HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2016 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
City Hall Council Chambers4:30 PMThursday, September 8, 2016
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may
seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement
offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may
arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City
Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status
of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged
information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public.
The following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a. Juliao v. City of College Station, Cause No. 14-002168-CV-272, In the 272nd District
Court of Brazos County, Texas
b. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City
of College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos
County, Texas
Legal Advice
a.Issues related to the Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications System Interlocal
Agreement
b.Legal Issues Related to Proposed Road Maintenance Fee
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the
partnership between the City of College Station and TAMU to
efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU
football game.
16-05535.
Sponsors:Rother
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016
September 8, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving
the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's written comments on the
proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection and
treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the
process for possible implementation of water-wastewater impact
fees.
16-05246.
Sponsors:Coleman
August 4 2016 Workshop (Draft)
Commissioner Rektorik's Comments
IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments
IFAC Member Joseph's Comments
20 IFAC commts CIP & Land Use
Thoughts on Water
Attachments:
7. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
8.Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items and review of
standing list of Council generated agenda items: A Council 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.
9.Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, 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, Texas Aggies Go
to War, 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, Sister Cities Association, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU
Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, YMCA, Youth
Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City
Hall bulletin board).
10. 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
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016
September 8, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion.
APPROVED
_____________________
City Manager
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on September 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
_____________________
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at
(979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least
two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting,
the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried
Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an
Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con
Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de
mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H,
Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben
entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0553 Name:Game Day Traffic Plan Update
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/31/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:9/8/2016
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the partnership between the City of College
Station and TAMU to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game.
Sponsors:Troy Rother
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the partnership between the City of College Station and TAMU to
efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Improving Mobility
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that Council receive the presentation.
Summary: The City of College Station, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, and Texas A&M University have been
working together for several years to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game. Pre-
season traffic control plans that specify road closures and traffic direction on and off campus are developed. This
information is packaged and shared with countless groups of people to insure that anyone who is interested can obtain the
information.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: None
College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0524 Name:Impact Fee Update - W/WW
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/19/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:9/8/2016
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee's written comments on the proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection
and treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the process for possible
implementation of water-wastewater impact fees.
Sponsors:David Coleman
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:August 4 2016 Workshop (Draft)
Commissioner Rektorik's Comments
IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments
IFAC Member Joseph's Comments
20 IFAC commts CIP & Land Use
Thoughts on Water
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee's written comments on the proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection
and treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the process for possible
implementation of water-wastewater impact fees.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services & Infrastructure and Sustainable City
Recommendation: Acknowledge receipt of written comments from the committee. Present for
information.
Summary:City Council directed staff to conduct an engineering study for possible implementation of
water and wastewater impact fees. This presentation will provide an update on the following:
Schedule for actions completed and upcoming
Calculation of maximum allowable impact fees
Comments from Advisory Committee
Staff recommendation
Please note that a public hearing and formal action are scheduled for the Regular City Council
meeting on September 22, 2016.
College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-0524,Version:1
Budget & Financial Summary:None
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes.
Attachments:
IFAC Comments on LUA and CIP
IFAC Comments on Fee Calculations
Written Comments from IFAC Members (4)
College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop Meeting
August 4, 2016 5:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jodi Warner, Casey Oldham, Jim Ross and Barry Moore
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jerome Rektorik, Johnny Burns
IFAC MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy French
IFAC MEMBERS ABSENT: Kirk Joseph, Don Hellriegel
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Berry, John Nichols, Steve Aldrich, Blanche Brick
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Templin, Chuck Gilman, Jeff Kersten, Jeff Capps, Donald Harmon, David
Coleman, Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Natalie Ruiz, Jennifer Prochazka, Carol Cotter,
Danielle Singh, Kevin Ferrer, Mark Bombek, Jenifer Paz, Rachel Lazo, Carla Robinson, Kirk Price and
Kristen Hejny
1. Call the meeting to order.
Chairperson Kee Called the IFAC meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Advisory
Committee reviewing and making a recommendation on Maximum Calculated Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees.
Alan Gibbs, City Engineer, began his presentation by addressing questions raised by the IFAC at their
last meeting. He also stated that the City Council will consider the Water/Wastewater Impact Fees on
September 22, 2016, and the Roadway Impact Fees on November 10, 2016.
Chairperson Kee asked how the new list of benchmark cities compared to College Station concerning
growth rates and their time of Impact Fee adoption.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that this data was not readily available, but could be presented to the IFAC
at a later date.
Commissioner Ross asked if the $150 million needed for infrastructure is inclusive of Transportation or
only Water/Wastewater.
Director of Water Services Coleman responded that this only includes Water/Wastewater over the next
ten years.
Commissioner Moore asked how the maximum impact fee was calculated and how Staff’s
recommendation was concluded.
August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
City Engineer Gibbs stated that state law defines that the maximum be calculated as the Eligible CIP
(City Improvement Project) Cost, minus the Rate Credit, divided by projected growth.
Commissioner Warner asked in regards to developable land, how much and/or what will be impacted
by the impact fees.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that Water/Wastewater, as proposed, will apply to portions of the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and this enforcement will be done in tandem with annexation.
Commissioner Kee asked, if adopted, how often would the impact fees be reviewed, and how would
they be changed if needed.
City Engineer Gibbs stated the fees would be reviewed at a minimum of five years, but could be reviewed
more often if needed.
Chairperson Kee asked how CIPs affect impact fees if fees are changed. Would reimbursement be
granted if recalculated?
City Engineer Gibbs stated that it is not anticipated that there will be a lack of CIP projects or a problem
spending the impact fees.
Commissioner Ross asked if the $3500 Water/Wastewater fee impact recommended by Staff, would
apply to every new home, regardless of home size.
City Manager Templin stated that the fee would be based upon the water meter size.
Commissioner Ross asked if existing properties would pay into the impact fee.
City Manager Templin stated that existing properties would not pay into the fee unless the meter size
was increased or meters were added.
Commissioner Ross expressed concern that the impact fee would drive up existing home prices.
Commissioner Oldham asked why we haven’t been paying for current impact, and asked what other
options the City has other than impact fees.
City Manager Templin stated that impact fees are our best options, along with raising utility rates.
Commissioner Oldham asked why the City has chosen to implement the impact fees over other funding
options.
Deputy City Manager Gilman stated that the City is trying to redistribute the burden of new growth to
those causing the impacts and reduce the amount of rate increases by collecting impact fees up front.
IFAC Member French asked, if the impact fee was not implemented, what the utility rate increase would
have to be to fund the needed infrastructure improvements.
Commissioner Ross asked what the tax rate would have to be, in order to fund the improvements, per
single-family home.
August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
Assistant City Manager Kersten responded that there would need to be an approximate utility rate
increase of 30% or $150 a year on wastewater, and about 8%-9% or $90 a year for water on a typical
single-family home.
IFAC Member French asked when the execution of impact fees would begin, and when would the new
water and wastewater lines be run to developments.
Director of Water Services Coleman stated that the projects would be in line with the Wastewater Master
Plan and it has to be in progress with the projects.
Chairperson Kee asked what would happen, if after ten years, there are no more projects to be funded.
Director of Water Services Coleman stated the impact fees would be reviewed at a minimum of every
five years, so there should not be a loss of projects.
Commissioner Oldham asked how the CIP projects would be funded by only utilizing 15% of the
maximum impact fees.
Assistant City Manager Kersten stated that there would also be an increase in utility rates to help fund
the CIP projects.
Commissioner Oldham stated that he did not feel comfortable in deciding an exact fee and would like
to see an economic impact analysis.
Chairperson Kee stated that to initiate a fee such as this, we need to look upon what the market can bare
so that development will not be hindered. Ms. Kee stated that she hopes that council will look at revenue
streams and keep in mind the goals and objectives outlined in the plan, annexation policy’s, economic
development goals, and affordable housing so that there is not a detriment to growth and development.
Ms. Kee also stated that she did not feel as though she has enough information to propose an exact dollar
amount for the impact fee.
Commissioner Oldham asked for different mechanisms of funding the growth and development, other
than an impact fee. Mr. Oldham also stated that the fee should match the impact.
IFAC Member French asked if the fees could slowly be increased over several years to help minimize
the impact on the home builders.
Commissioner Warner stated that she was not comfortable recommending a fee amount.
Director of Water Services Coleman stated that there is an obligatory one-year waiting period before
implementation of the fees.
Commissioner Oldham if there was a problem with absorption on the developer’s end, how would this
affect the City.
Chairperson Kee summarized her comments stating that Water/Wastewater impact fees should be
considered and she encouraged the City Council to look at all infrastructure funding options. Ms. Kee
also stated she didn’t feel qualified to recommend a specific impact fee amount. Ms. Kee also
recommended considering impact fees in light of the City’s adopted goals, objectives, and vision.
August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
Commissioner Moore stated that he also believed that all funding options should be considered,
including impact fees. He also stated that the City should be willing to listen to the private market.
Commissioner Warner stated the City Council should look at all infrastructure funding options. She also
stated she didn’t feel qualified to recommend a specific impact fee amount. Ms. Warner also favors
impact fees in lieu of across-the-board utility rate increases.
IFAC Member French stated that he would be in favor of Water/Wastewater impact fees. He also
recommended that the proposed $3500 impact fee be tiered or cut in half to $1750, to minimize the
impact on development. He would also like to see utility rates increased as well.
Commissioner Ross stated that he would like to leave the overall decisions to the policy makers.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Roadway Impact Fee Advisory Committee
reviewing and making a recommendation on the Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact Fees.
Presentation and discussion on this item was deferred to a later meeting.
4. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
Commissioner Oldham stated that he would be abstaining from voting on Regular Agenda Items #7 &
#8.
5. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City.
New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev
There was no discussion.
6. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff.
*Final Plat ~ Minor Plat ~ Caprock Crossing Lot 1A-R and 4R, Block 3 ~ Case #FPCO2016-000004
(Thomas)
*Final Plat ~ Minor Replat ~ Woodland Estates Lots 16-5RA and 15-5RB ~ Case #FP2016-000020
(Bullock)
There was no discussion.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2016 P&Z Plan of
Work.
There was no discussion.
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings:
*Thursday, August 11, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and
Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison – Kee)
*Thursday, August 18, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:30 p.m. and Regular
7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Kee reviewed upcoming meetings for the Planning & Zoning Commission.
9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items:
August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5
*An Ordinance Amendment related to the creation of Wellborn Zoning Districts. Planning & Zoning
heard this item on June 16, 2016, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. City Council heard this item
on July 28, 2016, and voted (6-0) to approve the request.
*A Rezoning on approximately six acres located at 5068 Raymond Stotzer Parkway from R Rural to
PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on July 7,
2016, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on July 28, 2016, and
voted (5-1-0) to approve the request.
There was no discussion.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio
Corridor Board.
There was no discussion.
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.
12. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________
Jane Kee, Chairperson Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist
Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services
Dear Alan:
Please forward my remarks to all relevant parties prior to the meeting on Thursday. As
previously communicated, I have a long standing commitment in Conroe on Thursday.
In my opinion, the discussion and consideration of impact fees needs to be considered
in the CONTEXT of the City Council Mission and the COMMUNITY VISION as articulated
in the CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN -2016 UPDATE. [The entire document is readily
available on the College Station website.]To me, a consideration of the mission and
vision statements has been missing in the dialogue associated with the matter
of suggesting or not suggesting impact fees-- and, if yes, how much and in what
domains. Please note that I may want to revise these inputs prior to the packet with all
inputs that will be submitted to City Council for consideration.
CONTEXT: CITY COUNCIL MISSION
“On behalf of the citizens of College Station, home of Texas A&M University, we will
continue to promote and advance the community's QUALITY OF LIFE". [emphasis
added]
CONTEXT: COMMUNITY VISION
"College Station will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based community that
promotes the HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE by: [emphasis added]
* Promoting safe, tranquil, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character.
* Increasing and maintaining CITIZENS MOBILITY [emphasis added] through a well-
planned and constructed intermodal
Transportation system.
* Promoting sensitive development and management of the built and natural
environments.
* Supporting HIGH QUALITY, [emphasis added] well-planned and sustainable growth.
* Valuing and protecting our community's cultural and historical resources.
* Developing and maintaining HIGH QUALITY [emphasis added] ,cost-effective
community facilities, infrastructure and services that ensure a cohesive and connected
city.
* Proactively supporting economic and educational opportunities for all citizens.
College Station will remain a friendly and responsive community and will be a
demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in
the Brazos Valley. It will forever be place where Texas and the world come to learn, live
and conduct business".
CONSIDERATIONS FOR ME
1. These vision and mission statements have been key ingredients [decision premises]
as I have attempted to research and weigh the potential implications of adopting impact
fees. To the extent possible, I do think that the city staff and the consultants have
brought forth a rational, thoughtful, and extensive analysis, including assessment, of
the design and features for the recommended impact fees related to water, waste
water, and transportation CAPITAL requirements/needs consistent with the Council
mission and community vision.
2. I had the opportunity to serve on the two previous citizen advisory capital
committees. In both cases, it was disappointing that the VAST majority of the projected
and available capital funds had to be allocated to core capital projects such as roads,
fire stations, police station, and the like. These projects were required due to relatively
high levels of community growth. Unfortunately, a number of QUALITY OF LIFE capital
projects had to be eliminated even thought they were valued and recognized as
desirable.
3. The plans for the new police station are based on a 35 year time horizon, not the 10
year time horizon required in the consideration of impact fees. The space requirements
for the police station are based on a projection of College Station with a POPULATION
OF OVER 300,000 by 2051. If this projection holds [and even if somewhat less], the
CAPITAL requirements associated with new growth related to collector roads, water,
and waste water will only increase. We are already behind in these domains. Of
course, all forecasts are subject to error and revision.
4. I recognize and understand that the good and smart folks in the development/real
estate community are likely to view the matter of impact fees different than me--and
from that which has been proposed. It is understandable that there is a divergence in
problem definition, divergence in goals, and divergence in solutions related to the
domain of impact fees.
5. It is clearly set forth in law that impact fees, including those proposed, may only
address a portion of the capital costs associated with the related growth over a ten year
period. In my opinion, it is not feasible or legal for there to be a "slippery slope" related
to impact fees.
6. Even with the proposed impact fees [or a version of them], I am of the opinion that
there needs to an increase in tax rates and water/waste water fees IF WE ARE
SERIOUS ABOUT "PROMOTING AND ADVANCING THE QUALITY OF LFE". To me, we
are falling behind even if it is not visible to some.
7. There is much evidence that the adoption of impact fees, such as those suggested by
City Staff, will not have major adverse consequences. More likely, they will provide one
of SEVERAL means to assist in having a "COMMUNITY THAT PROMOTES THE HIGHEST
QUALITY OF LIFE".
8. Again, I appreciate that the proposed adoption of impact fees presents a situation
where the parties [or some parties] have separate and different interests, goals, and
values. I make no claim that I am right and others who view this situation differently
are wrong.
PAYING FOR PROGRESS
I share an excerpt from the July 2007 issue of Tierra Grande [a publication of TAMU
Real Estate Center], entitled "Impact Fees: Paying for Progress" by James P. Gaines
and Judon Fambrough.
"Debate over whether new development pays for itself has continued for decades.
Expecting developers to pay for expansion of existing facilities or construction of new
facilities, especially in areas of substantial and rapid growth, appears justifiable and
equitable if properly implemented. Developers in high growth areas not only expect but
may actually encourage and promote impact fees to ensure their developments are
built."
Best wishes to all,
Don Hellriegel
Kristen and Alan:
Thank you for getting this to me, Kristen. I've been trying to figure a different way to get to the
file but can't as it is too large for my email system.
That said, I have read through things again and, based on my participation in the previous IFAC
meetings and correspondence, I would like to add my perspective to be included in any
comments to City Council. They echo much of what has been said, so will be brief.
Simply stated, we were asked to assess and advise on the consideration of impact fees, no t
taxes. That discussion is settled in my mind...they are impact fees. While they may have similar
financial effects as a tax, we should use the terminology best describing the fee.
Given the primary mission of the Commission, and the Council, of adv ancing the quality of life
for College Station citizens and those within its ETJ, we must fulfill our responsibilities to first, I
believe, protect that quality and then promote additional growth which should, if done well,
raise that quality of life.
Looking at the trajectory of our growth over the past 5-7 years, its unprecedented pressures on
our existing systems must be addressed by utilizing the mechanisms we have at our disposal to
ensure we do not put our current quality of life at risk, provide for future needs and address the
financial and operational requirements of both.
By implementing impact fees first, we can provide for future citizens their needs at a rate, or
fee, that is related to their "entry" into the city's system. I believe imposing an impact fee, as
recommended by City staff, new development will contribute to the additional resources
needed while current citizens will similarly face an increase in utility rates. Both are required,
and likely insufficient even, to address the needs facing us. We do not have the luxury of really
sacrificing one over the other without all reducing a true risk to our expected levels of services.
Therefore, my perspective is we move forward with the impact fees as recommended by staff
even if it does impact new development temporarily. If we are able to maintain that "quality"
for which we are volunteering (in our roles) to ensure, we will be able to prove the "quantity"
(e.g., future development) will be in line with the goals of our City.
While our comparisons to other cities is fair, we must ultimately look at our City and ETJ and
decide what is best for this place at this time.
Kirk Joseph
Thoughts on Water/Wastewater Impact Fees
From Johnny Burns; 8/22/16.
I will try and keep my comments brief, as I don’t believe they differ
much from the basic opinions of the rest of the IFAC Committee. In
essence, my opinion is that impact fees in the W/WW area are a viable
revenue source, and should be considered by the City going forward.
Continued growth and infrastructure needs dictate that funds will be
necessary for College Station to keep up with growth demands, not
only in the future, but even today.
What rates should be set, and how should they be applied as to
commercial versus residential are of course things to be considered
going forward, as well as any impact that such fees would have on the
growth of the community and current needs for funding.
In my limited experience on the IFAC, it seems pretty obvious that the
need for funding of many projects is lacking at present, and tough
decisions have to be made to address these situations. So, it seems to
me that ruling out any possible mean s of funding at this time would not
be prudent.
In summary, I believe that water/wastewater impact fees should be
seriously considered for implementation by the Council.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Johnny Burns