HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2019 - 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 Chambers4:00 PMThursday, March 14, 2019
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. 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
b. McCrory Investments II, LLC d/b/a Southwest Stor Mor v. City of College Station; Cause
No. 17-000914-CV-361; In the 361st District Court, Brazos County, Texas
c. City of College Station v. Gerry Saum, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the
Estate of Susan M. Wood, Deceased; Cause No. 17-002742-CV-361; In the 361st District
Court, Brazos County, Texas
d. Carrie McIver v. City of College Station; Cause No. 18-003271-CV-85; In the 85th
District Court, Brazos County, Texas
Legal Advice
a. Legal Advice concerning recent developments related to the Texas Open Meetings Act.
b.Legal advice regarding College Station’s position under the ILA and Joint Development
Agreement between the Cities of College Station and Bryan related to Nutrabolt.
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074};
Possible action. The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer. After executive session
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019
March 14, 2019City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following public officer(s)
may be discussed:
a. Council Self Evaluation
b. City Secretary
5:00 p.m.
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, discussion, and possible action relating to receiving the
annual audit reports and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.
19-01015.
Sponsors:Leonard
Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the City
Internal Auditor’s Audit of the City’s Parkland Dedication Program.
19-01086.
Sponsors:Elliott
Parkland Dedication AuditAttachments:
7. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
8.Discussion, review, and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Architectural
Advisory Committee, 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, Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation, Bryan/College Station
Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS,
Compensation and Benefits Committee, Experience Bryan-College Station, Design Review
Board, Economic Development Committee, FBT/Texas Aggies Go to War, Gulf Coast
Strategic Highway Coalition, 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 Technology Council,
Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister Cities Association,
Spring Creek Local Government Corporation, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU
Economic Development, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City
Endowment, Walk with the Mayor, YMCA, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of
Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
9. Adjourn.
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019
March 14, 2019City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
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.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on March 8, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
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 3/8/2019
_____________________
City Secretary
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-0101 Name:CAFR & Audit Cover Sheet
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/27/2019 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:3/14/2019
Title:Presentation, discussion, and possible action relating to receiving the annual audit reports and
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.
Sponsors:Mary Ellen Leonard
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation,discussion,and possible action relating to receiving the annual audit reports and
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.
Recommendation(s):Staff recommends that Council accept the 2018 audit reports and CAFR.
Summary:The City's Charter and Fiscal and Budgetary Policies along with State law require that
not less than thirty (30)days prior to the end of each fiscal year,the City Council shall designate a
qualified public accountant or accountants who,as of the end of the fiscal year,shall make an
independent audit of accounts and other evidences of financial transactions of the City government and
shall submit the report to the City Council.Also,the City's budgetary policies require that the auditor
jointly review the management letter/audit results with the City Council within 30 days of receipt by the
staff.
Ms.Amanda Eaves of BKD,LLP will present the results of the fiscal year 2018 audit and present,along
with staff,the 2018 CAFR.Ms.Eaves will also be available to answer any questions the City Council may
have.
Budget &Financial Summary:The reports provide a summary of the City's financial position as of
September 30, 2018.
Legal Review:
Attachments:
1.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30,2018
(Delivered to Council under separate cover)
2.Single Audit Reports (Delivered to Council under separate cover)
3.Management Letter (Delivered to Council under separate cover)
College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-0101,Version:1
4.Staff response to Management Letter (Delivered to Council under separate cover)
College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-0108 Name:Parkland Dedication Audit
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:3/6/2019 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:3/14/2019
Title:Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of the City’s
Parkland Dedication Program.
Sponsors:Ty Elliott
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Parkland Dedication Audit
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of
the City’s Parkland Dedication Program.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
Recommendation(s):
1.Modify the parkland dedication ordinance so that dedication requirements for multifamily
developments are proportional to the fee-in-lieu of dedication.
2.Reduce the number of park zones to the fewest number of zones feasible according to
legal requirements.
3.Modify or eliminate the discounts built into the park development fee.
4.Develop a more elegant parkland dedication methodology. Any changes made to the
ordinance should seek to simplify it instead of adding any additional layers of complexity.
5.Require Parks and Recreation staff to verify parkland dedication acres and fees that
have been collected by Planning and Development staff.
6.Consider engaging the Texas Municipal League or other contract partners to advocate
on the City’s behalf to modify Texas Local Government Code 245.
Summary:
The City’s current parkland dedication requirements and fee structure is complex. While
some of this complexity is the result of federal and state law, much of it is due to competing
political interests that have led to several changes in the parkland dedication ordinance over
College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-0108,Version:1
the past 10 years.
The most significant change occurred in 2008, which resulted in an ordinance that imposed
some of the highest parkland dedication fees and land dedication requirements in Texas.
Subsequent City Councils have modified the ordinance to shift or lesson the burden of fees
and land requirements. Although some City Councils desired to increase parkland dedication
requirements and fees while others sought to reduce them, most changes made since 2008
have resulted in added layers of complexity.
As the parkland dedication ordinance has become more complex, accurately and fairly
accounting for the land dedication, monies collected, and the funds expended have become
increasingly challenging for City staff. To mitigate these risks, the City has implemented
several internal controls. Overall, these controls have been effective, but they have come at
the cost of increased administrative burden to City staff, developers, and appointed and
elected governance bodies.
Perhaps the greatest consequence of the ordinance’s complexity is the timely expenditure of
parkland dedication funds. As a result, the City’s population has grown at a significantly
higher rate than the rate parkland has been added to the City. In addition, the City risks being
required to refund monies collected, but how and to whom to refund may be problematic.
Attachments: Parkland Dedication Audit Report
College Station, TX Printed on 3/8/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Parkland Dedication Audit
March 2019
City Internal Auditor’s Office
City of College Station
File#: 19-02
Audit Executive Summary:
Parkland Dedication Why We Did This Audit
This audit was conducted per direction of
the Audit Committee. The City acquires
significant land dedications and collects
substantial parkland dedication fees on
an annual basis due to its parkland
dedication ordinance.
What We Recommended
Modify the parkland dedication
ordinance so that dedication
requirements for multifamily
developments are proportional to the
fee-in-lieu of dedication.
Reduce the number of park zones to
the fewest number of zones feasible
according to legal requirements.
Modify or eliminate the discounts
built into the park development fee.
Develop a more elegant parkland
dedication methodology. Any changes
made to the ordinance should seek to
simplify it instead of adding any
additional layers of complexity.
Require Parks and Recreation staff to
verify parkland dedication acres and
fees that have been collected by
Planning and Development staff.
Consider engaging the Texas
Municipal League or other contract
partners to advocate on the City’s
behalf to modify Texas Local
Government Code 245.
What We Found
The City’s current parkland dedication requirements and
fee structure is complex. While some of this complexity
is the result of federal and state law, much of it is due to
competing political interests that have led to several
changes in the parkland dedication ordinance over the
past 10 years.
The most significant change occurred in 2008, which
resulted in an ordinance that imposed some of the
highest parkland dedication fees and land dedication
requirements in Texas. Subsequent City Councils have
modified the ordinance to shift or lesson the burden of
fees and land requirements. Although some City
Councils desired to increase parkland dedication
requirements and fees while others sought to reduce
them, most changes made since 2008 have resulted in
added layers of complexity.
As the parkland dedication ordinance has become more
complex, accurately and fairly accounting for the land
dedication, monies collected, and the funds expended
have become increasingly challenging for City staff. To
mitigate these risks, the City has implemented several
internal controls. Overall, these controls have been
effective, but they have come at the cost of increased
administrative burden to City staff, developers, and
appointed and elected governance bodies.
Perhaps the greatest consequence of the ordinance’s
complexity is the timely expenditure of parkland
dedication funds. As a result, the City’s population has
grown at a significantly higher rate than the rate
parkland has been added to the City. In addition, the
City risks being required to refund monies collected, but
how and to whom to refund may be problematic.
Parkland Dedication 1
Parkland Dedication Audit
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2
Audit Objectives ........................................................................................................ 2
Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................. 2
Parkland Dedication Background ................................................................................. 3
Findings and Analysis .................................................................................................... 6
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is Complex ............................................................ 6
The City’s Requirements are More Complex than other Texas Cities ............................ 6
Multifamily Dedication Requirements Are Not Proportional to Fees-in-lieu .................... 8
Ordinance Changes Have Increased Parkland Dedication Complexity .......................... 9
Some Parkland Dedication Requirements May Merit Periodic Consideration ................ 10
Ordinance Complexity Has Impacted Internal Controls Costs .................................... 11
Timely Expenditure of Parkland Funds Has Been Challenging ....................................... 12
The City Has More Park Zones than Other Texas Cities ............................................ 12
New Parks Should Be Built Within a Reasonable Time Frame .................................... 13
Parkland Dedication Ordinance Complexity Hinders Spending ................................... 13
Recent Changes Have Aimed to Address Spending Difficulties .................................. 14
Parkland Dedication Fee Collection Is Challenging ....................................................... 16
Fee Assessment Systems Adequately Account for Collections ................................... 16
The Inaccuracies Identified are Not Material ........................................................... 17
Fee Assessment Is Complicated By Outside Factors ................................................. 18
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A: Management’s Response .......................................................................... 22
Appendix B: Internal Control and Process Summary ...................................................... 24
2 Parkland Dedication
Introduction
The Office of the City Internal Auditor conducted this performance audit of the parkland
dedication program pursuant to Article II Section 30 of the College Station City Charter, which
outlines the City Internal Auditor’s primary duties.
A performance audit is an objective, systematic examination of evidence to assess
independently the performance of an organization, program, activity, or function. The purpose
of a performance audit is to provide information to improve public accountability and facilitate
decision-making. Performance audits encompass a wide variety of objectives, including those
related to assessing program effectiveness and results; economy and efficiency; internal control;
compliance with legal or other requirements; and objectives related to providing prospective
analyses, guidance, or summary information. A performance audit of the Parkland Dedication
program was included in the fiscal year 2019 audit plan based on direction given by the Audit
Committee.
Audit Objectives
This audit addresses the effectiveness of the City’s parkland dedication program and answers
the following questions:
How does the City of College Station’s parkland dedication program compare to best
practices and benchmark cities?
Do adequate controls exist to ensure parkland dedication fees are being collected
according to the ordinance?
Are parkland dedication contributions being spent effectively?
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Audit fieldwork was
conducted from October 2018 through January 2019. The scope of review varied depending on
the analysis being performed. The methodology used to complete the audit objectives included:
Reviewing the work of auditors in other jurisdictions and researching professional literature
to identify: 1) parkland dedication best practices, and 2) general challenges facing parkland
dedication programs.
Parkland Dedication 3
Comparing applicable policies and procedures and relevant state and federal laws or
regulations to the current parkland dedication ordinance and parkland dedication program
practices.
Interviewing pertinent staff in the Parks and Recreation Department, Planning and
Development Services Department, and Fiscal Services Department.
Obtaining legal opinions on various parkland dedication related issues from the City
Attorney’s Office.
Examining historical parkland dedication ordinances and relevant City Council, Planning and
Zoning, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings and minutes.
Verifying the accuracy and completeness of parkland dedication payments and fees.
Examining the parkland dedication ordinances of similar jurisdictions and benchmarking
these jurisdictions’ parkland dedication programs to the City of College Station’s program.
Parkland Dedication Background
The City of College Station’s parkland dedication program originated in 1970 and was intended
to provide for the creation and development of recreational areas in the City in conjunction with
population growth. In 2008, this ordinance received an extensive update spearheaded by the
City Council. At the time of this ordinance change, the City had a population of approximately
91,000 with 587 acres of community and neighborhood parkland and 666 acres of regional
parkland.1 From 2008 to 2018, the City has added 107 acres of parkland, an increase of 8
percent—while the City’s population has grown to approximately 120,000, an increase of 32
percent. Figure 1 below compares increases in park acreage to population growth over time.
Figure 1: Park Acreage and Population Growth (percent increase)
1 Parkland acreage amounts exclude cemeteries, conference centers, and Texas A&M University parks.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Park Acre % Inc.Park Acre % Inc. (excluding regional parks)Population % Inc.
4 Parkland Dedication
In 2018, the City had 11 acres of parkland per thousand people. When the parkland dedication
program originated in 1970, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) reported that
the average park and recreation agency offered 7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based
on a 2018 report published by the NRPA, the typical park and recreation agency offers one park
for every 2,114 residents served, with 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Although the City had 11 acres of parkland per thousand people in 2018, it sets parkland
dedication requirements based on a goal of 7 parkland acres per thousand people – 3.5 acres of
community and neighborhood parkland each.2 This discrepancy is largely due to regional
parkland acreage not being considered when setting this standard. As can be seen in Figure 2
below, nearly half of the City’s park acreage is composed of regional parkland within Lick Creek
and Veterans parks.
Figure 2: 2018 Park Inventory
Table 1: Park Inventory
Park Type 2008
Acres
2018
Acres
Community 287 334
Neighborhood 300 353
587 687
Veterans (regional) 150 149
Lick Creek (regional) 516 523
666 672
Total Acres 1,252 1,359
Park service level is a function of population, and park acreage. The land dedication requirement
is then proportional to this service level, determined by the estimated number of people the
development can house:
If population increases and parkland remains the same, the service level decreases;
If parkland increases and population remains the same, the service level increases.
Decreasing the expected park service level would mean that past residents were subsidizing
park funding for future residents, while increasing the expected park service level would mean
that future residents will subsidize park funding for past residents.
2 At the time the 2008 ordinance was being developed, a population of approximately 88,000 and park acreage of 616 was
assumed. The park acreage included 29 acres of TAMU parkland, but excluded 666 acres of regional parkland. These
assumptions resulted in 7 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.
Community
25%
Neighborhood
26%
Veterans
11%
Lick
Creek
38%
Parkland Dedication 5
The City’s parkland dedication ordinance requires a developer to either dedicate a certain
amount of land or pay a fee-in-lieu of dedication. The formula for this is shown below:
Parkland Acres X 2.38 3 X Number of Housing X Fair Market
Population Units Proposed Value of an Acre
Service Level
Land Dedication Requirement
Fee-in-Lieu of Land Requirement
The City also requires developers to pay a park development fee or construct park
developments in lieu of the fee. Most Texas cities that have parkland dedication ordinances only
require that land be dedicated and do not impose park development fees. Ordinances that
contain only the land and the fee-in-lieu elements without containing a park development fee
require existing taxpayers to pay the costs of improvements to transform the bare land into a
park.
As can be seen in Figure 3 below, parkland acres per 1,000 population has steadily been
decreasing in College Station since 2010. Community and neighborhood park acres per thousand
population fell below 6 acres in 2017 and remained below that mark in 2018. Some of the
causes of this trend will be discussed in the Findings and Analysis section of this report.
Figure 3: Community and Neighborhood Park Acres per Thousand People4
3 Based on average household size of owner-occupied units according to 2010 census data.
4 Official population estimates obtained from the City’s Planning and Development Services Department were used.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Community Park Acres/1,000 Neighborhood Park Acres/1,000
6 Parkland Dedication
Findings and Analysis
The City’s current parkland dedication requirements and fee structure is complex. While much
of this complexity is the result of federal and state law, some of it is due to competing political
interests that have led to several changes in the parkland dedication ordinance over the past 10
years. As the parkland dedication ordinance has become more complex, accurately and fairly
accounting for the land dedication, monies collected, and the funds expended have become
increasingly challenging for City staff. To mitigate these risks, the City has implemented several
internal controls (see Appendix B). Overall, these controls have been effective, but they have
come at the cost of increased administrative burden to City staff, developers, and appointed and
elected governance bodies.
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is Complex
The City’s parkland dedication requirements are more complex and the associated fees are
higher than most other Texas cities. Transaction complexity often leads to fraud risks resulting
from reduced transparency. In addition, the more complex the transaction the greater the risk
of transactional errors or inaccuracies.
The City’s Requirements are More Complex than other Texas Cities
In 2008, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension performed a comprehensive study that analyzed the
parkland dedication ordinances of 42 Texas cities and reported the acres of parkland per 1,000
population in 83 Texas cities. At this time, College Station ranked 29 out of 83 in park acres per
1,000 residents. Three of the 42 cities in the study did not have a fee-in-lieu of option and 10
cities calculated fees based solely on market value. Of the remaining 29, College Station had the
highest total parkland dedication fees.
In determining parkland dedication fees, the 2008 study found that 8 cities fee calculations’
differentiated single-family developments from multi-family developments. Ten cities had park
development fees, but only 3 of those 10 differentiated between single-family and multifamily.
In addition, many ordinances were restricted to only a subset of parks—typically neighborhood,
or neighborhood and community parks—instead of all parks, and they did not extend into the
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas. The City of College Station’s 2008 ordinance contained all
these elements, which added to its complexity; and only the City of Bryan rivaled College Station
in its ordinance’s complexity.
Since a comprehensive study of parkland dedication ordinances in Texas has not been
conducted in approximately 10 years, our office examined the parkland dedication ordinances of
other cities. Because population and growth are key factors in determining parkland dedication,
Parkland Dedication 7
cities within ±35,000 of College Station’s population with 10 to 30 percent growth rates were
determined to be benchmark cities. These cities can be seen in Figure 4 below. Cities without
ordinances include Midland, Carrollton, Richardson, Conroe, Odessa, and Killeen (colored in gray
in Figure 4).
Figure 4: Parkland Acres per Thousand People5
College Station’s parkland dedication requirements are some of the highest among comparable
cities. A breakdown of parkland dedication fees in benchmark cities can be seen in Table 2 on
the next page. Unlike other municipalities, the City of College Station charges multifamily
developments by the bedroom and not by the dwelling unit, which makes comparison difficult.
This being said, we estimated College Station to have the third highest total fees of comparable
cities.
In terms of actual land required per dwelling unit, the City appears to be about in the middle for
single-family developments; however, College Station currently has the highest multifamily
parkland dedication requirement. College Station’s dedication requirement for multifamily
developments is one acre per 49 bedrooms for neighborhood parks and 53 bedrooms for
community parks. When these values are converted to dwelling units for comparison purposes
the result is one acre per 21 dwelling units for neighborhood parks and 22 units for community
parks. To put this into perspective, Bryan has the next highest multifamily dedication
requirement amongst the cities examined, with a land dedication of 1 acre per 90 dwelling units.
In other words, developers of multifamily properties are required to dedicate approximately 4
5 Census population estimates and developed parkland acres were used for comparison purposes.
- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Pharr
Edinburg
Pearland
Killeen
Odessa
League City
Denton
Allen
Conroe
Bryan
Richardson
Carrollton
Lewisville
Sugar Land
Midland
College Station
Flower Mound
Round Rock
8 Parkland Dedication
times the amount of land for parks in College Station than they are required to dedicate in the
City of Bryan.
Table 2: Parkland Dedication Requirements
City DU/Acre Fee-in-Lieu Dev. Fee Est. Fee-
in-Lieu Total Fees
Lewisville 33 Market Value $1,000/DU $1,758 $2,758/DU
Flower Mound 30 Market Value $278/DU $1,933 $2,211/DU
College Station
SF: NGBH: 117
COMM: 128
MF: NGBH: 21
COMM: 22
SF: $524/DU
MF: $220/BR
SF: $737/DU
MF: $467/BR N/A SF: $1,261/DU
MF: $687/BR6
Pearland 50 Market Value None $1,300 $1,300/DU
League City 90 None $1,000/DU7 N/A $1,000/DU
Denton SF: 143
MF: 222 Market Value SF: $291/DU
MF: $187/DU
SF: $336
MF: $216
SF: $627/DU
MF: $403/DU
Edinburg 50 $600/DU None N/A $600/DU
Allen 100 FMV None $590 $590/DU
Bryan SF: 74
MF: 90
SF: $162/DU
MF: $133/DU $358/DU N/A SF: $520/DU
MF: $491/DU
Sugar Land SF: 100
MF: 146
SF: $350/DU
MF: $240/DU None N/A SF: $350/DU
MF: $240/DU
Round Rock
SF: 1-8% of total
acres of subdivision
MF: 10-20% of total
acres of subdivision
Market Value None N/A N/A
Phar 1 acre/15 acres of
development $1,250/acre $250/DU N/A N/A
Multifamily Dedication Requirements Are Not Proportional to Fees-in-lieu
Although the City modified the parkland dedication ordinance in 2015 and 2017, many of the
assumptions that form the basis of the parkland dedication requirement have remained
constant since the 2012 update to the ordinance. For example, the assumptions for multifamily
developments are as follows:
96,603 population (according to 2012 population estimate)
346 acres of neighborhood parks (according to 2012 estimates)
316 acres of community parks (according to 2012 estimates)
2.38 average persons per household (according to 2010 census data)
Given the before mentioned assumptions have not changed since 2012, service level for
multifamily developments is calculated as follows:
96,603/346 = 1 acre of neighborhood park per 279 people
96,603/316 = 1 acre of community park per 305 people
6 Converted to Dwelling Units, this amount would total $1,636/DU.
7 If a developer pays parkland dedication fees at the time of approval for the master plan, the fee is reduced to $800/DU.
Parkland Dedication 9
This service level results in the following land dedication for multifamily developments:
Neighborhood parks: 279 people/2.38 PPH = 117 Dwelling Units per acre
Community parks: 305 people/2.38 PPH = 128 Dwelling Units per acre
The ordinance’s fee schedule was changed in 2015 to list the amounts for multifamily properties
by bedrooms instead of dwelling units, while single-family properties continued to be listed by
dwelling unit. Prior to this change, with a “by-the-dwelling-unit” assessment, all multifamily
units paid the same amount for parkland dedication regardless of the number of bedrooms. As a
result, multifamily developers constructing units with 1 to 2 bedrooms per unit were typically
paying more per bedroom than the multifamily developers that constructed units with more
than three bedrooms per unit.
The documentation regarding the 2015 ordinance presented to City Council states “since the
current fees were established assuming an average of 2.38 persons per household, the
amendment assumes that the previous “per dwelling unit” requirement can be divided by 2.38
resulting in a “per person” or “per bedroom fee for multi-family projects.”
Although this statement is a fair assumption when converting dwelling units to bedrooms for
the fee-in-lieu of land dedication. This is not the case when converting the dwelling units per
acre of dedicated land to bedrooms per acre. Consequently, the 2015 ordinance’s methodology
resulted in the following land dedication requirement:
Neighborhood parks: 117/2.38 = 49 bedrooms per acre of dedicated land
Community parks: 128/2.38 = 53 bedrooms per acre of dedicated land
As a result of this change, it could be as much as 6 times more costly for multifamily
developments to dedicate parkland than to pay the fee-in-lieu of land. Therefore, the City
should change these requirements so that they are proportional to the fee-in-lieu dedication. A
cost neutral conversion that results in a land dedication requirement proportional to the fee-in-
lieu of dedication could have been achieved by the following calculation:
Neighborhood parks: 117 x 2.38 = 278 bedrooms per acre of dedicated land
Community parks: 128 x 2.38 = 305 bedrooms per acre of dedicated land
Ordinance Changes Have Increased Parkland Dedication Complexity
Over the past ten years there have been four changes to the parkland dedication ordinance that
impacted the dedication requirements and the fees collected, as well as significantly adding to
the ordinance’s complexity. Although the ordinance was modified most recently in 2015 and
2017, the two most significant changes occurred in 2008 and 2012.
The change that occurred in 2008 was the most extensive and resulted in an ordinance that
imposed some of the highest parkland dedication fees and land dedication requirements in
Texas. Subsequent City Councils have modified the ordinance to shift or lesson the burden of
10 Parkland Dedication
fees and land requirements. Although some City Councils desired to increase parkland
dedication requirements and fees while others sought to reduce them, most changes made
since 2008 have resulted in added layers of complexity.
The 2012 changes made to the parkland dedication ordinance resulted in an overall reduction of
parkland dedication and fees. In addition, changes made to the variables that form the basis of
the parkland dedication calculations shifted the burden of costs from single-family
developments to multifamily developments. For example, the 2012 ordinance gave a 75 percent
discount on single-family community park development fees and a 50 percent discount on
multifamily community park development fees. Table 3 compares the assumptions from the
2008 parkland dedication ordinance to those in the 2012 ordinance. The table below also
describes the effect of a variable on parkland dedication fees (assuming all other variables are
held constant).
Table 3: Parkland Calculation Dedication Variables
Variable 2008 2012 Impact
on Fee
Neighborhood parks acres 308 346 Increase
Community parks acres 299 316 Increase
Population 87,758 96,603 Decrease
Owner-occupied Persons Per Household 2.80 2.38 Decrease
Renter-occupied Persons Per Household 2.28 2.38 Increase
Land value (cost per acre) $32,000 $32,000 None
Neighborhood park cost $630,520 $350,000 Decrease
Community park cost $2,500,000 $7,600,000 Increase
Number of neighborhood parks 38 42 Increase
Number of community parks 8 8 None
Single fam. development discount 0% 75% Decrease
Multi fam. development discount 0% 50% Decrease
Some Parkland Dedication Requirements May Merit Periodic Consideration
The fee-in-lieu of a land dedication should be a reasonable amount based on the land that
should have been dedicated. Six of 11 benchmark municipalities (55%) use the fair market value
(FMV) of the land that would be dedicated to calculate their fee. The other 5 benchmarks
periodically estimate the FMV of land in their jurisdiction and use this amount to assess all
developers’ requirements. The City of College Station uses the latter methodology and has
assumed since 2008 that a reasonable price per acre of land is $32,000. If a new development
could house about 1,000 people (420 single-family homes), but chose to pay the fee-in-lieu, they
would be charged $224,000 (i.e. 7 acres x $32,000).
Using multiple listing service (MLS) data provided by City staff, we found that the median price
of undeveloped land8 in College Station for the past five years was $22,094 and in the past year
8 Included properties over 10 acres not zoned commercial to best represent land to be developed to residential properties.
Parkland Dedication 11
was $29,293. While this calculation indicates that parkland dedication acquisition fees may have
been high in the past, they have generally been decreasing over time. In addition, it appears
reasonable to use this land value assumption for the next few years, but it should be re-
evaluated periodically.
In addition to a land dedication requirement, the City requires the payment of a park
development fee, which is based on the estimated cost per person the City would incur by
developing a neighborhood park ($350,000; about 2,300 people) and community park
($7,600,000; about 12,060 people) respectively. The City’s current park development fee gives a
75 percent discount on the community park cost to single-family developments and a 50
percent discount to multifamily developments due to changes made to community park
development standards in 2012. These discounts were enacted to keep these fees from
substantially increasing due to park construction cost increases and a change in neighborhood
and community park standard that occurred between 2008 and 2012. However, we found that
there does not appear to be a cogent basis for which these discounts percentages were
determined.
In lieu of paying a park development fee, a developer may construct park developments
according to the City’s standards. Six of 11 benchmark cities (55%) charge a park development
fee, while 5 separate benchmark cities (45%) allow the developer to construct park
developments. In addition, we found that some cities either require or offer discounts for
developer constructed parks that are turned over to home owner associations to manage and
maintain.
Ordinance Complexity Has Impacted Internal Controls Costs
Internal controls helps to achieve policy goals, protects assets from misuse and theft, and
increases the accuracy and reliability of financial records. Overall, we found that the City’s
internal controls over the assessment, collection, and expenditure of parkland dedication funds
to be well designed. However, the City’s system of internal controls over the parkland
dedication process, documented in Appendix B, has come at significant costs.
Due to the complexities of the ordinance previously described in this report, designing a process
that mitigates all significant risks has been challenging for City staff. Consequently, if future
changes are made to the parkland dedication ordinance, they should be made in consideration
of the administrative burden placed on staff. It is important to keep in mind that the more
complex the transaction, the greater the risk of transactional errors or malfeasance—and thus a
more costly system of internal controls is needed to prevent such occurrences.
12 Parkland Dedication
Timely Expenditure of Parkland Funds Has Been Challenging
Having separate community and neighborhood fees and funds compounds collection issues and
hinders effective spending. Meanwhile, not expending collected parkland dedication funds in a
timely fashion exposes the City to several risks. For example, the City risks being required to
refund monies, but how and to whom the refund is issued may be problematic. In addition, both
developers from whom the monies were collected and the citizens that live in the corresponding
development are likely to grow frustrated if park amenities are not delivered in a reasonable
time frame.
The City Has More Park Zones than Other Texas Cities
Like College Station, most Texas cities with parkland dedication programs create park zones to
ensure that the money generated from developments in a zone is expended in that zone. A
likely reason this methodology is so widely employed is due to legal precedent that appears to
suggest that the enacting jurisdiction should provide a connection between the demand
generated by the development and the park being developed with those resources.
To this effect, the City’s system of internal controls is designed to ensure that money collected
in a certain park zone is used to develop a park within that specific zone. The City currently
collects fees in 2 community park zones and 16 neighborhood park zones. These zones can be
seen on the maps in Figure 5 below. Unlike College Station, the comparable cities examined
typically have far fewer zones, and do not separate the zones into community and
neighborhood zones.
Figure 5: Park Zone Maps
Community Park Zones Neighborhood Park Zones
Parkland dedication fees sometimes apply in the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). In addition,
we can see from Figure 5 that the City currently charges community park fees in the ETJ, but
does not charge neighborhood fees. This reflects a 2017 policy change that amended the City’s
Parkland Dedication 13
Parks and Recreation Master Plan to discontinue building neighborhood parks in the ETJ,
however, community parks would still be built. Four of 11 benchmark cities (36%) require
parkland dedication in the ETJ.
New Parks Should Be Built Within a Reasonable Time Frame
When fees-in-lieu are paid, the homes generating the fees should expect to benefit from new
park amenities within a reasonable time frame. Nevertheless, many cities fail to specify a time
frame of any kind, which could be considered a limitation of their parkland dedication
ordinances. When they do, a reasonable time frame is most commonly determined to be either
10 or 5 years. Similar to the City of College Station, 67 percent of benchmark cities’ ordinances
define a reasonable time frame as 10 years.
If the reasonable time frame criterion is not met, many cities provide for the landowners who
have paid parkland dedication fees to receive a refund. The City’s current ordinance requires
parkland dedication fees to be encumbered or expended by the City within 10 years of the date
received. The City is then required to refund the property landowner on the expiration of the
received date.
Parkland Dedication Ordinance Complexity Hinders Spending
Collected parkland dedication fees are accounted in the City’s Tyler MUINIS system in separate
funds based on the development’s neighborhood and community park zone. Each month, Fiscal
Services staff reconciles the payments recorded in TRAKiT and in Tyler MUNIS. During fiscal year
2018, there were 26 active park funds: 6 community funds and 20 neighborhood funds.9 Funds
are then spent out of these accounts either through the purchase order process or the capital
projects process to ensure monies are spent in the appropriate areas. Figure 6 below shows how
the park zone funds have changed between fiscal years 2013 and 2017.
Figure 6: Park Zone Funds (FY13-FY17)
9 Active park fund means that the fund was growing either due to interest or developer contributions.
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Contributions Expenditures Ending Balance
14 Parkland Dedication
In other words, numerous park zones hinder effective parks spending. For instance, only three
of the twenty active neighborhood park zones have more than $350,000, which is the amount
the City estimates it takes to construct a neighborhood park. Indeed, each neighborhood park
fund has about $118,000 on average, but actually over half of the accounts have less than
$50,000. On the other hand, these funds total about $2.4 million dollars – enough money to
build almost seven neighborhood parks. Table 4 shows the summary statistics of each park zone
fund type.
Table 4: Park Zone Funds Balance (12/17/18)
Count Average Min Max Total
Neighborhood Park 20 $ 118,045 $ 00,108 $ 0,546,964 $ 2,360,899
Community Park 6 $ 780,544 $ 40,634 $ 3,026,718 $ 4,683,263
Total: 26 $ 270,929 $ 00,108 $ 3,026,718 $ 7,044,162
Recent Changes Have Aimed to Address Spending Difficulties
Not only do these spending difficulties hinder the City’s goal of providing recreational areas, but
also leave the owners of the property without the use of a park. A 2017 change to the City’s
parkland dedication ordinance attempted to correct some of these issues by implementing the
following changes:
Allowed collection of parkland dedication funds to be used for improvements as well as
acquisition and development;
Combined community park zones A&B and C&D and dissolved neighborhood park zones
in the ETJ;
Prohibited parkland dedication funds that are encumbered as well as expended from
being refunded; and
Extended the right to refund term to 10 years from 5 years, but compelled the City to
automatically refund landowners instead of requiring a written request.
Allowing funds to be used for improvements as well as acquisition and development of park
land adequately expands the City’s ability to spend park zone funds. In addition, as the funds
must be spent in the zone they are collected, the City can demonstrate a reasonable connection
between the need created and the benefit being received.
Similarly, combining community park zones allows for monies being collected to be spent more
effectively. For instance, land where there is little development can be purchased to construct
new community parks. This would previously have been more difficult because funds could only
be spent where development was taking place. Thus, unless large swaths of land were
dedicated, it was difficult to acquire enough land to warrant a community park.
Parkland Dedication 15
Likewise, specifying that encumbered funds cannot be refunded protects the City from having a
park acquisition or development planned or under contract and suddenly losing its funding.
Finally, changing the refund limit to 10 years gives the City more time to spend contributed
funds and decreases the risk that a needed park will not be developed.
However, requiring the City to automatically refund landowners could create a large
administrative burden on City staff if the money is not expended or encumbered prior to the 10-
year time frame.10 As of the end of fiscal year 2018, approximately $867,000 has been collected
with this refund expectation – presenting a potentially onerous burden if not spent within the
10-year time frame.
All this being said, there is some issue of expectation. The City’s parkland dedication ordinance
asserts that parks and recreational areas are required for the health, safety, and general welfare
of the population. If the City fails to provide the benefit associated with the perceived need of
its citizens it risks a loss of reputation.
10 This change was based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to automatically issue a refund to
the developer for whom the fee was collected. Prior to this change being considered, the City’s Legal staff advised the City
Council that refunds should legally be issued to landowners, which will in many cases not be the developers.
16 Parkland Dedication
Parkland Dedication Fee Collection Is Challenging
Parkland dedication fees are assessed and collected by Planning and Development Services staff
through the City’s TRAKiT system. Normally, this system automatically assesses parkland
dedication fees to all multifamily building permits and residential final plats based on the
number of bedrooms or dwelling units entered by the developer. A plans examiner or planner
verifies these numbers before the fees are collected by Planning and Development Services
cashiers as part of their normal duties. Developers are required to pay the assessed fees before
the permit is issued or the plat is filed.
Due to the complexities of the ordinance described previously, many parkland dedication
applicable projects do not go through the normal process. Instead they must receive additional
approvals by the Parks and Recreation Department, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,
and the Planning and Zoning Commission depending on why they are exceptions (see Appendix
B). This could be because land is being dedicated, park developments are being constructed, or
the project is vested to a previous fee schedule. These complications are discussed further in
following sections.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the systems involved, we collected data for two different
scopes: calendar years 2015 through 2017 and fiscal years 2016 through 2018. Table 5 presents
a summary of the development records reviewed over the course of the audit in conjunction
with our scopes:
Table 5: Reviewed Development Records
CY15-CY17 FY16-FY18 Total Reviewed
Count Amount Count Amount Count Amount
Multi-Family Permits 155 $ 3,302,642 128 $ 2,774,920 166 $ 3,658,508
Residential Permits 361 $ 0,730,548 348 $ 0,728,026 370 $ 0,748,202
New Construction Permits 4 $ 0,812,536 3 $ 0,812,536 4 $ 0,812,536
Tenant Finish-Out 1 $ 0,002,000 1 $ 0,002,000 1 $ 0,002,000
Final Plat 135 $ 1,626,613 46 $ 1,306,387 167 $ 1,945,981
Development Plat 1 $ 0,001,261 1 $ 0,001,261 1 $ 0,001,261
Mixed-Use Plat 6 $ 0,016,250 1 $ 0,016,250 7 $ 0,016,250
Total: 663 $ 6,491,850 528 $ 5,641,390 716 $ 7,184,738
Fee Assessment Systems Adequately Account for Collections
The City’s TRAKiT system automatically assigns the correct fund account number to each record
based on the address or parcel number. We evaluated the accuracy of this system by comparing
each parkland dedication transaction’s address on Google Maps to the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and were able to verify that all 528 records paid between October 1, 2015 and
September 30, 2018 (fiscal years 2016 to 2018) were categorized in TRAKiT correctly.
Parkland Dedication 17
Parkland dedication fees are paid either during the final plat for single-family residences or at
the building permit level for multifamily residences. In order to verify that fees were assessed to
all appropriate records in TRAKiT, we sequentially reviewed all multi-family permit, final plat,
and mixed-use final plat records between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 (calendar
years 2015 to 2017). Of the 663 records in this scope, 121 were not assessed a fee. These are
broken down in Table 6 into “No Risk,” “Low Risk,” “Medium Risk,” and “High Risk” categories
based on the likelihood that they were incorrectly not assessed a fee.
Table 6: No Fee Charged Risk (CY15-CY17)
Risk Level No. of Records Potential Dollar Value11
High 5 $ 016,036
Medium 1 $ 189,150
Low 29 $ 626,324
None 86 N/A
Total: 121 $ 848,974
We verified that 5 records were incorrectly not charged a fee, resulting in an actual loss for the
City of $16,036. The records in question were typically redevelopment of a property that
previously had a single-family dwelling. When the property was redeveloped as a duplex, the
parkland dedication fee created by the additional dwelling unit was not charged. The amount of
loss is less than 1 percent of the actual amount collected during this period and is thus
immaterial, however, these errors exemplify the effects of ordinance complexity.
The Inaccuracies Identified are Not Material
The City of College Station’s current fee schedule requires each residential development to
dedicate an amount of land and pay a park development fee based on the number of dwelling
units (for single-family developments) or bedrooms (for multifamily developments) being built.
The City’s ordinance allows for a fee to be paid in lieu of donating land and also allows for the
developer to construct park developments instead of paying the park development fee.
We reviewed the submitted plans and additional documentation of each record with parkland
dedication fees paid between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2018 in order to verify that
they had been assessed accurately.
We found 161 records that are incorrect, but 159 of them are related to one specific
development. This development was charged an additional fee because they proposed building
dwelling units with 5 bedrooms. The City determined that the developer should pay an
additional $91 for each dwelling unit – $35 for neighborhood parks and $56 for community
parks. For these 159 records (211 dwelling units), however, the total additional fee of $91 per
11 This amount reflects the amount that would have been charged if the fees were collected based on the current fee schedule
at the date of application.
18 Parkland Dedication
unit was assessed entirely as a community park fee. This resulted in a total of $7,486 being
incorrectly accounted in Community Park Zone B, which should instead be moved into
Neighborhood Park Zone 15.
Another record is for one specific apartment development, which should have been charged the
current multifamily fee. Instead, single-family fees were charged for all except the neighborhood
park development fee. This resulted in an over-charge of $3,075 for Community Park Zone B and
$2,386 for Neighborhood Park Zone 1.
Finally, one single-family house was rebuilt as a duplex, which would warrant a total fee of
$1,261, however, they were actually charged $2,533. Resulting in an over-charge of $1,272.
Although there are errors, the actual amounts in question are immaterial (i.e. less than 1% was
incorrectly accounted and less than 1% was overcharged).
This being said, it was extremely difficult to reconcile the remaining records in our scope with a
high degree of certainty. Therefore, we categorized these records into “No Risk,” “Low Risk,”
“Medium Risk,” “High Risk,” and “Incorrect” transactions based on the documentation available.
As can be seen in Table 7 below, it is telling that only 51% of the amount collected during our
scope is at low or no risk level. This is mostly not due to the fault of the departments involved,
but is instead due to outside factors that are further explored below.
Table 7: Remittance Risk – FY16-18 Scope
Risk Level No. of
Records
Total Dollar
Value
Potential
Dollar Value12
At-Risk Amount
Under Over
Incorrect 161 $ 0,382,502 $ 0,516,624 $ 0,161,485 ($ 27,363)
High 96 $ 0,318,546 $ 0,352,048 $ 0,046,684 ($ 13,182)
Medium 164 $ 2,054,998 $ 3,712,130 $ 1,690,871 ($ 33,740)
Low 45 $ 0,070,616 $ 0,245,358 $ 0,174,742 ($ 000.00)
No 61 $ 2,814,718 $ 2,814,718 $ 0,0000.00 ($ 000.00)
Total: 528 $ 5,641,380 $ 7,640,878 $ 2,073,782 ($ 74,284)
Fee Assessment Is Complicated By Outside Factors
Parkland dedication requirement options make verifying payment amounts onerous. Dedication
exceptions affected 31 records within our scope, accounting for $755,915 or about 13 percent
of the money collected. These exceptions involve a proposal from a developer to dedicate land,
develop a park, or both. Proposals are discussed with Parks and Recreation staff and reviewed
by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, but are ultimately approved or refused by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
12 This amount reflects amount that would have been charged if fees were collected on this record based on the current fee
schedule at the date of application.
Parkland Dedication 19
These exceptions are at a higher risk because documentation for the dedication is often hard to
associate with the records in question. For instance, large residential development final plat
records typically have a parkland administrative approval form attached that is signed by the
Director of Planning and Development Services, however, these are often not present for multi-
family permit records. In addition, these forms may reference that parkland was dedicated, but
may not reference how much or where to locate the final plat which has the dedicated land.
This makes verifying land dedication and thus the fees that must still be paid difficult – not just
for our staff, but also for Planning and Development Services.
State law requirements further muddle parkland dedication fee assessment. Vesting exceptions
affected 299 records within the scope, accounting for $1,724,334 or about 31 percent of the
money collected. Texas Local Government Code 245 allows development projects to be vested
to a certain date for specific types of licenses and fees, including parkland dedication fees. This
means that if a developer began a project previous to the City’s update to parkland dedication
fees, the developer has the right to choose which fee schedule they wish to fall under. If we
imagine parkland dedication fees did not vest, the City would have instead collected $2,728,304
– a little over a $1 million difference.13 While vesting parkland dedication fees is not an issue
caused by the City, it does still impact the complexity – and thus administrative burden – of the
City’s parkland dedication fee structure.
13 This calculation accounts for developments that dedicated land or constructed park developments.
20 Parkland Dedication
Recommendations
Based on our review, it appears that the primary cause of many of the audit findings detailed in
this report are related to the complexity of the City’s parkland dedication ordinance. As a result,
we recommend the City consider several potential modifications to the ordinance. This being
said, we hold the position that it is Council’s responsibility to set policy, while management’s
duty is to carry out this policy direction effectively and efficiently. Therefore, policy decisions,
such as determining the appropriate parks service level, are not addressed in the following
recommendations.
The Director of Parks and Recreation should work with the Legal and Planning and Development
Services Departments in considering the following modifications to the parkland dedication
ordinance.
1. Modify the parkland dedication ordinance so that dedication requirements for
multifamily developments are proportional to the fee-in-lieu of dedication. If this
modification is not made, it could be as much as 6 times more costly for multifamily
developments to dedicate parkland than to pay the fee-in-lieu of land.
2. Reduce the number of parkland zones to the fewest number of zones that is legally
permissible. Eliminating the distinction between neighborhood and community parks
zones should also be considered. But only if the total number of zones can be
reasonably reduced to a number that will not adversely impact the timely construction
of community parks. Ideally, the size of the zones should be based on information from
empirical studies measuring how far people in the community travel to parks.
3. Modify or eliminate the discounts built into the park development fee. It is important to
note that this will result in higher fees if all other variables remain constant. Therefore,
the City Council’s input should be sought as to the appropriate park service level and
fees to be charged if this modification to the ordinance is to be considered.
4. Eliminate parkland dedication in the extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Building and
maintaining parks outside of city limits presents several challenges to a municipality. For
this reason, very few cities require parkland dedication for developments in their ETJ.
5. Develop a more elegant parkland dedication methodology. The City’s current parkland
dedication ordinance is one of the most complex ordinances in the State. Multiple
solutions should be considered in modifying the ordinance’s methodology. The Director
of Parks and Recreation should not only work with Legal and Planning and Development
staff, but also consult with colleagues at other cities and experts within the field when
considering modifications to the ordinance’s methodology. Any changes made to the
Parkland Dedication 21
ordinance should seek to simplify it instead of adding any additional layers of
complexity.
In addition to the recommendations related to modifying the parkland dedication ordinance, the
Director of Parks and Recreation should work with the City Manager’s Office and the Planning
and Development Services Department in considering the following:
6. Require Parks and Recreation staff to verify parkland dedication acres and parkland
dedication fees that have been collected by Planning and Development staff. Although
we found internal controls to be generally well designed, this segregation of duty will
help ensure accurate land dedications and cash collections with minimal added cost.
7. Consider engaging the Texas Municipal League or other contract partners to advocate
on the City’s behalf to modify Texas Local Government Code 245. This state code allows
development projects to be vested to a certain date for specific types of licenses and
fees, including parkland dedication fees. The City should weigh the costs and the
likelihood of success in eliminating or modifying this code against the costs and risks
imposed on the City as a result of this legislation.
22 Parkland Dedication
Appendix A: Management’s Response
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PARKLAND DEDICATION AUDIT RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
Following is the response from the Parks and Recreation Department Director for each of the
recommendations from the January 2019 Parkland Dedication Audit.
The Director of Parks and Recreation should work with the Legal and Planning and Development
Services Departments in considering the following modifications to the parkland dedication ordinance.
1. Modify the parkland dedication ordinance so that dedication requirements for multifamily
developments are proportional to the fee-in-lieu of dedication. If this modification is not made, it
could be as much as 6 times more costly for multifamily developments to dedicate parkland than to
pay the fee-in-lieu of land.
Answer: Agree. This item can be accomplished with the expected update of the ordinance in
response to this audit.
2. Reduce the number of parkland zones to the fewest number of zones that is legally permissible.
Eliminating the distinction between neighborhood and community park zones should also be
considered. But only if the total number of zones can be reasonably reduced to a number that will
not adversely impact the timely construction of community parks. Ideally, the size of the zones
should be based on information from empirical studies measuring how far people in the community
travel to parks.
Answer: Agree. While the number of Neighborhood Park Zones was recently reduced from 29 to
16, it was accomplished by removing the Neighborhood Zones located within the ETJ. I agree that
we may be able to reduce the number of Neighborhood Park Zones within the City Limits even
further by combining adjacent zones, while staying within close proximity and taking into account
access barriers (natural and man-made).
I agree with combining the Neighborhood and Community Park distinctions into a single category of
Parks. This will enable the City to include all park properties in the methodology calculations as well
as be a major step in simplifying the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. I would like to keep the 2
Community Park Zones, however, to enable the City to spend collected funds from all of the
Neighborhood Park Zones located within their respective Community Park Zones in order to not
adversely impact timely construction/development of community parks.
3. Modify or eliminate the discounts built into the park development fee. It is important to note that
this will result in higher fees if all other variables remain constant. Therefore, the City Council’s input
should be sought as to the appropriate park service level and fees to be charges if this modification
to the ordinance is to be considered.
Parkland Dedication 23
Answer: Agree. The discounts can be removed with the inclusion of all parks into a single
category, as they were applied only with the Community Park development calculations. Options,
such as remaining at the current target service level of 7 acres per 1,000 population, adjusting the
target to the current actual service level of 11 acres per 1,000 population, or even targeting the
national average service level of 10 acres per 1,000 population, can be considered.
4. Eliminate parkland dedication in the extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Building and maintaining
parks outside of city limits presents several challenges to a municipality. For this reason, very few
cities require parkland dedication for developments in their ETJ.
Answer: Agree. This will greatly simplify the Parkland Dedication Ordinance with both collections
and expenses. Issues with Parkland Dedication requirements have, at times, become issues when
working with developments located within the ETJ.
5. Develop a more elegant parkland dedication methodology. The City’s current parkland dedication
ordinance is one of the most complex ordinances in the State. Multiple solutions should be
considered in modifying the ordinance’s methodology. The Director of Parks and Recreation should
not only work with Legal and Planning and Development staff, but also consult with colleagues at
other cities and experts within the field when considering modifications to the ordinance’s
methodology. Any changes made to the ordinance should seek to simplify it instead of adding any
additional layers of complexity.
Answer: Agree. The audit recommendations will go a long ways towards simplifying the
ordinance. As these recommendations are applied to the ordinance’s methodology, the resulting
fees will be easier to understand, calculate, collect, and spend, while at the same time staying within
the bounds of the ordinance guidelines, rules and purpose.
In addition to the recommendations related to modifying the parkland dedication ordinance, the
Director of Parks and Recreation should work with the City Manager’s Office and the Planning and
Development Services Department in considering the following:
6. Require Parks and Recreation staff to verify parkland dedication acres and parkland dedication fees
that have been collected by Planning and Development staff. Although we found internal controls to
be generally well designed, this segregation of duty will help ensure accurate land dedications and
cash collections with minimal added cost.
Answer: Agree. The Parks and Recreation Project and Asset Manager will be assigned this task,
in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Business Services Manager.
7. Consider engaging the Texas Municipal League or other contract partners to advocate on the City’s
behalf to modify Texas Local Government Code 245. This state code allows development projects to
be vested to a certain date for specific types of licenses and fees, including parkland dedication fees.
The City should weigh the costs of the likelihood of success in eliminating or modifying this code
against the costs and risks imposed on the City as a result of this legislation.
Answer: Agree.
24 Parkland Dedication
Appendix B: Internal Control and Process Summary
Parkland Dedication Ordinance Update Process
Parks & Recreation Planning &
Development
City Attorney s
Office
Parks & Recreation
Board
Planning & Zoning
Commission City Council
About every
three years
Approved?
Discuss & decide
on ordinance
changes
Proposed
Ordinance Review and
make a
recommendation
Fee change?
Review and
make a
recommendation
Review proposed
ordinance and
recommendations
Ordinance
update complete
Set up new fee
schedule Yes
Yes
No
No
2 3 4 5 6
9
7
8
10
1
Parkland Dedication Remittances
Applicant Plans Examiner Development
Coordinator Planner Parks &
Recreations
Parks &
Recreation Board
Planning &
Zoning
No
Fee assessed by
TRAKiT
Construct park
improvements?
Project
type?
Submit
application
No
Vested?
Pay Parkland
dedication fees
Verify
vested date
Permit
No
Verify parkland
dedication fields
Pay parkland
dedication fees
Modify fee
accordingly
Yes
Planning & Dev
Cash Handling
Process
Review park
site plan
Approved?
Yes
Review park
site planYes
Discuss parkland
dedication options
Approved?
Plat
No
Dedicate
land?Approved?
No
Verify parkland
dedication fields
Dedication
submitted on
final plat
No
Yes
Review and make
recomendation
Review
recommendation
& plat
Land is
platted
Yes
1
2
7
8
11
13
19
20
9
1012
3
4 5
6
14 23
2215
17 16
18 21
Parkland Dedication and Maintenance Process
Planning & Zoning
Commission
Planning &
Development Brazos County Applicant Parks & Recreation
Update City
systems with new
parkland
Land dedication
approved
Receive Mylar of
dedicated land
Notify Parks &
Recreation of new
park acreage
Review
site plan
Approved?
Update park
inventory
spreadsheets
Submits park
site plan
Development
in-lieu of fee
approved?
Yes
Verify inventory
items in park land
No
No
Construct park
developmentsYes
10
2 Transfer dedicated
land to the City
Purchases new
parkland
3
5
6
4 1
7
89
11
12
14 Accounts
Payable
Process
Maintain
and develop
park land
13
15