8.000 $1,152.12 $1,152.12 TURBINE 2"10.000 $1,440.15 $1,440.15 COMPOUND 3"16.000 $2,304.23 $2,304.23 TURBINE 3"24.000 $3,456.35 $3,456.35 COMPOUND 4"25.000 $3,600.36 $3,600.36 TURBINE 4"42.000 $6,048.61 $6,048.61 COMPOUND 6"50.000 $7,200.73 $7,200.73 TURBINE 6"92.000 $13,249.34 $13,249.34 COMPOUND 8"80.000 $11,521.16 $11,521.16 TURBINE 8"160.000 $23,042.33 $23,042.33 COMPOUND 10"115.000 $16,561.67 $16,561.67 TURBINE 10"250.000 $36,003.64 $36,003.64 TURBINE 12"330.000 $47,524.80 $47,524.80 170 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 45 TABLE 3-3C MAXIMUM AND EFFECTIVE IMPACT FEES FOR VARIOUS WATER METER SIZES FOR AREA 97-02B, ALUM CREEK WASTEWATER LINE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEE AMOUNTS METER TYPE METER SIZE MULTIPLIER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4"1.000 $44.71 $44.71 SIMPLE 3/4"1.000 $44.71 $44.71 SIMPLE 1"2.500 $111.77 $111.77 SIMPLE 1-1/2"5.000 $223.54 $223.54 SIMPLE 2"8.000 $357.66 $357.66 COMPOUND 2"8.000 $357.66 $357.66 TURBINE 2"10.000 $447.08 $447.08 COMPOUND 3"16.000 $715.32 $715.32 TURBINE 3"24.000 $1,072.98 $1,072.98 COMPOUND 4"25.000 $1,117.69 $1,117.69 TURBINE 4"42.000 $1,877.72 $1,877.72 COMPOUND 6"50.000 $2,235.38 $2,235.38 TURBINE 6"92.000 $4,113.10 $4,113.10 COMPOUND 8"80.000 $3,576.61 $3,576.61 TURBINE 8"160.000 $7,153.21 $7,153.21 COMPOUND 10"115.000 $5,141.37 $5,141.37 TURBINE 10"250.000 $11,176.89 $11,176.89 TURBINE 12"330.000 $14,753.50 $14,753.50 171 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 46 TABLE 3-3D MAXIMUM AND EFFECTIVE IMPACT FEES FOR VARIOUS WATER METER SIZES FOR AREA 99-01, HARLEY WATER LINE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEE AMOUNTS METER TYPE METER SIZE MULTIPLIER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4"1.000 $996.03 $996.03 SIMPLE 3/4"1.000 $996.03 $996.03 SIMPLE 1"2.500 $2,490.08 $2,490.08 SIMPLE 1-1/2"5.000 $4,980.15 $4,980.15 SIMPLE 2"8.000 $7,968.24 $7,968.24 COMPOUND 2"8.000 $7,968.24 $7,968.24 TURBINE 2"10.000 $9,960.31 $9,960.31 COMPOUND 3"16.000 $15,936.49 $15,936.49 TURBINE 3"24.000 $23,904.73 $23,904.73 COMPOUND 4"25.000 $24,900.76 $24,900.76 TURBINE 4"42.000 $41,833.28 $41,833.28 COMPOUND 6"50.000 $49,801.53 $49,801.53 TURBINE 6"92.000 $91,634.81 $91,634.81 COMPOUND 8"80.000 $79,682.44 $79,682.44 TURBINE 8"160.000 $159,364.89 $159,364.89 COMPOUND 10"115.000 $114,543.51 $114,543.51 TURBINE 10"250.000 $249,007.64 $249,007.64 TURBINE 12"330.000 $328,690.08 $328,690.08 172 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 47 TABLE 3-3E MAXIMUM AND EFFECTIVE IMPACT FEES FOR VARIOUS WATER METER SIZES FOR AREA 03-02, STEEPLECHASE WASTEWATER LINE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEE AMOUNTS METER TYPE METER SIZE MULTIPLIER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4"1.000 $144.87 $144.87 SIMPLE 3/4"1.000 $144.87 $144.87 SIMPLE 1"2.500 $362.18 $362.18 SIMPLE 1-1/2"5.000 $724.37 $724.37 SIMPLE 2"8.000 $1,158.99 $1,158.99 COMPOUND 2"8.000 $1,158.99 $1,158.99 TURBINE 2"10.000 $1,448.73 $1,448.73 COMPOUND 3"16.000 $2,317.97 $2,317.97 TURBINE 3"24.000 $3,476.96 $3,476.96 COMPOUND 4"25.000 $3,621.83 $3,621.83 TURBINE 4"42.000 $6,084.67 $6,084.67 COMPOUND 6"50.000 $7,243.66 $7,243.66 TURBINE 6"92.000 $13,328.33 $13,328.33 COMPOUND 8"80.000 $11,589.85 $11,589.85 TURBINE 8"160.000 $23,179.71 $23,179.71 COMPOUND 10"115.000 $16,660.42 $16,660.42 TURBINE 10"250.000 $36,218.30 $36,218.30 TURBINE 12"330.000 $47,808.15 $47,808.15 173 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 48 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS This report represents the technical compliance activities of the City of College Station responsive to Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. In addition to the adoption of the fees calculated herein, the Consultants recommended: • Use of fee revenues to avoid future bonding, whenever possible. • As a second-best option, fee proceeds should be used for early retirement of the growth-related portion of existing bonds for growth-related capacity in the CIP. • Only when the two options immediately above are infeasible should fee proceeds be used for debt service for future customers. • The Consultants recommend that the City maintain separate dedicated accounts for each area, and retain accrued interest in each account, as stipulated in Chapter 395. The Consultants also recommend that the City’s records include the following information for each impact fee payment made: • Date of final plat (i.e., date of fee assessment) • Ordinance number (date) by which property is assessed an impact fee • Date of tap purchase and building permit issuance • Size of water meter • Number of water and wastewater LUE's for which an impact fee is assessed • Amount of impact fees paid for each impact fee • Date of payment of impact fees • Special conditions or exceptions, if any • Sufficient locational information, consistent with city or county deed records, to enable the City to establish ownership of property for which fees have been paid 174 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 49 5.0 CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 395. FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 395.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Capital improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (B) roadway facilities. (2) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. (3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (4) "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump-sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this definition. The term does not include: (A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (B) 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 175 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 50 dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; (C) 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; or (D) other pro rata fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended by the political subdivision. However, an item included in the capital improvements plan may not be required to be constructed except in accordance with Section 395.019(2), and an owner may not be required to construct or dedicate facilities and to pay impact fees for those facilities. (5) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10–year period. (6) "New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units. (7) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article III, Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, or, for the purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (8) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and the establishment of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and rights-of-way. (9) "Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined under Chapter 42, of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. For roadway facilities, the 176 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 51 service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six miles. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across watershed boundaries. (10) "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(e), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. SUBCHAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.011. Authorization of Fee (a) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (b) Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (c) A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.012. Items Payable by Fee 177 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 52 (a) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the: (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees; (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (b) Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter. (d) A municipality may pledge an impact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond, note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if: (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and (2) at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a written order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan. (e) A certification under Subsection (d)(2) is sufficient evidence that an impact fee pledged will not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. 178 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 53 Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 90, § 1, eff. May 16, 1995. § 395.013. Items Not Payable by Fee Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for: (1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (2) repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expansions; (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (4) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay its administrative and operating costs; (6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.014. Capital Improvements Plan (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and 179 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 54 stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years; and (7) a plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan. (b) The analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the designated service area. 180 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 55 (c) The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.015. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (a) The impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting the amount in Section 395.014(a)(7) from the costs of the capital improvements described by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total number of projected service units described by Section 395.014(a)(5). (b) If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a)(6) by the projected new service units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.016. Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee (a) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted before June 20, 1987. For land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development approval and building process. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (b) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted before June 20, 1987, and land platted after that date. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after June 20, 1987, the political 181 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 56 subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (c) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted after June 20, 1987. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may not be collected on any service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one year after the date of adoption of the impact fee. (d) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption of an impact fee adopted after June 20, 1987. The political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting ordinance or procedures of any political subdivision in the official records of the county clerk of the county in which the tract is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastewater capacity available: (1) the political subdivision shall collect the fees at the time the political subdivision issues a building permit; (2) for land platted outside the corporate boundaries of a municipality, the municipality shall collect the fees at the time an application for an individual meter connection to the municipality's water or wastewater system is filed; or (3) a political subdivision that lacks authority to issue building permits in the area where the impact fee applies shall collect the fees at the time an application is filed for an individual meter connection to the political subdivision's water or wastewater system. (e) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. 182 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 57 (f) An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the impact fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required. (g) Notwithstanding Subsections (a)–(e) and Section 395.017, the political subdivision may reduce or waive an impact fee for any service unit that would qualify as affordable housing under 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, once the service unit is constructed. If affordable housing as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, is not constructed, the political subdivision may reverse its decision to waive or reduce the impact fee, and the political subdivision may assess an impact fee at any time during the development approval or building process or after the building process if an impact fee was not already assessed. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 980, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.017. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the event of the increase in the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.019. Collection of Fees if Services Not Available 183 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 58 Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (1) the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to provide service, and to have the service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event longer than five years; (2) the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital improvements or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its plat; or (3) an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity to serve future development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.020. Entitlement to Services Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate service from any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.021. Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees 184 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 59 Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital improvements or facility expansions to reduce the amount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees (a) Political subdivisions and other governmental entities may pay impact fees imposed under this chapter. (b) A school district is not required to pay impact fees imposed under this chapter unless the board of trustees of the district consents to the payment of the fees by entering a contract with the political subdivision that imposes the fees. The contract may contain terms the board of trustees considers advisable to provide for the payment of the fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., eff. May 11, 2007. § 395.023. Credits Against Roadway Facilities Fees Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off-site roadway facilities agreed to or required by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest (a) The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest-bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. (b) Interest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter. 185 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 60 (c) Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chapter. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.025. Refunds (a) On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to commence construction within two years or service is not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). (b) Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. (c) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment. (d) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Section 302.002, Finance Code, or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. (f) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1396, § 37, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 186 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 61 Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 7.82, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter to levy an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0411. Capital Improvements Plan The political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices in accordance with Section 395.014. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.042. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution establishing a public hearing date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for the designated service area. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.043. Information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Available to Public On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall make available to the public 187 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 62 its land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of the capital improvement facilities that may be proposed. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.044. Notice of Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan under which an impact fee may be imposed; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 188 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 63 Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.045. Approval of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. (b) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, shall approve or disapprove the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.0455. Systemwide Land Use Assumptions (a) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. (b) Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shall follow the public notice, hearing, and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions. (c) After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision is not required to adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements plan and impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 189 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 64 § 395.047. Hearing on Impact Fee On adoption of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the imposition of the impact fee. The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution imposing an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.049. Notice of Hearing on Impact Fee (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact fee; (4) the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and 190 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 65 (5) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.050. Advisory Committee Comments on Impact Fees The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed impact fees before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the imposition of the fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.051. Approval of Impact Fee Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, shall approve or disapprove the imposition of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.052. Periodic Update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every five years. The initial five-year period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted. 191 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 66 (b) The political subdivision shall review and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shall cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Subchapter B.1 Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.053. Hearing on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date it receives the update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.054. Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.055. Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee (a) The notice and hearing procedures prescribed by Sections 395.044(a) and (b) apply to a hearing on the amendment of land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. (b) The notice of a hearing under this section must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: 192 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 67 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact fee; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the update. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.057. Approval of Amendments Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the amendments, shall approve or disapprove the amendments of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the amendments to the land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 193 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 68 § 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed (a) If, at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052–395.057, do the following: (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determining that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to any person who has, within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of hearings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in Subsections (b)(2)-(5). (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of its determination once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one-quarter page of a standard size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. (b) The notice must contain the following: (1) A headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES"; (2) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (3) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating has been determined to be unnecessary; 194 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 69 (4) a statement that if, within a specified date, which date shall be at least 60 days after publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated official of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052–395.057; and (5) a statement identifying the name and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent. (c) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. (d) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall cause an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Sections 395.052–395.057. (e) An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(d), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.058. Advisory Committee (a) On or before the date on which the order, ordinance, or resolution is adopted under Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory committee. (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision. Not less than 40 percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act as the advisory committee if the commission includes at least one representative of the real estate, development, or building industry who is not an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the 195 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 70 commission may still act as the advisory committee if at least one such representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory committee. If the impact fee is to be applied in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a representative from that area. (c) The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions; (2) review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; (3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. (d) The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (e) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the advisory committee to follow in carrying out its duties. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER PROVISIONS § 395.071. Duties to be Performed Within Time Limits If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty imposed under this chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political subdivision finds that 196 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 71 the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.072. Records of Hearings A record must be made of any public hearing provided for by this chapter. The record shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.073. Cumulative Effect of State and Local Restrictions Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.074. Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20, 1990. However, any political subdivision having an impact fee that has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who, after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter B by more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges This chapter does not prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge, or assessment specifically authorized by state law. 197 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 72 Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibited A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 441, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.077. Appeals (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdivision and who is aggrieved by a final decision is entitled to trial de novo under this chapter. (b) A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. (c) Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to specific performance of the services by the political subdivision for which the fee was paid. (d) This section does not require construction of a specific facility to provide the services. (e) Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political subdivision is located. A successful litigant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.078. Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements 198 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 73 An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied with if compliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.079. Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous County (a) Any county that has a population of 3.3 million or more or that borders a county with a population of 3.3 million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (b) The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the requirements of Sections 395.025, 395.052–395.057, and 395.074 unless the political subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision under Subsection (a) may not be reduced if: (1) the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and (2) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact fees during the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 669, § 107, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water-Related Special Districts 199 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 74 (a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: (1) paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution to another district created under that constitutional provision if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or (2) charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (b) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt rules for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapter for the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to participate. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 11.257, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. § 395.081. Fees for Adjoining Landowners in Certain Municipalities (a) This section applies only to a municipality with a population of 105,000 or less that constitutes more than three-fourths of the population of the county in which the majority of the area of the municipality is located. (b) A municipality that has not adopted an impact fee under this chapter that is constructing a capital improvement, including sewer or waterline or drainage or roadway facilities, from the municipality to a development located within or outside the municipality's boundaries, in its discretion, may allow a landowner whose land adjoins the capital improvement or is within a specified distance from the capital improvement, as determined by the governing body of the municipality, to connect to the capital improvement if: (1) the governing body of the municipality has adopted a finding under Subsection (c); and 200 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 75 (2) the landowner agrees to pay a proportional share of the cost of the capital improvement as determined by the governing body of the municipality and agreed to by the landowner. (c) Before a municipality may allow a landowner to connect to a capital improvement under Subsection (b), the municipality shall adopt a finding that the municipality will benefit from allowing the landowner to connect to the capital improvement. The finding shall describe the benefit to be received by the municipality. (d) A determination of the governing body of a municipality, or its officers or employees, under this section is a discretionary function of the municipality and the municipality and its officers or employees are not liable for a determination made under this section. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1150, § 1, eff. June 19, 1997. § 395.082. Certification of Compliance Required (a) A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification verifying compliance with this chapter to the attorney general each year not later than the last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year. (b) The certification must be signed by the presiding officer of the governing body of a political subdivision and include a statement that reads substantially similar to the following: "This statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code." (c) A political subdivision that fails to submit a certification as required by this section is liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the impact fees erroneously charged. The attorney general shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/lg/lg0039500toc.html 201 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 76 6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUMENTS 202 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES The City Council of the City of College Station, Texas hereby adopts by resolution a call for a public hearing to be held during the regular Council session on November 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comment concerning the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of impact fees for the water and sewer utilities. Public notice of such hearing will be made at least 30 days in advance of the hearing according to legal criteria set forth in Chapter 395.055 of the Texas Local Government Code. PASSED AND APPROVED: § § § September 26, 2013 § Date Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney ATTEST: City Secretary 203 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 78 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS The City shall publish notice of the hearing at least 31 days before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the City lies. CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICE At least 31 days before the hearing, the City shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the City Secretary or other designated official of the City requesting notice of such hearing within two years preceding the date of the adoption of the resolution or order setting the public hearing. 204 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 79 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES A public hearing of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on November 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of water and wastewater impact fees. The base impact fee is projected to be $339.63 in Service Area 92-01 (Graham Road Sewer Extension), $144.01 in Service Area 97-01 (Spring Creek Sewer Line), $44.71 in Service Area 97-01B (Alum Creek Sewer Line), $996.03 in Service Area 99-01 (Harley Water Line), and $144.87 in Service Area 03-02 (Steeplechase Sewer Line) for a typical detached single-family residential service connection. Higher fees would be charged for larger utility service demands as determined by meters larger than 5/8" x ¾" or ¾”. These fees will not apply to existing municipal water and sewer customers who do not request significant expansions of service, and will not apply to any municipal customers not located in the service area for each fee. Copies of the capital improvements plan and potential impact fee schedule are available at the offices of the City Secretary, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. Any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. 205 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 80 7.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY City of College Station, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15. City of College Station. 2013. 2013_Updated_Water Meter_Table.xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. College Station Impact Fee Update 03 02 Steeplechase Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. College Station Impact Fee Update 92 01 Graham Rd Wastewater (Template from Staff 2013 9 3).xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. College Station Impact Fee Update 97 01 Springcreek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. College Station Impact Fee Update 97 02B Alum Creek Wastewater (Template from Staff 4013 8 30).xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. College Station Impact Fee Update 99 01 Harley Water Line (Template from Staff 2013 8 30).xlsx. City of College Station. 2013. Graham.xls. Fishbeck, Mickey, Rimrock Consulting Company. 2010. "Equity Residual Approach for Utility Fee Credits," 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. Fishbeck, Mickey, Rimrock Consulting Company. 2010. "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update, City of College Station, Texas. Galardi, Deborah. 2004. "Calculating Revenue Credits," 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. McCrory, Michael W. L., Assistant City Attorney, Tucson, AZ. 2004. "Do Fee Waivers, Exemptions and other Classifications Satisfy Equal Protection of the Law?” 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. Mullen, Clancy, Duncan Associates. 2004. “Developer Credits/Offsets”. 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. 206 City of College Station, Texas Small-Area Impact Fee Update RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY printed on recycled paper 81 Nelson, Arthur C., James C. Nicholas and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 2009. Impact Fees: Principles and Practice of Proportionate-Share Development Fees. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association. Nicholas, James C., Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner’s Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association. Nicholas, James C. and Tyson Smith. 2004. "Case Law Update 2004 and Other Miscellany." 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. Smith, Tyson. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle. 2003. “Case Law & State Leg islation Update”, 9th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. Smith, Tyson. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle. 2004. "Impact Fee Waivers and Exemptions," 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. Thompson, Spencer. 2005. Personal communication with M. Fishbeck re: design standards. Tischler, Paul S. 2004. "Revenue Credits for Impact Fees," 10th Annual National Impact Fee Roundtable. 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 6 College Station Policy Regarding Municipal Utility Districts To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 11, “Utilities”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by adopting Section 12, relating to the creation of Municipal Utility Districts; establishing procedures for the review and approval to create Municipal Utility Districts within the City or the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; requiring deposits for costs incurred; requiring prerequisite documentation for consent and providing for other matters relating to the subject and amending Chapter 14, “Service Fees”, Section 14-6, “Development Services” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by adding Subsection B, relating to the fees to be paid in conjunction with the creation and operation of Municipal Utility Districts. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, adopting a policy on the creation, operation, and dissolution of Municipal Utility Districts located within the City’s incorporated limits or its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City, Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance Summary: The Council has recently received informal requests seeking Council’s opinion on the formation of two Municipal Utility Districts, one located within the City limits, the other in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Based upon these two requests, staff recommended and Council concurred, that an overall policy regarding the terms of the City’s granting of consent for such requests, was warranted. The attached Ordinances and Resolution define when the City will consider granting its consent for such requests and when it will deny such consent. Further, the information details the application process and costs for such requests, the standards that development and infrastructure shall meet when consent is granted, and issues related to annexation of property within the MUD, issuance of debt, and the dissolution of the MUD. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes Attachments: 1. Ordinance (Will be available at Council Meeting) 2. Resolution Regarding Policy (Will be available at Council Meeting) 3. Resolution Regarding Fees (Will be available at Council Meeting) 247 November 14, 2013 Regular Agenda Item No. 7 City Regulation of Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas – Game Day Housing To: Kelly Templin, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding current City regulations of short-term rentals of homes in residential areas and possible revisions to the same. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City, Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council provide direction regarding revisions to regulations imposed upon short-term rentals Summary: Upon joining the SEC and with recent success in TAMU athletic programs, increased attendance at athletic events has stimulated interest in the short-term rental of homes in residential areas of the City – so-called game-day rentals. Currently, City Code generally classifies such uses as a hotel or bed and breakfast and limits their applicability in residential neighborhoods – essentially prohibiting hotels and limiting the operations of bed and breakfast establishments. At the request of Council, staff has prepared this workshop item to facilitate a discussion regarding current regulations and to gauge Council interest in revising these regulations. If there is interest in revising these regulations, staff is looking for clarification and direction. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A Attachments: N/A 248