HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/2011 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 3
No. 2a - Minutes
Coversheet revised 7
March 22, 2011 Executive Session Minutes 8
March 22, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes 10
March 24, 2011 Workshop Minutes 17
March 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes 23
No. 2b - Scott & White Healthcare Economic Development
Agreement Amendment
Coversheet revised 35
Attachment 1 - Amendment to the Economic
Development Agreement 36
No. 2c - Conveyance of 6810 Appomattox to Brazos Valley
Community Action Agency
Coversheet revised 41
Attachment 1 - Resolution to Convey 6810 Appomattox 42
Attachment 2 - Real Estate Contract 6810 Appomattox 44
Attachment 3 - Property Location Map 6810
Appomattox 51
No. 2d - Homebuyer Down-Payment Assistance Program (DAP)
Guidelines
Coversheet revised 52
Attachment 1 - Revised Down Payment Assistance
(DAP) Guidelines 53
No. 2e - Rejection of RFP #11-36 Retail Commercial Lease
Space Opportunity in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center
Coversheet revised 60
No. 2f - Interlocal Agreement with Texas A&M University
System for a Temporary Air Quality Monitoring Station in Lick
Creek Park
Coversheet revised 61
ILA - TAMU - Air Quality Monitoring Tower 62
No. 2g - Clinical Affiliation Agreement with College Station
Medical Center
Coversheet revised 75
Resolution 76
No. 2h - Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Medical
Ambulance Service to Brazos County
Coversheet revised 77
Interlocal Agreement with Brazos County for Ambulance
Service 78
Resolution 84
Map of EMS area of Brazos County - Exhibit A 85
No. 2i - Amendment to School Resource Officer Inter-Local
Agreement
Coversheet revised 86
1
Copy of Amended ILA signed by Legal 87
No. 2j - Water Meter Purchase Contract
Coversheet revised 90
Vendor Quote 91
Item 1 - Lincoln House of Hope Rezoning
Coversheet revised 94
Background 99
Map 100
Ordinance 102
Item 2 - Non-Annexation Development Agreements
Coversheet revised 109
Map 110
Standard Non-Annexation Development Agreement 111
Summary 116
Item 3 - Wellborn Annexation Ordinance
Coversheet revised 117
Map 118
Background 119
Impact Analysis 120
Ordinance signed 126
2
Mayor Council members
Nancy Berry Jess Fields
Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Maloney
John Crompton Katy-Marie Lyles
City Manager Dave Ruesink
David Neeley Jana McMillan
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request.
Presentation:
Proclamation recognizing May 1, 2011 as Lemonade Day in Bryan-College Station
Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted
Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should
be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 5:30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer
alarm will sound after 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City
Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda.
Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack
other speakers, Council or staff.
Consent Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent or regular agenda item not posted as a public
hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. Registration
forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. The Mayor will recognize individuals
who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for
the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for
remarks.
2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists of ministerial or
"housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the
Council.
a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for March 22, 2011 Executive Session and Special
Meeting and March 24, 2011 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting.
b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the existing Economic
Development Agreement between the City and Scott & White Healthcare.
3
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, April 14, 2011
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution approving a conveyance agreement to
transfer ownership of 6810 Appomattox, an undeveloped property, to Brazos Valley Community Action
Agency.
d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the proposed changes to the City’s Down-Payment
Assistance Program (DAP) Guidelines.
e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the rejection of RFP #11-36, Retail Commercial Lease
Space Opportunity in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center, specifically the wooden kiosk previously occupied
by Shakes.
f. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the extension of an Interlocal Agreement with the
Texas A&M University Department of Atmospheric Sciences through December 31, 2011 for an air quality
monitoring station located in Lick Creek Park.
g. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution to participate in a
Clinical Affiliation Agreement with the College Station Medical Center for the Emergency Medical Services
Program.
h. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution to update the Interlocal
Agreement for Emergency Medical Ambulance Service to respond to emergencies in Brazos County and to
establish the annual fee for FY 2011 at $216,230.
i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding amending the Inter- Local Agreement (ILA) with
the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) regarding School Resource Officers (SRO).
j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion recommending approval for the water meter purchase contract
with Aqua-Metric Sales Co. for the amount of $149,432.70.
Regular Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing
shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. The Mayor will
recognize you to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address
for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining
for remarks.
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the
City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize
individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and
address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty
seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public
comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be
allowed at the discretion of the Mayor.
If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes
as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided
in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will
be referred to the City Council and City Manager.
4
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, April 14, 2011
1. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12,
“Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map” of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning Lot 14, Block 3 of the Hrdlicka Subdivision, being 0.22
acres located at 1013 Eleanor Street, from R-1 Single-Family Residential to PDD Planned Development
District for a community services center.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding three non-annexation development agreements
associated with the Wellborn annexation.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance annexing approximately 649 acres
located in the ETJ on the southwest side of the City generally known as the Wellborn area.
4. Adjourn.
If litigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held.
APPROVED:
________________________________
City Manager
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be
held on the Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this 8th day of April, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
________________________________
City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said
notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website,
www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice
and Agenda were posted on April 8, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72
hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following
date and time: __________________________ by ________________________.
Dated this _____day of ________________, 2011 By______________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____day of ________________, 2011.
______________________________
Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: ___________
5
City Council Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made
48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov . Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
6
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2a
City Council Minutes
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for March 22,
2011 Executive Session and Special Meeting and March 24, 2011 Workshop and Regular
Council Meeting.
Attachments:
· March 22, 2011 Executive Session Minutes
· March 22, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes
· March 24, 2011 Workshop Minutes
· March 24, 2011 Regular Minutes
7
SM030811 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCILMEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MARCH 22, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
John Crompton
Jess Fields, arrived after roll call
Dennis Maloney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Jana McMillan
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Special Executive Session of the College Station City Council was
called to order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 4:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 in the
Conference Room, Utilities Training Facility, 1603 Graham Road, College Station, Texas.
2. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, the
College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 4:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March
22, 2011 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
· City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway
60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and
certify City of Bryan
· Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill
8
SM030811 Minutes Page 2
· Rachel Rahn v. Alma Martinez, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. et al, Cause No. 09-000656-
CV361
· Timothy Delasandro et al v. City of College Station et al; Cause No. 11-000240-CV-272
· City of College Station, Texas, v. Virtual Equity Group, Inc, et al relating to nonpayment
of hotel occupancy taxes for College Station Inn
· Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silva, David Ruesink, Lynn
McIlhaney, and Ben White
· Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et
al
· Water CCN / 2002 Annexation / Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit:
· Legal Issues related to Wellborn Annexation
· Legal Issues regarding possible revenue sharing and legislation in bio-corridor
The Executive Session adjourned at approximately 5:40 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2011.
3. Action on Executive Session.
No action was required from Executive Session.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Special Executive
Session of the College Station City Council at approximately 5:40 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22,
2011. The motion carried unanimously.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
9
SM032211 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCILMEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MARCH 22, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
John Crompton
Jess Fields
Dennis Maloney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Jana McMillan
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Special Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 6:07 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 in the Wellborn
Community Center, 4119 Greens Prairie Road West, College Station, Texas.
2. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding annexation and
the annexation service plan for approximately 649 acres located on the southwest side of
the City, identified for annexation under the exempt status.
Lance Sims, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, displayed a map showing
the proposed area of annexation. White areas indicate three property owners that opted for a
non-annexation development agreement. This annexation will increase the size of College
Station by 2%, with a population increase of two-tenths of one percent. This is the first of two
Public Hearings. The second Public Hearing will be March 24, and the Council will consider
annexation at the April 14 meeting. The service plan will provide services to the annexation area
in a manner comparable to the level of service available to similar areas of the City. It does not
reduce the service level within existing city limits by more than a negligible amount. Immediate
10
SM032211 Minutes Page 2
services include police protection; fire protection; emergency medical service; solid waste
collection; the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater facilities; operation and
maintenance of public roads/streets; operation and maintenance of publicly-owned parks,
playgrounds, and swimming pools; and the operation and maintenance of other publicly-owned
facilities. Additional services include building permits and inspections; planning and
development services; economic and community development; animal control; code
enforcement; and recycling collection. Capital improvements in the service plan include
wastewater service and street/road improvements. All other services in the annexed area will be
served through existing facilities, mutual aid agreements, and franchise agreements.
At approximately 7:43 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Arden, 1101 University, stated that his boyhood home was located in the southwest part of
town just outside the city limits. It was an idealic place to grow up. Soon, the growth pattern
started moving his direction. The first thing to happen was the lake became controlled, and
commercial growth grew up around lake. Homes moved up to and around his own home, so he
understands the resident’s feelings, but after many years, he came to realize the real value was in
the growth pattern. Properties realize their real value when subdivision and development occurs.
The real value for Wellborn is the growth pattern, and they should be taking advantage of that.
Many may not appreciate that now, but their heirs may do so in the future.
Terry Childers, 4400 Belvoir, related his municipal experience and the planning and growth
management strategies employed by those cities, resulting in higher quality communities. He
believes that College Station is on the cusp of making those same decisions. The recent census
indicates that College Station is growing faster than other cities, and we need to plan for that
growth using all the tools available. To do otherwise will result in a second class community.
He offered an example of Oklahoma City, which grew around pocket communities and
surrounded them by the city limits. Oklahoma City had to support those communities because
those communities could not afford to provide the full breadth of services to their citizens.
Duke Hobbs, 1301 Essex Green, said logic indicates that Wellborn will be a part of College
Station, whether by annexation or as an incorporated area surrounded by College Station. It can
be zoned to maintain its rural feel like the Fox Fire subdivision, or it can become a small city
surrounded by a larger city. It is logical to be annexed. If maintaining a separate community is
so important, why didn’t they incorporate in last one hundred years. He asked them to please
join College Station.
Veronica Morgan, 905 Candlelight, said the basic question is if there is room for a city of
Wellborn. Months ago she would have said yes and even signed the original petition. She is
familiar with Bellaire and West University, which are both surrounded by Houston. However,
she does not believe these two communities can co-exist. In this case, there is no middle ground
because there is no compromise on the map. The map that many have seen shows that it was
disjointed and haphazardly put together. No city in the state that would agree to such a map,
creating an adjoining community. She tried to help with the map, but was told there would be no
compromise with the map. She provided some history of the petitions and litigation, stating her
tax dollars are being spent, and this is not a wise use.
11
SM032211 Minutes Page 3
Chris Scotti, 7701 Gettysburg, expressed his sympathy for Wellborn residents and reported that
he had even voted against annexation in February 2008. He removed that area from
consideration because of the number of passionate pleas. Wellborn leaders convinced him that
they would begin incorporation proceeding immediately. It was supposed to be a small area, not
the current sprawling map with long arms. This area must be part of a city. Counties are not
equipped to handle the development issues this area is seeing. He saw several yrs ago that the
rural lifestyle would be changing, and here we are today even further behind the curve. College
Station cannot allow this to continue. The prudent thing to do is to annex the area and work with
the residents to maintain their rural lifestyle. He wished h had voted for annexation three years
ago.
John Nichols, 1317 Angelina Court, remarked about the comprehensive plan and noted this is the
foundational document for decision making. The existing plan does identify some of the paths
being considered tonight. Some on the Council may not have voted for that document, but they
are the stewards of that document and the community. The plan is a living document. Chapter
8, Map 8-1, designates areas that might be considered for annexation. Growth is a fact of life in
College Station, bringing with it development pressure. As a Council, we have to consider the
impact of growth, not only on current land owners, but future land owners as well. 20-30 years
from now, citizens will continue to expect efficient services. We need to preserve future options
for good public services.
Mark Boller, 5155 Straub Road, reported he served in the military, and if others have served,
then they want the right to vote. That’s what he served for. Men that have given their life for
that right to vote are turning over in their graves right now. Comments have been made that
Wellborn uses College Station roads and parks, but he doesn’t think that is accurate. The roads
are county and state roads. If a person lives out in country, then they don’t have the need or the
time to go to a park. He does agree with statements that Wellborn is opposed to taxes. That is
because College Station is not being good stewards of the money it has. Why would they give
the City more? He asked the Council to put themselves in Wellborn’s shoes and see how they
would feel if they could not vote in the presidential election.
Larry Schueckler, 15206 Post Oak Bend, reported that he built his home in Wellborn 35 years
ago. He has seen the community grow up with paved roads, banks, restaurants, and schools. He
has long suspected that the area would become College Station some day. His home was
annexed a while back, and he has experienced good service from police, solid waste collection
and recycling. It is working well for him. He wants this to be resolved so he is not embarrassed
to say he lives in the Wellborn community anymore.
Bette Smith, 15032 Turnberry, brought a paper clip as visual aid and stated she has used it for 28
years to vote every election. She and her husband vote an absentee ballot because her husband
is in the military. One democrat and one republican sit at the table and vote. Some have said
12
SM032211 Minutes Page 4
what a waste of time because they are cancelling each other out. She asserts it is not a waste.
People are dying so that we can vote.
Dr. Leigh Turner, 3301 Triple Bend, provided information regarding the laws for incorporation
of cities. For Wellborn to incorporate, Texas law requires College Station to provide permission.
This ability of College Station is not a common practice nationally. 38 states provide for citizens
in the ETJ to vote on their own destiny, and it is a growing trend. It is also not uncommon for
cities in Texas to allow communities to incorporate within the city’s existing ETJ. She provided
examples of such incorporations and stated that incorporation within an ETJ is not an anomaly.
She reported that the Woodlands will hold an incorporation election in 2014.
Elizabeth Terry, 5344 Stousland, provided written comments, attached.
Joe Kuhn, 3457 Greens Prairie, stated he had moved here from Port Aransas. They went through
many years dealing with Corpus Christi, which dreamed of more power, more land, and more
money through taxes. He moved here because he likes being across the street from the city, but
living in the country. There was an article today about a settlement agreement. One of the
reasons for annexation that has been mentioned was to manage fiscal responsibility. This is not a
good example of fiscal responsibility.
Joel Mitchell, 2070 Carter Lake, reported he was annexed three years ago and lived through what
Wellborn residents are living through, however, the real problem was fear. There were many
rumors about tree cutting, street lights, curb and gutter, etc. People were afraid College Station
would ruin the rural lifestyle. He does pay more taxes, but he gets more things in return. He
now pays $650 more in taxes, but $300 less in homeowners’ insurance, and $150 less in garbage
fees, etc. Staff made the process painless and simple. He still has his trees. He still has the
same street lights. He still has the same streets and rural lifestyle. All the fear was not true. As
a citizen of College Station who has only voted in two elections, he elected the Council to look
out for the benefit of the whole city, not special interest groups.
Timothy Delasandro, 3105 Larkspur, reported that House Bill 107 was voted out of committee in
Austin today. He reminded everyone of the 10,000 signatures on the recall petitions to prevent
the annexation efforts. The Save Wellborn group had hoped that 2,100 citizens voicing their
opposition would have merited the Council’s attention so that everyone could sit down and
negotiate a compromise. He noted that if annexed, the City will take in a net positive of $26,000
at a cost of $4.5 million. Full roll out is thirty years from now. It will be 132 years before
College Station breaks even. That means our great-grandchildren will be paying negative equity
from this act 150 years from now. This is not being fiscally responsible. Until this issue goes to
the citizens, it will not be resolved. Fallout from this will impact College Station for years to
come. This will fail without public support.
Fred Bouse, 811 Plum Hollow, stated this issue is about citizens’ property rights and controlling
others’ lifestyle. Area residents will be subject to City ordinances and controls. Those do not
make sense in a rural community. Building structures for FFA projects will have to comply with
city codes and ordinance, if even allowed to build. It is inconceivable that the City is able to
annex without the consent of the impacted residents. Wellborn residents are already adequately
13
SM032211 Minutes Page 5
supplied with water and electric services, and the county provides law officials. The community
does not need College Station services. College Station can expand around the community
without annexing the area.
Mike Fulfer, 14537 S. Dowling, said everyone has their minds made up about what they are
going to do. He is curious as to what is the big issue to do this. He grew up in Houston and went
to Bellaire High School. There are incorporated areas with the Houston city limits, and they are
all profitable cities. Wellborn could become a gold mine if left alone. What will Wellborn get
for their tax dollars? It seems his money is going to get a man in a blue uniform instead of a
brown one. He doesn’t need that. As an existing community, unless there is some development
overhead, it doesn’t get anything.
David White, 5605 Polo, asked the audience to raise their hands in favor or against the
annexation. He then reported he met in Austin to discuss House Bill 107, and the vote was 7-0
to move the bill through the legislature. A city planner can justify anything, but people are what
make America. He directed Council to look out to the people that are going to be affected and
asked how can they sit there, see row of hands, and still think to annex.
Hazel Royder Von Roeder, 904 Wedgewood, asked the Council to keep Wellborn Wellborn.
Her ancestors were the early founders of Wellborn, which was established seven years before
College Station. In 1938, when she was a junior in high school, Bryan was going to annex
College Station. College Station was given the privilege to vote, and they incorporated. She
asked the Council to put themselves in her place.
Jane Cohen, 3655 McCullough, reported that former mayor, Ben White, tried to meet, but there
are some that think it was just a political ploy. Since then, there have been several meetings.
She noted that Mayor Berry met with A.P. Boyd and discussed the map and drew lines. Another
meeting between Boyd and Cohen and the Mayor and Councilmember Maloney occurred, and
they did not discuss the map. It is inaccurate to say they did not negotiate the map. The petition
this summer was by College Station citizens. A service plan is a contract. A contract is an
agreement between two parties. She doesn’t see where Wellborn was given an opportunity to
participate in that contract. She asked the Council to listen to the citizens, both College Station
citizens and ones they are proposing to annex.
Alan Smith, 15032 Turnberry, retired military, stated he fought to guarantee the rights of all
citizens. Those rights include self-determination, such as voting and property rights. Petitions
were signed by the citizens of College Station. Those petitions asked for the right to vote and
have not been acted upon. He asked why not and reiterated that is what many fought for. The
U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and anti-discriminatory laws guarantee the right of all
people to vote. These laws trump any laws in the College Station charter. He asked Council to
reconsider allowing the citizens of College Station to vote.
Bonita Daily Simpson, P.O. Box 14, Wellborn, said all they are asking for is the right to vote to
incorporate. She has been here 43 years and her ailing father has been here 75 years. All her
ancestors were raised in Wellborn. She encouraged the Council to visit Salem Cemetery, where
there are some born in 1851. She thanked those that support Wellborn. For those against
14
SM032211 Minutes Page 6
Wellborn, when they go before her father on the day of judgment, they will have to answer to
him.
Steve Graebner, 14356 Cheyenne, did not speak.
Steve Wiggins, 17040 Calumet, stated this meeting is not about annexation but about the process
of annexation. It is really about whether Wellborn has the right to vote and if the citizens of
Wellborn have the right of self-determination. This may be in the best interests of College
Station, but he questioned if Council is willing to impose its will on Wellborn without giving
them the right to vote. City government has shown increasing willingness to impose its will on
the citizens, and now it is imposing that same will on the ETJ. All they are asking for is the right
to vote. He asked again if the Council is willing to impose its will without checking with the
people it is going to impose upon.
Dan Hale, 4042 Cody, stated he does not preservation of the rural atmosphere as he drives down
the road. It appears to be development for development’s sake. It does not preserve a certain
lifestyle, and he doesn’t think the Council has any thought on how to preserve that lifestyle. He
asked Council to allow Wellborn to incorporate and preserve its own identity.
AP Boyd, 5245 Straub, stated he enjoys it out here and it is his lifestyle. He doesn’t want to
change.
Lynn White, 5605 Polo, remarked she went through the annexation experience before, and it was
not fun. When Moses and Joshua prepared to take over the land of Canaan, one of their main
charges from God was not to take more land than they could manage. The timeline for this
action is mainly to get a deal done before changes take place. She asked the Council to take time
and have a true dialogue. No one solution is 100% right or wrong. When we rush there is no
quality decision making. We must take time to get the best outcome. We should work together
and compromise with one another.
Greg Taylor, 15791 IGN Road, said he has come to realize that College Station has the power to
do what is in its best interest as provided by the state of Texas. The other side of that is when
cities were given power over the ETJ, they were also given the responsibility to guard the health
and safety of the ETJ citizens. He doesn’t hear a concern for that responsibility. The deeds of
College Station do not reflect living up to that responsibility. It is in the best interest of the ETJ
to have a voice in their future by vote. This is being discussed in Austin by the state legislature.
We should wait to see what their wisdom is; any marginal revenues gained will be infinitesimal.
Joseph Nagyvary, 3968 Cody, said he has heard much about the material interests and benefits
for College Station. He cannot identify any item that benefits him as a Wellborn resident. He
challenged the notion that growth would be managed by the College Station Council which has
not exhibited any skills in the last 35 years. He emphasized that as an immigrant, he is a great
believer in democracy.
Mark Lacy, 12469 Cheyenne, stated the right to vote is a major issue. There have been
comments regarding the gerrymandering of the proposed Wellborn city limits. State law
15
SM032211 Minutes Page 7
provides the requirements on how this is done; it is a certain number of people for a certain
number of square miles. It has been said that College Station needs the addition of Wellborn to
grow. College Station is only 61% occupied; there is plenty of room for growth in the city
limits. It is said that Wellborn will block growth to the south. College Station has already
bypassed Wellborn so that doesn’t hold any water. There have been members of council that
have said if they were being annexed they would fight, too. There need to be rules regarding
growth. His subdivision has deed restrictions. Aspen Heights was given access to City sewer,
and that place was built without any controls.
Gary Potter, 5609 Straub, stated the earlier presentation just defends what the City wants to do.
The City cannot provide anything to Wellborn they don’t already have. If Council chooses to
vote for annexation, then they will do it because they want to, not because they have to. It is not
constitutional for a governmental body to have control over others when they were not elected by
those people. This community has been here for a long time. He asked Council to look into
their hearts and ask themselves if they want to cast the vote responsible for destroying the little
town of Wellborn.
Linda Hale, 4042 Cody, said she was happy that the gentleman on Carter Lake had a good
experience. She noted it was a subdivision, not a community of 160 years with fifth generation
families growing up here. The City has the power to do that, but it is wrong.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
3. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Special Meeting of the
College Station City Council at 8:12 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2011. The motion carried
unanimously.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
16
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MARCH 24, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
John Crompton
Jess Fields
Dennis Maloney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Jana McMillan
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by
Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:02 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the
City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Items 2i and 2l were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
2i: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects, explained the funding was through a grant
reimbursement.
2l: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police, explained this request is for more equipment.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the plan to enhance pedestrian
safety along University Drive between Wellborn Road and Tauber Street, Ordinance 2011-
17
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 2
3327, removing parking on University Drive, and a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Northgate District Association.
Chuck Gilman, Director of Public Works, updated the Council on the University Drive
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project. He began with the history and need for safety with an
illustration depicting bike and pedestrian crash data, most of which was centered at the
intersection of University and College Main. Pedestrian safety was identified in 2003 with the
Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan. In 2007, the issue was further studied through
the Master Plan. These elements were included in a 2008 bond authorization for safety
improvements in this corridor from Wellborn to South College. The project budget is $7 million.
The City completed the Discovery Drive extension on the TAMU campus, and TXDOT accepted
responsibility of the Phase 1 pedestrian safety improvements. There have been numerous
meetings between the City, TXDOT, and TAMU. Because of unique property boundaries in an
historical area, staff concluded, that in order to move forward, there is a need for a temporary
construction easement or right-of-way and began additional public engagement. This resulted in
the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Northgate
Development Association. NDA responsibilities include providing TXDOT with temporary
construction easements to allow for construction of a wider sidewalk and pedestrian barrier in the
current parking area on Boyett to College Main. From College Main to Lodge, they will provide
TXDOT with temporary construction easements to allow for construction of the loading zone in
the current parking area, dedicating the right-of-way to allow the City to enforce the loading
zone restrictions.
The City’s responsibilities include: 1) remove all on-street parallel parking on Wellborn Road to
Tauber; 2) coordinate with TXDOT to construct a wider sidewalk in the current parking area on
Wellborn Road to College Main; 3) coordinate with TXDOT to construct a pedestrian barrier to
prevent pedestrians from walking into the travel lanes; 4) coordinate with TXDOT to construct a
loading zone in the current parking area on College Main to Lodge; 5) mitigate the parking that
was lost along University Drive; 6) construct a pedestrian plaza on College Main; 7) directional
signage to parking areas in Northgate; and 8) develop a process to allow merchants to utilize the
sidewalk and other appropriate public rights-of-way to conduct business.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Crompton and a second by
Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt
Ordinance 2011-3327, removing parking on University Drive, and approving a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Northgate District Association. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the progress of the Medical
Corridor Study.
David Gwin, Director of Economic Development, updated the Council on the progress of the
Medical Corridor Study. The area has a radius of about one mile, but there are no specific
boundaries at this time. The College Station Medical Center is the largest single taxpayer and
the largest single utility customer. Currently, there is a $22 million expansion underway. The
other anchor is the Scott and White Hospital and Clinic. It is a 175,000 square foot facility with
18
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 3
an investment of 120 million. Current medical assets include BCS Heart, Brazos Valley Foot
Care, Hope Cancer Center, etc. with a value of about $80 million. The City can expect that value
to double, not including $100,000 in taxable value for Scott and White. Some initial corridor
observations include: 1) it is anchored by a medically-oriented development; 2) primary access
is at Rock Prairie and Highway 6. Some concerns are limited highway visibility, a need for way-
finding elements, and the need for image and branding.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Resolution 03-24-11-04, awarding a
Construction Contract (RFP 11-45) with Knife River in the amount of $878,264.39 for the
Royder Road & Greens Prairie Trail Reconstruction Project.
Chuck Gilman, Director of Public Works, updated the Council on the Royder Road and Greens
Prairie Trail Reconstruction Project. Transportation improvements to support Greens Prairie
Elementary School include: 1) new pavement with bike lanes, sidewalks, and drainage
improvements along Royder Road, south of Greens Prairie Trail; 2) replace undersized drainage
structures along Greens Prairie Trail east of Royder; 3) a deceleration lane on Greens Prairie
Trail into the school; and 4) a dedicated left turn lane on Greens Prairie Trail into the school and
onto Royder Road. Completion is expected by July, 2011, and the project budget is $1,062,420.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember
Ruesink, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Resolution 03-24-
11-04, awarding a Construction Contract (RFP 11-45) with Knife River in the amount of
$878,264.39 for the Royder Road & Greens Prairie Trail Reconstruction Project. The motion
carried unanimously.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the annual contract with
McCord Engineering, Inc. for engineering services provided to College Station Utilities.
This item is on the Consent Agenda for March 24, 2011 for Council approval.
Timothy Crabb, Assistant Director for Electric Utilities, explained the contract before the
Council will not exceed $600,000 each year for the three years. CSU operates and maintains
over 400 miles of distribution power Lines, over twenty miles of transmission power lines, and
six distribution substations. They serve approximately 34,000 meters. The CSU design group
handles all FERC accounting, maintain system mapping, meet with customers to determine need,
design and estimate day-to-day projects, and project manage those projects from start to finish.
Other than David Massey and himself, there are no engineers on staff. The CSU project
coordinators handle all of the day-to-day projects, but for all other services, they use McCord
Engineering. McCord provides electrical engineering civil engineering, permitting, survey and
staking, engineering consulting services, and drafting services and document preparation.
McCord Engineering is a local company that has been in the community for over 27 years, and
their engineering knowledge base for College Station spans over 40 years. The contract allows
access to engineering resources as needed without any retainer fee for those services. CSU
handles projects internally whenever possible. The contract is a “not to exceed” amount and is in
line with previous years, including substation projects.
19
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 4
6. Council Calendar
· March 28 Ribbon Cutting-New Whataburger-Hwy. 6/Wm. D. Fitch at 10:30 a.m.
· March 30 Ground Breaking Ceremony-Scott and White Clinic at Rock Prairie/Hwy
6-Scott and White Build Site, 2:00 p.m.
· March 30 Police Department Awards Banquet at the College Station Conference
Center, 6:30 p.m.
· March 31 Youth Advisory Committee Town Hall Meeting at A&M Consolidated
High School-Lecture Hall, 4:30 p.m.
· April 1 TAMU Chancellor's Century Council Annual Banquet at Clayton W.
Williams, Jr. Alumni Center, 7:00 p.m.
· April 6 Mays Business School-Zale Visionary Merchant Lecture and Award
Luncheon at Ray Auditorium, Mays Business School, 11:30 a.m.
· April 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.
· April 14 City Council Workshop/Regular Meeting in Council Chambers at 3:00 &
7:00 p.m.
· April 18 IGC Meeting at BVCOG, 12:00 p.m.
Councilmember Ruesink reported that the Whataburger ribbon cutting has been moved to
another date.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future 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.
Councilmember McMillan requested an outside legal audit regarding the City’s litigation history.
There was no consensus.
8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter
Board, Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Advisory Board, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of
Governments, Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, BVSWMA,
BVWACS, Cemetery Committee, Code Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee,
Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Mayor’s
Council on Physical Fitness, Mayor’s Development Forum, Metropolitan Planning
Organization, National League of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and
Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership,
Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Signature Event Task
Force, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League,
Transportation Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Zoning Board of
Adjustments.
Councilmember Lyles reported there will be a Health Board meeting next week and also
provided a brief update on the Arts Council.
20
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 5
Councilmember Ruesink reported that students from our sister city in Germany will be visiting
College Station in mid-April and hope to meet with the Council. We will also have visitors from
our other sister city in Salamanca, Mexico in May.
9. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, §551.072
– Deliberation Regarding Real Property, §551.074-Personnel Matters, §551.074-Deliberation
Regarding Security Devices, and §551.087-Deliberation Regarding Economic Development
Negotiations, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 4:55 p.m. on
Thursday, March 24, 2011 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
· City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway
60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and
certify City of Bryan
· Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill
· Rachel Rahn v. Alma Martinez, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. et al, cause No. 09-000656-
CV361
· Timothy Delasandro et al v. City of College Station et al; Cause No. 11-000240-CV-272
· City of College Station, Texas, v. Virtual Equity Group, Inc, et al relating to nonpayment
of hotel occupancy taxes for College Station Inn
· Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn
McIlhaney, and Ben White
· Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et
al
· Water CCN / 2002 Annexation / Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit:
· Legal issues regarding possible revenue sharing and legislation in bio-corridor
· Legal Issues Related to Wellborn Annexation
C. Deliberation regarding real property; to wit:
· Shake's lease at Chimney Hill property
D. Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal of a public officer; to wit:
· City Council Self-Evaluation
E. Deliberation the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation, of security personnel
or devices or a security audit; to wit:
· City Hall security
F. Deliberation regarding economic development negotiations; to wit:
· Scott and White Healthcare
21
WKSHP032411 Minutes Page 6
The Executive Session adjourned at 6:43 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011.
No action was required from Executive Session.
10. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:43 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
22
RM032411 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MARCH 24, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
John Crompton
Jess Fields
Dennis Maloney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Jana McMillan
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Regular Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 7:03 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011 in the Council
Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas
77842.
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request.
Ronnie Jackson, with the City of Bryan, and Jodie Goldberg, with NLC, along with numerous
others in the banking profession, came forward to announce a new initiative called “Bank On
Brazos Valley”.
· Citizen Comments
James Byrne, 2350 Bagby #5301, Houston, reported on a need for College Station to develop
more transportation options and expressed his desire to open a shuttle service called a jitney. He
23
RM032411 Minutes Page 2
wishes to work with staff to modify some elements of the taxi ordinance. One is to update the
definition of jitney so that the parameters are more specific. He recommends inspections for
safety and wishes to modify the number of passengers allowed. He is also proposing the
implementation of approved jitney routes and stops.
Mary Dabney Wilson, 515 Gilchrist, stated she has been a resident of College Station for over
fourteen years and supported the 2008 bond election, primarily because of the promise of the
Lick Creek Nature Center. This is a major asset to our community. She asked the Council to
approve $100,000 for the planning phase of this project. There is an active Audubon
organization that uses the park and supports the nature park. There are educational and outreach
services aimed at training and improving Master Naturalists, who have contributed over 3,000
hours of service this year. This is the primary, publicly accessible park in College Station.
Private citizens will do their part to make this park the pride of the community.
Susan Scott, 1019 Guadalupe, said she has lived here seventeen years and asked the Council to
move forward and fund $100,000 for Lick Creek Park. This park attracts out-of-town visitors
and teaches area children about our unique local natural environment. If children are not taught
about our environment, then they will feel the need to conserve resources. Elementary school
teachers have expressed their need for hands-on field trips to meet educational requirements.
College students can provide a paying audience for classes. These students are also a resource;
students have submitted designs, exhibits, and help to develop curriculum for classes. This park
will help children appreciate the natural world.
Alan Pepper, 10383 Nunn Jones, stated his support of the allocation of $100,000 for Lick Creek
Park. Parks increase property values and community pride. They help with relocation of
business and homeowners. We are fortunate that this park attracts people from outside the
community. For every dollar put into the state parks, $25 is generated in economic impacts.
There are wonderful nature centers throughout the state. However, one part of the state has no
nature center, and that is the Blackwood Post Oak Savannah we call home. This is an amazing
place to experience Texas in its natural state.
Gary Halter, 1204 Ashburn, stated his support of Lick Creek Park. It is a sanctuary for a rare
wildflower that grows nowhere else except here. This is a very unique park. He reminded
Council that voters approved the bond issue by a large margin.
CONSENT AGENDA
2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for March 8, 2011 Special
Meeting and March 10, 2011 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting.
2b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to approve a Non-Disclosure Agreement
with Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS).
2c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 03-24-11-
2c, defining the purpose of the Medical Corridor Advisory Committee.
24
RM032411 Minutes Page 3
2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 03-24-
11-2d, authorizing the award of construction contract #11-094, with MasterTech Services
Inc. in the amount of $229,899 for the Water Cooling Tower Media Replacement project.
2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 03-24-11-
2e, authorizing a three year professional services contract with McCord Engineering, Inc.
for $1,800,000.00 for electrical engineering services and approval of a resolution declaring
intention to reimburse certain expenditures with proceeds from debt.
2f. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the approval of Resolution 03-24-11-2f,
authorizing the Renewal of Electric Annual Construction Contract #10-121, Bid #10-31,
with H&B Construction for $860,161.92 and approval of a resolution declaring intention to
reimburse certain expenditures with proceeds from debt.
2g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the consideration of Ordinance 2011-
3328, amending Chapter 10, “Traffic Code,” Section 2.C of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of College Station changing the traffic control at the intersection of North Forest and
Appomattox to a four-way stop controlled intersection.
2h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on consideration of Ordinance 2011-3329,
modifying Chapter 10, “Traffic Code,” Section 2.D of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
College Station by updating the Traffic Control Device Inventory – Schedule III to add
STOP signs at various intersection approaches.
2i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to award the construction contract for the
2005 Bike Loop Phase II – College Station Bike Loop Completion to Fuqua Construction
Company, Inc. in the amount of $257,443.64.
2j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding renewal of a contract for
Janitorial Supplies. This is the final renewal of a contract with Criswell Distributing.
Criswell Distributing is requesting a 3% increase to the current, not to exceed, contract
amount of $52,744.14. The increase will result in a final, not to exceed, contract amount of
$54,326.32.
2k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to decrease
Professional Services Contract 07-086 by $24,226.74. This contract between Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc. and the City of College Station is for the design and construction
administration services associated with the Parallel Wellfield Collection Line project.
2l. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 03-24-11-
2l, for the application and acceptance of an Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice
Division (CJD) Grant.
2m. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Partial Settlement Agreement
between the City of College Station and Virtual Equity Group, Inc. and Mega Equity
25
RM032411 Minutes Page 4
Holdings for delinquent hotel occupancy taxes for case number 10-10-00052-CV in the 10th
District Court of Appeals, Waco Texas.
2n. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a funding agreement amendment
between the City of College Station and the Brazos Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau
for FY11 in the amount of $22,000 for roof repairs at the agency’s facility; and
presentation, possible action and discussion on a Hotel Tax Fund contingency transfer in
the amount of $22,000.
2o. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 03-24-1-2o, for an
amendment for the College Station Business Council.
2p. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a settlement agreement between the City
of College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn McIlhaney, Ben White, Hugh Stearns
and Dennis Maloney and Weingarten Realty Investors and Weingarten/Investments, Inc.
to resolve the lawsuit Weingarten Realty Investors, et. al. v. The City of College Station,
Texas, et. al.
No items were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding annexation and
the annexation service plan for approximately 649 acres located on the southwest side of
the City, identified for annexation under the exempt status.
Lance Sims, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, displayed a map showing
the proposed area of annexation. White areas indicate three property owners that opted for a
non-annexation development agreement. This annexation will increase the size of College
Station by 2%, with a population increase of two-tenths of one percent. This is the first of two
Public Hearings. The second Public Hearing will be March 24, and the Council will consider
annexation at the April 14 meeting. The service plan will provide services to the annexation area
in a manner comparable to the level of service available to similar areas of the City. It does not
reduce the service level within existing city limits by more than a negligible amount. Immediate
services include police protection; fire protection; emergency medical service; solid waste
collection; the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater facilities; operation and
maintenance of public roads/streets; operation and maintenance of publicly-owned parks,
playgrounds, and swimming pools; and the operation and maintenance of other publicly-owned
facilities. Additional services include building permits and inspections; planning and
development services; economic and community development; animal control; code
enforcement; and recycling collection. Capital improvements in the service plan include
26
RM032411 Minutes Page 5
wastewater service and street/road improvements. All other services in the annexed area will be
served through existing facilities, mutual aid agreements, and franchise agreements.
At approximately 7:55 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Leatrice Bouse, 8111 Plum Hollow, provided written comments, attached.
Bill Stockton, 9222 Brookwater, stated his support of the Wellborn annexation, saying it is in the
best interest of College Station. This annexation complies with the Comprehensive Master Plan,
and the success of the growth corridor depends on a prudent long range plan. Wellborn will
become an enclave surrounded by College Station, enjoying the use of the surrounding
infrastructure at the expense of College Station residents.
Ed Hard, 11760 Durrand, supports the annexation of Wellborn. Southward growth is inevitable,
and Wellborn is not prepared to handle that growth. The cost to remedy that would be
unaffordable. He agrees with the preservation of their rural character and values, and noted that
a good overlay district will retain that existing character and rural lifestyle. He lives in a rural
area and has peace of mind knowing that the last phase of development behind his lot will be
large residential lots with continuity of streets and rights-of-way.
Marty Cangelose, signed up, but did not speak.
Steve Arden, 311 Celia Loop, said we are fortunate to have a governmental system to handle
things in an orderly fashion. He has had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons of the issues.
He believes the most efficient way for Wellborn to handle growth is through the experience and
efficiency of College Station. The most efficient way for College Station to handle this is
through annexation as well. It will be less expensive for College Station to not do a work around.
The efficiency gain for both entities is through annexation.
Amie Brower, 1615 Fox Fire, said she lives in a rural subdivision that was annexed into College
Station in 1992. When the subdivision was annexed, it was given a special rural designation, and
the City has upheld its commitment to the property owners. The City even fought on the behalf
of the subdivision regarding a proposed big box in the area. The City has added speed limits in
the neighborhood for improved safety. The City repaired the roads when the creeks rose and
washed away the roads. The City talks to the people before any changes are implemented. As a
rural subdivision, they are allowed to have wildflowers grow up. They receive great trash
collection and excellent curbside recycling. Being a part of the City, doesn’t mean you lose the
great parts of a rural lifestyle.
Brian Bochner, 5111 Bellerive, stated his reasons to pursue annexation. First of all, the City
adopted a thoroughfare plan as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The only way those
roadways will come to pass is through the application of growth management, and City powers
are needed to do that. Secondly, Greens Prairie Elementary indicates development is going past
Wellborn, and there is a lot of development occurring. Residents want their homes to maintain
value, but at the present time, there is no zoning and anything could happen. Adjacent to a
27
RM032411 Minutes Page 6
residential area an expansion of an industrial research facility is happening. The City has a plan
for the Wellborn community. This plan will create a district for desirable quality.
Terry Childers, 4400 Belvoir, urged the Council to proceed with annexation. It is in the best
interest of a future College Station that we have stewardship responsibility today. It is also in the
best interest of Wellborn because College Station can provide protections for Wellborn residents
that the county cannot provide, as well general law cities if Wellborn were allowed to
incorporate. Annexation will also save College Station residents money in terms of taxes and
fees for services. Much has been said about the right to vote and property rights. College
Station has followed the municipal annexation process. There is a right to vote in specific arenas.
This is not one of those arenas.
Veronica Morgan, 11782 Great Oaks, supports the annexation of Wellborn. Months ago she
would have agreed with Wellborn and even signed the original petition. However, she does not
believe these two communities can co-exist. In this case, there is no middle ground because
there is no compromise on the map. The map that many have seen shows that it was disjointed
and haphazardly put together. She provided some history of the petitions and litigation, stating
her tax dollars are being spent, and this is not a wise use. Wellborn has shown they prefer courts
over mediation. Wellborn had many opportunities to incorporate and chose not to. She has heard
testimony that gerrymandering was necessary to get enough votes to incorporate. That’s
problematic in itself. Neither entity can regulate based upon that map. The idea behind
annexation is to control growth in that area. If Wellborn won’t control it, then College Station
must. She urged the Council to not vote on emotion; we’ve already had a council vote on
emotion and it cost us $3.5 million. She urged the Council to vote on what is right and worthy of
College Station.
Chuck Wiggins, 4718 Stone Briar Circle, supports annexation. He stated it is a question of
overall fairness. They are there because we are here. They use our facilities and roads to go to
work. He has noticed a big building housing a carpet cleaning company on the main street. That
was built there to service the people of College Station and Bryan. It is also about tax equity. As
a resident, he pays city taxes for police and fire. He also pays county taxes for police and fire in
Wellborn.
Duke Hobbs, 1301 Essex Green, said he has heard Wellborn residents pleading against
annexation, and they have spoken of losing their rural lifestyle. But just a few miles away is an
excellent example that maintained their rural lifestyle after annexation. For those who believe
there will be no benefits to them, he provided some examples of positive gains that annexation
will bring to them, such as lower homeowners insurance costs, etc. There is a fear of the
unknown. One common theme he has heard consistently from the opposition, is that they want
to be heard. It is a legitimate request to be heard. But obviously that is happening right now. If
maintaining a separate community was so important, they had 140 years to do so. They only
want to do it now when they see they are in our growth pattern. If they incorporate, they will
completely cut off College Station from any southward growth.
Don Hellriegel, the core implications of strongly restricted annexations are captured in a 2003
comprehensive study. This study, along with other well respected national reports, concludes
28
RM032411 Minutes Page 7
that annexation is the key and primary difference in the flourishing cities of Texas and the
declining cities in other parts of the nation. It is estimated that College Station would lose retail
sales revenue of over $6 billion from 2003-2030 if restrictive annexation policies and practices
were put into place. Residents of unincorporated areas rarely want to be annexed and turn to the
state legislature each session with appeals to restrict or curb annexation. The entire character of
the Texas economy will be changed and will notably limit its capacity to support future growth
and prosperity; the inability to expand creates market failure because emerging growth areas are
not required to pay the full social cost of their expansion. As such, they become free riders on
the transportation, communications, financial, educational, and other activities provided by the
central city. The result is a perpetual deterioration of the sustainability of core areas, which in
turn, accelerates flight to outlying areas. This spiral, if left unchecked, ultimately erodes the
viability of the urban center and diminishes quality. He asked the Council to think 30 years, 50
years, 100 years in their decision.
Paul Parrish, 2604 Faulkner, reported he moved to Fox Fire specifically for its rural character.
He values the space it gives him in an environment that allows him to think he lives in the
country. So it was in 1986, and so it is now that he is in the City. He was wary when he was
approached with annexation, but it is the same community as before, but now with the
advantages of city services, reliable police and fire, etc. There are no curbs and few street lights.
They have maintained those characteristics because of the compatible zoning the city provided.
If people are concerned that annexation leads to bland sameness, then he invited them to come to
Fox Fire. The City demonstrated a willingness to engage with them in a process that benefited
everyone.
Chris Scotti, 7701 Gettysburg, presented a video clip from a 2008 Council meeting discussing
Wellborn incorporation. He said our community cannot afford to come back in three years to
discuss this again.
John Nichols, 1317 Angelina Court, referenced a comment made Tuesday night and stated that
dropping annexation will not make it go away. That is not the problem. The problem is growth
– rapid growth. Annexation is one of the tools. When he was on Planning and Zoning, he dealt
with many contentious issues. Yes, the City is charged with the health, safety, and welfare of
those in the ETJ, but the Council has limited tools in the ETJ. The County has little ordinance
authority in ETJ, as well. The problem is not going away simply if we do not annex. The land is
there. The people want to develop it. Individual property owners can come forward and request
annexation. If we can’t do an organized annexation, then we will have to take it in piecemeal.
Steve Searcy, 1521 Frost, stated there are issues of conflict by having a community surrounded
by College Station. He supports annexation and urged Council to vote positively on that. He
visited the city website and looked at a map delineating the various annexations over the years.
What would College Station be like if annexation activity stopped at 1954, 1960 or 1970? The
community has been growing rapidly since that time. Stopping annexation or exempting
property just because of high emotion is poor strategy.
Mary Broussard, 2909 Pierre Place, stated that until last year, she served as a school board
trustee and developed an appreciation of the relationship between the school and city. CSISD
29
RM032411 Minutes Page 8
will benefit if Wellborn is annexed. Regardless of outcome, the school will continue to serve the
children of the district. Examples of partnerships with the City include improvements to Royder
Road, sewer service, and Kids Klub. These are the types of partnerships that create a great
community to work, play, and raise families.
Mike McCleary, P.O. Box 36, Wellborn, said he moved to Wellborn over forty years ago. He
raised his family there and met a lot of people in Wellborn. Since then, he has seen about 85%
of those buried in the cemetery. He asked how much city services they will get anyhow. The
sewer line is on wrong side of the road, under the rail road tracks. There is a map that shows a
highway going across his property. He asked about the cost to get city services. Comparing
Wellborn to Fox Fire is like comparing cats to cows. If anyone wants to see rural, they should
come to Wellborn.
Bruce Wick, 502 Luther, thanked the Council and reminded them they were elected to represent
and serve College Station citizens and protect the City’s best interests. He encouraged the
Council to do that in these challenging times and annex Wellborn. Listening and acting for small
groups is wrong. The ideology is fine, but prudent, legal actions lead to progress. There are a lot
of fear mongers and coalitions; this is unprecedented. He asked the Council to look in their
hearts and do what is right, and to not leave a mess for another Council to clean up. In 1966
College Station ended at Harvey Road, and there were cows walking down the road. He urged
the Council to do what is best for College Station.
Dale Holecek, 13922 IGN Road, Asked what will annexation cost the residents of College
Station. Lance Simms has projected annual revenues of $173,000 and anticipated costs of $3.4
million. The fiscal impact after full build out is only $26,000. Premises from the Simms
presentation includes: 1) the model is projected out twenty years; 2) $262,000 per year to pay
the principle and interest on the capital improvements; 3) 1.6 city staff will be used to manage
the Wellborn area; and 4) the average salary and benefits of a City employee is $96,000 per year.
Using the City’s numbers, College Station residents will pay $5 million to annex Wellborn,
which will not be repaid in twenty years. If the City can only recover half of the cost of
purchasing the current EMS No. 1 property, and the City has to hire one more employee to help
manage the area, then the cumulative cost to College Station could be $7.4 million, which will
not be repaid in twenty years. This is an agricultural area, and there will not be a lot growth in
the next ten years. From a cost point of view, annexation of Wellborn is a terrible deal for
College Station residents.
Greg Taylor, 15796 IGN Road, stated that when cities were given unilateral authority over the
ETJ, they also acquired the responsibility to act in the best interest of the ETJ. Those that have
spoken in favor of annexation say it is in the City’s best interest. If they think taking on massive
financial liability is in their own best interest, they are mistaken. We don’t know what the
majority thinks, but one way to find out is to vote on it. The incorporation election has been
actively pursued since 2008. Petition after petition has been filed.
Mary Ann Nagyvary, 3968 Cody, stated her opposition to annexation and that Wellborn should
not be considered as a suburb. This community has been around for decades and is not just
another plot of land waiting to be grabbed. An initial petition was submitted several years ago
30
RM032411 Minutes Page 9
and ignored. She was so excited about the possibility of incorporation. We were going to have
zoning, and who better to have ownership of that area? They were chartering a new rural city
and wanted to be good neighbors. It is so sad that the Council so fears it and is so threatened by
it. Wasted time and money has been spent on this divisive conflict. If given the right to vote,
Wellborn would have this great thing to the south. Council can still vote no to annexation.
Marianne Opresko, 11282 Hickory #6, said she was in the ETJ and was annexed. She also ran
the first recall of the City Council. She hopes that Council will hold to the fire the feet of staff
who reported how much annexation would cost, and if it costs more, take it out of their
paycheck. Benefits are developer driven. College Station spent lots of money to put a fire
station in her area and then moved it. The Police Department had to hire sheriff deputies to serve
the rural area. The fire chief did not do what was needed to serve the rural area. Wellborn was a
community before College Station. College Station was incorporated because Bryan was going
to annex it. She asked Council to think about how much it will cost.
Fred Bouse, 811 Plum Hollow, said it is inconceivable to him that College Station would go
forward with this annexation against the wishes of 2,000 people. Remarks have been made that
this is not personal. It is personal for Wellborn residents and those College Station residents that
love the Wellborn community. Annexation without the right to vote is no different than taxation
without representation. He referenced the many foreign conflicts occurring and stated that what
their citizens are seeking is no different from what Wellborn is seeking.
Lynn Ruoff, 3733 McCullough, thanked the Council for its generosity to use College Station
taxes to pay for Wellborn services in a time of economic uncertainty. She noted that College
Station recently proposed a monthly $2 fee to repair roads, but now is talking about taking on the
repair of Wellborn roads. Most communities looking at decreasing animal control services, but
now College Station is looking to add animal control in the annexed area. She stated that those
in Wellborn chose to live in an area that does not provide these benefits, and they are happy to
continue without.
Linda Hale, 4042 Cody, said she has heard so many numbers about how little or how much it
will cost to annex and she doesn’t know what to believe. In two weeks the Council will have an
opportunity to bring healing to Wellborn and to the citizens that don’t want this to happen.
There is enough room in Brazos County for Bryan, College Station, and Wellborn. She asked
Council to think of the scars and division this annexation will cause.
Al Smith, 15032 Turnberry, said he is an engineer with forty years experience and is qualified to
comment on the service plan. A letter was sent to the Mayor and City Manager addressing a
number of cost issues. He believes that the City estimates are $2.4 million under estimated. Had
the City prepared a detailed cost benefit risk analysis or environmental assessment, they would
have seen items that should have been addressed. For example, the estimate for the seal coati
of the roads (with a six year life) was $103,000 whereas it is really $167,000 (based upon two
independent contractors). Based on the City’s history, these roads will be upgraded to City
standards and will cost $1.2 million. He didn’t see the cost of the proposed thoroughfare road.
He also feels the annual maintenance cost is underestimated.
31
RM032411 Minutes Page 10
Joseph Nagyvary, 3968 Cody, stated that his love of Aggieland is second to none, but he is not
impressed with the development of College Station with its huge urban sprawl. When growing
up in Hungary, they dealt first with the feudal lords, then the facists, and then communists, who
all made them humble themselves and accept their decisions. He did not think he would, in the
land of the free, have to stand before a benign colonizing power that would seek to impose its
will upon the people. The right of Wellborn to vote is the central issue. According to a local
public opinion poll conducted by Councilmember McMillan, two thirds of College Station
residents think the Wellborn issue should be decided by the public itself. This is too important to
be decided by Council alone, whose composition may change in May. Does the Council realize
how bad it looks to have scheduled an annexation vote with the apparent intention to beat a
proposed state law that will give them right to vote. The appearance is that they are afraid and
don’t believe in democracy, with little respect for the principles this great country was founded
upon.
Kamryn Franze, P.O. Box 270, Wellborn, came before Council and stated she is eleven years
old. She noted that Wellborn was her great-great grandparent’s home. She asked the Council to
let Wellborn stay Wellborn.
Vicki Franze, P.O. Box 270, Wellborn, stated that Wellborn is not just a neighborhood. This is a
town that has been there for 140 years. Generations have lived there. They don’t want the City’s
protection or services. There are cities in Houston that function perfectly. If Wellborn had
incorporated earlier, College Station would have to grow around them anyway. Just because the
City has the authority and power to annex, does not make it right. How is it right to press on
with annexation against the people’s will? She asked the Council to be fair and fiscally
responsible.
Jane Cohen, 3655 McCullough, agreed that the City instructed us to pursue incorporation. The
first petition for incorporation was presented in 2008, and staff said it was not in the right order.
They came back in February 2010; the City ignored it and never responded. College Station
residents turned in a petition, and 1,500 voters said to let Wellborn vote. The City fought its own
citizens. 2,000 residents said to recall Council and by proxy referendum to let Wellborn vote.
They would like to have privilege to vote. They did talk about the map. This is just a process, so
hopefully we can reach a win-win situation. Regarding the service plan, she thought this was a
contract, and they have not had any input.
Karen Hall, 5918 Highway 21 East, stated that services are mostly development driven. Those
on small tracts will not enjoy services. Great Oaks was annexed 2008, and they still don’t have
services. Sewer was provided out to the new cemetery across the road, but Great Oaks does not
have sewer. They have been in the ETJ since 1970, and that was a College Station decision.
ETJ is slang for “gotcha”. All cities use the Perryman Group to get the results they want. A
noted university of Houston economist pointed out huge flaws in their data and conclusions. Fox
Fire requested to be annexed into College Station. In return, College Station brought water,
sewer and fire hydrants.
Carol Fountain, 14380 Cheyenne, stated that College Staion really has nothing to offer Wellborn
except for higher taxes. Mr. Simms consistently states we don’t have to do this right away,
32
RM032411 Minutes Page 11
citizens already have water, sewer, etc. There is no advantage to Wellborn or College Station
residents to annex Wellborn. They will have to bear the burden of the expense of annexation.
College Station seems to exercise power for power’s sake against its weaker neighbor, Wellborn.
Laura King, 2727 San Felipe, chose to attend TAMU for the strong values and traditions it
upholds. While a student, she was steeped in the Aggie code of honor. These values reflect
those she was raised by. She has followed the Wellborn issue and is disappointed in the
Council’s actions. In her opinion, they have not acted ethically. She asked them to please do
right thing.
Dave White, 5605 Polo, asked why is it so important to annex before the process within the state
legislature can take place. There are a lot of people in favor, but do they live in Wellborn? How
can you sit there and look at the citizens, and see there are so many asking to be left alone. The
council is acting as a steamroller, and he can’t believe they can ignore this many people. The
Council has the power, the law and the right, but these people should have the right to vote. It’s
just American.
Lynn White, 5605 Polo, said prayer is the best way to find solution. Most major decisions are
made out of fear, fact driven decisions, forces, or through faith. Tonight, she has heard the fear
that College Station can’t grow. It can happen. 40% of the property in the City has not been
developed. The fear of Wellbornites is they will lose their identity. Wellborn is more than just a
neighborhood; it is a community that was here long before any of us.
A.P. Boyd, 5245 Straub, said it is not fair to compare Wellborn to Fox Fire. He gave an example
of loose dogs and said that is one of the differences of living in the City and living in the country.
He has goats, and his granddaughter plays with them. She can’t do that in the city. He loves
Wellborn, and that is why he did not build in Pebble Creek. He asked Council to consider letting
Wellborn be a good neighbor. They can be a good neighbor.
Russell Yates, 904 Pershing, signed up, but did not speak.
Bonita Daily Simpson, 15097 Royder, said they have been in this dilemma since 2008. They
have looked for ways to incorporate, have fought, but have been knocked down every time. She
quoted Matthew 6:9, and asked Wellborn to stay on bended knee. If it is not the Father’s will,
Council should beware.
Charlotte Watson, 1516 Front Royal, briefly discussed her travels abroad. She has seen a huge
difference in the America she left and the America she came home to. She is homeschooling her
children, and they are studying the American Revolution. She is concerned something is being
done without consent.
Chris King, 2727 San Felipe, said he is in business development and understands projections.
This is the science of the artificial. Communities are becoming artificial. We are taking away
the rights of individuals they ought to have. We can’t plan for tomorrow, but we can have
actions today. Actions are who you are. A rural subdivision is an oxymoron. He asked the
Council to protect rural communities.
33
RM032411 Minutes Page 12
Glen Boote, 14290 IGN Road, said Wellborn is a wonderful area. He has never thought of it as
anything other than a little town. There is a water tower that says Wellborn; there is a Wellborn
Road, and green signs saying Wellborn for many miles. The City is telling me it knows what’s
best for me as a property owner. How would College Station residents feel if Bryan came to
annex and they would have no say about it. He urged the Council to think about annexation in
terms of people rather than bettering the corporate image of the City.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:38 p.m.
2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance 2011-
3330, amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official
Zoning Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning
3.41 acres located at 2302 Longmire Drive from C-1 General Commercial and R-6 High
Density Multi-Family to R-6 High Density Multi-Family.
At approximately 9:42 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Chris Peterson, 3702 Oak Ridge, Bryan, stated he is the applicant.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:43 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember
Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2011-
3330, amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning
Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning 3.41 acres
located at 2302 Longmire Drive from C-1 General Commercial and R-6 High Density Multi-
Family to R-6 High Density Multi-Family. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Adjournment.
MOTION: Upon a motion made and seconded, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of
the City Council at 9:44 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011. The motion carried unanimously.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
34
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Scott & White Healthcare Economic Development Agreement Amendment
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
amendment to the existing Economic Development Agreement between the City and
Scott & White Healthcare
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal III.1 Promote knowledge-based businesses.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to
the existing Economic Development Agreement.
Summary: On December 6, 2010 Scott & White Healthcare entered into an
Economic Development Agreement with the City regarding the long-term
development of a new full service hospital and medical complex to be generally
located on the south east corner of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road.
Along the eastern frontage road of and crossing at State Highway 6, there are
numerous aerial electrical lines owned by both College Station Utilities and Bryan
Texas Utilities. In order to enhance the general aesthetics of the proposed
development, the City and Scott & White Healthcare agree that the existing overhead
electrical lines should be buried.
Based upon Scott & White Healthcare’s development preference and the City’s desire
to help facilitate the burial of the overhead electrical lines, Scott & White Healthcare
has agreed to pay for all materials and labor to bury the existing overhead electrical
lines if the City will agree to pay for only the bore underneath State Highway 6
required for just the College Station Utilities lines.
Budget & Financial Summary: The maximum cost of the bore for the relocation of
College Station Utilities electrical lines under State Highway 6 is $77,386. This
amount comes from the Economic Development Fund and will be transferred to
College Station Utilities to do this work. No funds will be paid directly to Scott &
White Healthcare to help facilitate the aesthetic upgrade.
Attachments:
1) Amendment to the Economic Development Agreement
35
36
37
38
39
40
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
Conveyance of 6810 Appomattox to Brazos Valley Community Action Agency
To: David Neely, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution approving a
conveyance agreement to transfer ownership of 6810 Appomattox, an undeveloped property, to Brazos
Valley Community Action Agency.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1 Spending taxpayer money efficiently and Goal III.12 Housing
affordability
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval for the Mayor to sign the resolution and deed
conveying this property to Brazos Valley Community Action Agency for the construction of one unit of
affordable housing.
Summary: The subject property was acquired by the City for the New Construction Program to provide
affordable home-ownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. On October 14,
2010, Council directed ECD staff to retire the New Construction Program and to more actively work with
area nonprofit partners to carry out the City’s affordable housing goals.
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency (BVCAA) is certified as one of the City’s Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO), and receives HOME funds from the City to develop affordable
housing. This lot will allow the BVCAA, using HOME grant funding, to develop a new, affordable home
available to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. The transfer of this lot will facilitate the timely
expenditure of the City’s HOME funds as construction of an affordable home must begin within one year
of the acquisition date of the property.
Budget & Financial Summary: HOME Investment Partnership Grant funds in the amount of $38,392.76
were used to acquire this property in June 2010.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Real Estate Contract
Attachment 3: Location Map
41
RESOLUTION NO.___________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS, APPROVING THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WITH BRAZOS VALLEY
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas (“City” hereinafter) has the objective of
providing for the development of low- and moderate-income housing for citizens of the City
through its Economic and Community Development Department;
WHEREAS, Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, through its express purpose as set forth
in its corporate bylaws, shares this common goal with the City;
WHEREAS, the City has previously acquired real property, Lot Sixty-Nine (69), Block One (1),
Phase Four (4), Horse Haven Estates neighborhood (6810 Appomattox), an addition to the City
of College Station, Texas, according to plat recorded in Volume 8976, Page 266 of the Deed
records of Brazos County, Texas ("Land" hereinafter) by means other than condemnation;
WHEREAS, Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc., a non-profit corporation, has
requested that the City convey this property to facilitate each entity’s mutual objective of
providing for the development of adequate, decent, safe, and sanitary low-to-moderate income
housing for the City's citizens;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that transfer of the Land to the Brazos Valley Community
Action Agency, Inc. will facilitate development of the Land into low-to-moderate income
housing and thereby serves a valid public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc. is
qualified to receive real property conveyances pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
§272.001(g), §253.011, and applicable Department of Housing and Urban Development
Regulations, 24 CFR 570.201 (a) & (b); now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1: That the City Council hereby finds that the City is authorized to convey land to
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency Inc., a non-profit corporation, for the
development of low- to moderate-income housing.
PART 2: That the City Council hereby approves the Real Property Conveyance Agreement
with Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc. to convey Lot 69, Block 1,
Phase 4, Horse Haven Estates neighborhood (6810 Appomattox).
PART 3: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Real Estate contract upon
passage.
42
RESOLUTION NO. __________________________ Page 2
PART 4: That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage.
ADOPTED this day of , A.D. 2011.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Secretary MAYOR
APPROVED:
City Attorney
43
Page 1 of 7
Contract No.: ______
City Of College Station
Real Estate Contract
with
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc.
This contract is made and entered into on this the ____ day of ________, 2011, by and
between the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ("City" and/or "Grantor" hereinafter), a Home
Rule Municipal Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and BRAZOS
VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC. ("Agency" and/or "Grantee" hereinafter), a
Texas non-profit corporation.
WHEREAS, the City has the objective of providing for the development of low- to moderate-
income housing for citizens of the City through its Economic and Community Development
Department;
WHEREAS, the Agency, through its express purposes as set forth in its corporate bylaws, shares
this common goal with the City as a Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”
hereinafter) approved Community Housing Development Organization;
WHEREAS, the City has previously acquired certain real property ("Land" hereinafter, further
identified herein below) by means other than condemnation;
WHEREAS, the Agency has requested that the City convey said Land to the Agency to facilitate
their mutual objective of providing for the development of adequate, decent, safe, and sanitary
low-to-moderate-income housing for the City’s citizens;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that transfer of the Land to the Agency will facilitate
development of the Land into low-to-moderate-income housing and thereby serves a valid public
purpose;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Agency is qualified to receive real property
conveyance(s) pursuant to Local Government Code §272.001(g), Local Government Code
§253.011, and applicable Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is appropriate to convey title of the Land to the
Agency to facilitate the development of adequate, decent, safe, and sanitary low- to moderate-
income housing for the City’s citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Agency for and in consideration of the covenants
and promises as set forth herein, do agree as follows:
44
Page 2 of 7
Contract No.: ______
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Article I – Conveyance(s)
1. For the consideration of ten dollars ($10) and the further covenants and promises
contained herein, the City shall provide to the Agency a Special Warranty Deed conveying the
following real property for the purposes described herein:
1.1. 6810 Appomattox, College Station, Texas, being more particularly described by
its legal description as follows:
Lot Sixty Nine (69), Block One (1), Phase Four (4), HORSE HAVEN
ESTATES neighborhood, an addition to the City of College Station,
Texas, according to plat recorded in Volume 8976, Page 266 of the Deed
records of Brazos County, Texas.
Being the same property described in General Warranty Deed dated June
25, 2010, executed by TDG Management, L.P. to City of College Station,
Texas, recorded in Volume 9701, Page 136, of the Official Records of
Brazos County, Texas.
Said tract(s) collectively referred to as the “Land” hereinafter.
2. The Agency acknowledges and agrees that said Special Warranty Deed shall contain the
following reservations and/or exceptions, among others as may be deemed appropriate in the sole
discretion of the City, from and to conveyance and warranty of the particular tract listed above:
2.1. This conveyance is conditioned on the construction of the dwelling beginning no
later than June 24, 2011.
2.2 This conveyance is conditioned on the construction of a dwelling meeting the
specifications in paragraph 4.2 of this agreement, and HUD approved
requirements on the property within eighteen (18) months from date of this deed.
If GRANTEE does not complete construction of such dwelling in the time period
allotted, GRANTOR shall have an automatic reversion of GRANTOR’s interest.
It is further conditioned on and Agency agrees that such dwelling shall provide
low- to moderate-income housing and thereby serves a valid public purpose.
2.3 The Agency shall facilitate development of the land into low- to moderate-income
housing. If the Agency at any time fails to use the property for development of
low-to-moderate-income housing, ownership of the property automatically reverts
to the City.
45
Page 3 of 7
Contract No.: ______
3. The Agency agrees that any subsequent conveyance of the Land or any portion thereof by
the Agency shall be by Special Warranty Deed, to provide housing for a low-to-moderate-
income family.
Article II – Construction of Dwelling Unit(s)
4. The Agency agrees to the following terms and conditions regarding construction of
dwelling unit(s) on each tract of land described herein:
4.1. The Agency, having previously inspected the property to determine the feasibility
of low- to moderate-income dwelling development, will accept the conveyance of
the property and shall complete the construction of the dwelling unit not later
than September 11, 2012. Failure to complete construction by the stated date
shall constitute grounds, pursuant to this Contract, for the City to exercise its
reversionary interest in the tract of land.
4.2 The City’s Economic and Community Development Department shall have final
approval of design for the project. Constructed dwelling unit(s) shall have a fully
bricked exterior and a garage. Agency shall submit final plans and specifications
to the City’s Economic and Community Development Department, and shall
comply with all other applicable City of College Station ordinances prior to
commencement of construction, or the City may terminate this agreement.
Article III – Property Maintenance
5. As part of the consideration for the conveyance described above, the Agency agrees to
comply with all of the following terms in reference to the Land and the contemplated dwelling
(the Property) for so long as the Agency holds title to the Land:
5.1. The Property must be constructed and maintained to meet all applicable City code
requirements;
5.2. All debris on the Property, both during and after construction, must be regularly
collected in a neat and orderly manner and properly disposed;
5.3. All vegetation on the Property, including any lawn, turf, shrubs, bushes, and trees,
must be maintained and trimmed on a regular basis;
5.4. The interior of the dwelling shall be kept in a clean and sanitary living condition;
Article IV – Records and Reports
6. The Agency shall submit activity reports during construction to the City as may be
required in writing by the City. The format of such reports shall, at a minimum, consist of a
46
Page 4 of 7
Contract No.: ______
narrative summary of activities and an activity report that describes the client(s) served by the
Agency through the Land conveyance under this Contract. The Agency will maintain supporting
back-up documentation regarding all reports and make such available to the City upon request.
Final activity report(s) and reimbursement request(s), including documentation, shall be
submitted to the City within thirty (30) days following the sale of the property. Such final
report(s) shall include information on the following: racial and ethnic identification; household
income information as to whether low- or moderate-income (as stipulated by HUD regulations);
head of household status; and city of residence status.
Article V – Administrative Requirements
7. The Agency further agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions contained in the
City's Community Development Administrative Guidelines and the Deed referenced in
paragraph 1, et seq., herein.
8. The Agency further agrees to comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws,
ordinances, and regulations, including but not limited to HUD requirements and the following:
8.1. For any property rehabilitated under this Contract that lies within the 100 year
flood plain, the Agency agrees to purchase Federal Flood Insurance as required under the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et. Seq.
8.2. The Agency agrees to comply with the policies and procedures relating to
removal and non-use of lead-based paints in accordance with the Lead-Based Paint
Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4822, and the implementing regulations at 24
C.F.R. § 35.
8.3. The Agency agrees to comply with the provisions of 24 C.F.R. § 24 relating to the
employment, engagement of services, awarding of contracts, or funding of any
contractors or subcontractors during any period of debarment, suspension, or placement
on ineligibility status.
Article VI – General Provisions
9. The City and the Agency attest that, to the best of their knowledge, no member of the
City of College Station City Council and no other officer, employee or agent of the City, who
exercises any function or responsibility in connection with the carrying out of this Contract, has
any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract.
10. The Agency certifies that it will not limit services or give preference to any person
assisted through this Contract on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial
status, or disability.
47
Page 5 of 7
Contract No.: ______
11. The parties to this Contract agree and understand that the Agency is an independent
contractor and not an agent or representative of the City, that the obligation to compensate
Agency’s employees and personnel furnished or used by the Agency to provide the services
specified herein shall be the sole responsibility of the Agency, and that said employees and
personnel shall not be deemed employees of the City for any purpose.
12. No amendment to this Contract shall be effective and binding unless and until it is
reduced to writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties.
13. This Contract has been made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Texas.
14. Performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Brazos County, Texas, United
States of America.
15. Each party has the full power and authority to enter into and perform this Contract, and
the person signing this Contract on behalf of each party has been properly authorized and
empowered to enter into this Contract. The persons executing this Contract hereby represent that
they have authorization to sign on behalf of their respective organizations.
16. Failure of any party, at any time, to enforce a provision of this Contract, shall in no way
constitute a waiver of that provision, nor in any way affect the validity of this Contract, any part
hereof, or the right of either party thereafter to enforce each and every provision hereof. No term
of this Contract shall be deemed waived or breach excused unless the waiver shall be in writing
and signed by the party claimed to have waived. Furthermore, any consent to or waiver of a
breach will not constitute consent to or waiver of or excuse of any other different or subsequent
breach.
17. The parties acknowledge that they have read, understand and intend to be bound by the
terms and conditions of this Contract.
18. This Contract and the rights and obligations contained herein may not be assigned by any
party without the prior written approval of the other parties to this Contract.
19. It is understood and agreed that this Contract may be executed in a number of identical
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes.
20. If any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a
court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. The parties shall use
their best efforts to replace the respective provision or provisions of this Contract with legal
terms and conditions approximating the original intent of the parties.
48
Page 6 of 7
Contract No.: ______
21. It is understood that this Contract contains the entire agreement between the parties and
supercedes any and all prior agreements, arrangements, or understandings between the parties
relating to the subject matter. No oral understandings, statements, promises, or inducements
contrary to the terms of this Contract exist. This Contract cannot be changed or terminated
orally. No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent, or employee of any party
before or after the execution of this Contract shall affect or modify any of the terms or
obligations hereunder.
22. Unless otherwise specified, written notice shall be deemed to have been duly served if
delivered in person or sent by certified mail to the last business address as listed herein. Each
party has the right to change its business address by giving at least thirty (30) days advance
written notice of the change to the other party. Written notices shall be delivered as follows
unless otherwise notified by either party:
Agency: City:
Attn: Attn: David Gwin
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc. Economic and Community
1500 University Drive East, Suite 100 Development Department
College Station, Texas 77840 City of College Station
1207 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
23. Headings provided herein are for convenience only and in no manner limit or effect the
provisions contained herein.
EXECUTED this of , 2011.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BRAZOS VALLEY COMMUNITY
ACTION AGENCY, INC.
By: By:
David Neeley, City Manager
Printed Name:
Title:
49
Page 7 of 7
Contract No.: ______
APPROVED:
City Attorney Dated
Chief Financial Officer Dated
Director of Economic & Community Development Dated
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2011,
by David Neeley, as City Manager of the City of College Station, Texas, Texas Home Rule
Municipality, on behalf of said municipality.
___________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2011,
by , as _____________ of BRAZOS VALLEY COMMUNITY
ACTION AGENCY, INC., a Texas non-profit organization, on behalf of said organization.
___________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
50
Attachment 3 – Location Map – 6810 Appomattox
51
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Homebuyer Down-Payment Assistance Program (DAP) Guidelines
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the proposed changes to the
City’s Down-Payment Assistance Program (DAP) Guidelines.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal II.5 Neighborhood Services and Goal III.12 Housing affordability.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the revised guidelines.
Summary: Staff is proposing revised Down-Payment Assistance Program (DAP) Guidelines, which
utilize HOME Investment Partnership Program grant funds to aid income eligible homebuyers with down
payment and closing cost assistance. Assistance is in the form of a 0% interest deferred loan, which is
repaid to the city when the recipient no longer owner-occupies the home.
Over the past five years, Median Family Income increased only 3.89%, while the median home sales
price increased 12.57%, from $143,820 to $161,900. The barrier of entry to homeownership is higher
than ever as average and median sales prices rise faster than area incomes. The proposed changes will
simplify the program as well as allow a greater amount of down-payment assistance to be available for all
homes in College Station, increasing the assistance amount from 10% (with a maximum of $10,000) to
15% (with no maximum) of the sales price of the home. Eliminating the current cap on assistance will
allow the assistance amount to change over time with market forces. No changes will be made to the
current eligibility requirements or the front-end or back-end ratios ensuring affordability as well as
homeownership success.
Budget & Financial Summary: Federal HOME Investment Partnership Grant (HOME) funds are used to
provide homebuyer down-payment assistance to eligible applicants. The proposed guideline revisions
will strengthen the City’s overall position in regards to long-term sustainability of the program.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Revised Down Payment Assistance (DAP) Guidelines
52
Page 1 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
Attachment 1
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DOWN-PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Proposed Guidelines 2011
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Unless herein stated otherwise, the general operating procedures contained in 24 CFR
Part 92 (Home Investment Partnerships Program) will be followed.
A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE & PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The City of College Station Down-Payment Assistance Program (DAP) is funded through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds. Additionally, the City may
utilize other local, state, or federal resources that become available.
DAP is designed to assist income-eligible homebuyers with the purchase of affordable single
family residential properties located within the City of College Station for owner-occupied,
homestead use only. DAP financial assistance shall be limited to providing qualified applicants
with down payment/principal reduction and/or closing cost assistance under the provisions of 92
CFR § 92.254 qualification as affordable housing: homeownership. This may be accomplished in
part by developing, with City Council approval, affordable single-family units to be made available
to program eligible families.
The basic goals of the Down-Payment Assistance Program are:
- To provide homeownership opportunities for low income individuals and families,
- To expand the supply of decent housing available to low-income homebuyers, and
- To provide homeowner training and homebuyer counseling activities to low-income
homebuyers.
DAP financial assistance shall be provided using deferred loans which, to the extent proceeds are
available from the transaction, are fully repayable upon sale of the property. This assistance is
combined with conventional permanent financing offered by private sector lenders (i.e., banks,
thrifts, or mortgage corporations). Seller/owner financing is not permitted, except for applicants
applying under the Habitat for Humanity homebuyer program. DAP will provide a maximum of
15% of the sales price, for one to four-person households, provided that the amount of assistance
does not decrease the debt/income ratio for Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance (PITI) below
20% of gross monthly income or increase the amount of assistance beyond the maximum
221(d)(3) limit as published by HUD for qualified applicants purchasing eligible properties in the
City of College Station. The maximum purchase price shall not exceed the maximum published
FHA mortgage limit (203b limit). At his/her sole discretion, the Economic and Community
Development Department Director may increase the amount of DAP assistance to above the
maximum of 15% of the sales price of the home for an applicant purchasing properties developed
53
Page 2 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
by the City’s Department of Economic and Community Development or CHDOs if necessary to
accomplish other City or program objectives, or upon significant demonstration of extraordinary
circumstances.
DAP assistance will require a lien by the City of College Station. DAP homebuyers must
contribute a minimum of 1.5% of the sales price to the purchase of properties, except for
applicants applying under the Habitat for Humanity homebuyer program. At the discretion of the
Economic and Community Development Department Director, this requirement may be waived.
Participating lenders must provide escrow services to buyers for insurance and tax payment
purposes. The City will not participate in purchases where the mortgage lender’s interest rate
exceeds the local average mortgage rate by more than one and one-half additional percentage
points. Additionally, lender mortgages of less than fifteen (15) years will not be eligible for
participation in the DAP Program.
B. HOMEBUYER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible applicants of DAP financial assistance must meet the following qualifications:
1. An applicant must have a gross income of less than eighty (80) percent of the
Bryan/College Station area median income as established by HUD. Income will be
determined by the provisions of 24 CFR § 92.203 (Income determinations) and 24 CFR §
5.609 (Annual income). Applicants will not be eligible for DAP assistance if, upon
application, they have assets exceeding $20,000 on hand. Retirement funds in IRS
recognized retirement accounts are excluded.
2. Participants will be required to certify at the time they acquire an ownership interest in the
unit that they intend to occupy the unit as their principal residence. Occupancy will be
determined through verification of utility consumption, and other verifications determined to
be acceptable by the City, on an annual basis.
3. Credit and Employment Standards
a. Qualified applicants will have an average FICO credit score of no less than 600, with
no bankruptcies, foreclosures, student loan delinquencies, income tax delinquencies,
child support delinquencies or repossessions within the previous two (2) years. This
provision does not apply to applicants applying under the Habitat for Humanity
homebuyer program. The Economic and Community Development Department
Director may waive this requirement if necessary to accomplish other City or program
objectives, or upon significant demonstration of extraordinary circumstances.
b. Applicants must have an employment history in the same job, or in the case of
professional, salaried employees (as defined in 29 CFR § 541 meeting any of the
requirements in Subparts B, C, D, E, or F), in the same field of employment, for a
minimum of six (6) months.
54
Page 3 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
c. Student loans which are currently deferred at the time of application will be included in
the debt ratio calculation as if in repayment status.
4. Citizenship: In order to receive DAP assistance, applicants must be United States
Citizens, U.S. Non-Citizen Nationals, or Qualified Aliens as defined by Title IV of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Qualified Alien
status will be verified by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Division of the
Department of Homeland Security.
C. ELIGIBLE PROPERTY CRITERIA
Property eligible for purchase under DAP is subject to the requirements of 24 CFR § 92.254
(Qualification as affordable housing: homeownership) and as follows:
1. The DAP will be implemented on a city-wide basis within the city limits of the City of
College Station.
2. All single-family property, located within the above mentioned boundaries. The definition of
"single-family" property includes individually owned townhouse units, homeplexes and
condominium units, but excludes mobile homes, duplexes and quadraplexes.
3. Only property that is debt-free and has an otherwise clear title on the date it is acquired by
an applicant is eligible.
4. All eligible DAP properties shall not exceed 95 percent of the maximum amount insurable
under Section 203(b) of the National Housing Act (FHA lending limit) for the Bryan/College
Station area.
5. Eligible properties must not be tenant-occupied on the date of the execution of the Earnest
Money or Sales Contract, unless the occupant is the buyer.
6. Properties constructed prior to 1978 must have passed a lead-based paint risk
assessment by a State of Texas-licensed Lead Risk Assessor.
D. LOAN INSTRUMENTS
DAP shall use two (2) basic loan instruments (promissory note and deed-of-trust) to provide
financial assistance to eligible applicants and to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR §
92.254(a)(5)(ii)(A) (Recapture, Net Proceeds). The intention of the DAP loan instrument is to
provide supplemental financial assistance when combined with permanent financing.
Affordability shall be determined, except in the case of purchases through the Habitat for Humanity
homebuyer program, by ensuring the total PITI (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) payment
(front ratio) is not less than 20% but not more than 35% of the monthly income of the eligible DAP
homebuyer. With lender approval, the upper percentage may be slightly exceeded under
extenuating circumstances that demonstrate the buyer’s ability to handle higher payments. The
55
Page 4 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
maximum total debt-to-income ratio (back ratio) is 45% (participating lenders may require a lower
percentage). The City of College Station shall not participate in loan packages that have
mortgages that are not fully amortizing ("balloon" mortgage) or contain negative amortization.
Mortgage interest rates must be fixed for the full loan term. Interest rate buy-downs are not
permitted. A maximum of 30% of the program assistance may be used for closing costs, except
prepaid taxes or mortgage insurance. The remaining 70% must be applied directly to the down
payment. Any Mortgage Credit Certificate Tax Credits claimed by the applicant will not be included
in the debt ratio calculation.
DAP loan instruments shall require that the property must be maintained to meet all applicable City
codes, including community appearance standards and code enforcement ordinances.
Deferred Loan
Amount:
All households: 15% of the sales price of the house
Repayment Due:
100% upon sale (to the extent proceeds available)
Lien holder Position: Second
Refinancing: Allowed for payment, term, or interest rate
reduction. No cash-out refinance allowed.
Owner Occupancy Required: On the date the homebuyer ceases occupying the
property as a primary residence (i.e., rental, gift,
death, abandonment), the deferred loan will become
due and payable to the City (except for deployed
military personnel.)
Except in the case of purchases under the Habitat for Humanity homebuyer program, the City shall
have the prior right to purchase the ownership interest in the property from the initial DAP
homeowner for the amount specified in a firm contract between the homeowner and the
prospective buyer. The City shall have 10 business days after receiving notice of the firm contract
to decide whether to exercise its right and 60 additional calendar days to complete closing of the
property.
Military Deployment - In the event that the homebuyer is deployed on active duty, the homebuyer
may, at their discretion, rent the home during the time of deployment to an income-eligible
applicant if the homebuyer's monthly mortgage payment will exceed 30% of gross monthly income
after deployment. The maximum rent will be determined by published maximum HUD rents for the
area. The City of College Station Department of Economic and Community Development will verify
income eligibility of the rental applicant and will file a copy of the deployment orders in the
homebuyer's client file. If the home is rented to an income-eligible applicant, or is occupied by the
homebuyer's dependents, the DAP loan will continue to be deferred.
56
Page 5 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
E. HOUSING QUALITY PLAN
1. Economic and Community Development Departmental staff, who are experienced in
conducting inspections of housing units for health and safety standards will complete
inspections of all proposed units for conditions posing a health or safety threat to
occupants prior to approval of the unit for transfer to the homebuyer.
2. All DAP funded properties must meet all requirements under 24 CFR § 92.251(a)
(Property standards) prior to closing.
3. Subject properties will be reviewed with regards to environmental issues as required by
federal guidelines in 24 CFR § 92.352 (Environmental review) Properties not eligible for
federal assistance due to environmental hazards will be ineligible for this program.
F. DAP HOMEBUYER AND HOMEOWNER COUNSELING PROGRAM
The Homebuyer and Homeowner Counseling Program will provide a full range of services, advice,
and assistance to potential homebuyers to assist them in meeting the responsibilities of home
ownership.
1. An Intake Interview will be conducted between the counselor and the prospective
homebuyer once the application has been completed and reviewed by the counselor. The
counselor will obtain and document sufficient information on the nature of the applicant's
housing needs to determine the applicability of housing counseling, the type of assistance
needed, and to establish a case action plan.
2. The counseling session will cover housing selection, Fair Housing laws, purchase
procedures, real estate and mortgage terminology, types of financing and assistance
programs, and the rights and responsibilities of homeowners.
3. The counseling session will also provide training to enhance home management skills,
including money management, comparative shopping, use of credit, debt management
and homeowner's insurance and property taxes. A review of the homebuyer's income and
expenses and the development of a budget will be covered.
4. The counseling session will provide instruction/information on property care and
maintenance, simple home repairs, and housing codes and enforcement procedures.
5. Information regarding reducing energy waste, developing an energy conservation lifestyle,
energy audits, tax credit information, low cost weatherizing instructions, product fraud
prevention, and safety information will also be provided.
6. Post-Occupancy Counseling will be offered upon request to the homebuyer after the
purchase of the home. This counseling will also be available to assist in resolving
57
Page 6 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
problems between the mortgagee and the home buyer and will provide appropriate
referrals to other agencies, as needed.
G. APPLICATION PROCESS
Persons having previously completed homebuyer assistance evaluations and counseling with staff
will be given priority. Interested applicants will be given application and verification forms and
instructions for completion. Staff will be available to assist with completion of required forms.
1. Once an applicant meets all program requirements, to include applying for and receiving
approval for permanent mortgage financing, an Electronic Funds Transfer (E.F.T.) or
check will be requested for the appropriate program assistance. Program documents will
be prepared and forwarded to the appropriate title company. Upon Closing, DAP funds
will be made available to the selected title company. The E.F.T. or check will be made out
to the title company for the benefit of the applicant/buyer.
2. All program requirements having been met, eligible applicants will be prioritized according
to date and time of intake interview and pre-purchase session. Assistance will continue
until all funds are depleted or the program is terminated. In the event of a funding
shortage, families with dependent children will receive priority. Families with dependent
children will also receive priority for properties developed and owned by the City.
3. Previous recipients of Economic and Community Development housing program
assistance (ORP, Rehab, TBRA, etc.) must be approved by the Economic and Community
Development Department Director prior to receiving DAP assistance. Previous DAP
recipients are not eligible for additional DAP assistance, except upon approval of the
Economic and Community Development Department Director.
4. Applicants falsifying information will be disqualified from participating in the program and
may be subject to criminal prosecution.
5. Applicants denied for DAP can reapply no earlier than six (6) months from the date of
original application.
6. A non-refundable fee of $20 shall be due upon receipt of the application or pre-application.
This fee is meant to primarily cover the cost of the prospective client’s credit report.
H. ANTI-DISPLACEMENT POLICY STATEMENT
1. The City shall not engage or participate in any activities that influence the permanent
and/or involuntary relocation or displacement of any low-income family due to the DAP
pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR§ 92.353 Displacement, Relocation, and Acquisition.
2. It is not anticipated that it would be necessary to relocate any families. However, the City
will follow the relocation procedures as set forth in its adopted Anti-Displacement Policy if
the need does arise.
58
Page 7 of 7; As Adopted by City Council on October 19, 2009 with proposed 2011 changes
I. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
The City of College Station is committed to providing equal opportunity for minority- or women-
owned businesses to compete and obtain contracts for City sponsored projects, and will comply
with the provisions of 24 CFR § 92.350 (Other Federal requirements and nondiscrimination) and
24 CFR § 92.351 (Affirmative marketing; minority outreach program).
J. FAIR HOUSING POLICY STATEMENT
The City of College Station adopted a Fair Housing Ordinance in 1979, which prohibits
discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, and discrimination in the provision of brokerage
services. The ordinance also outlines the City's procedures regarding complaints, investigation,
cumulative legal effect, unlawful intimidation, education and public information and penalty. The
City is not under any court order or decree regarding Fair Housing. Relevant policies and codes
have been examined and no exclusionary zoning codes were evident. The City of College Station
does not have a rental control ordinance. The City of College Station will comply with the
provisions of 24 CFR § 92.351 (Affirmative marketing; minority outreach program).
Information regarding the DAP will be made available to the public through the use of a variety of
public media, to include: meetings, the City’s website and ads in the classified section of the
newspapers. Press releases may be given to the local media. Information and applications will be
made available to local agencies that deal with low to moderate income people. Economic and
Community Development staff will be available to speak to organizations or groups of interested
individuals. Other methods of program information outreach may be utilized, including utility bill
inserts, direct mailing, television advertising, and applications and program information will also be
available on various City-specific media.
In addition, the City of College Station will seek technical assistance from the appropriate HUD
staff in order to ensure that all Fair Housing requirements and standards are upheld and ultimately
furthered.
59
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
Rejection of RFP #11-36
Retail Commercial Lease Space Opportunity
in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the rejection of RFP #11-
36, Retail Commercial Lease Space Opportunity in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center,
specifically the wooden kiosk previously occupied by Shakes.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core
Services and Infrastructure – Spending taxpayer money efficiently.
Recommendation(s): Reject the one bid received and authorize staff to remove the
structure from the property.
Summary: Proposals were solicited for use of the 275 SF kiosk located within the Chimney
Hill Shopping Center. While interest was shown by several potential bidders and the kiosk
was shown to one of these potential bidders only one bid was received. The proposed lease
rate was very low compared to the previous lease. We believe this low proposal was due to
concerns about existing infrastructure, the condition of the lease space, and potential
problems with the HVAC system in the kiosk. The lessee, per terms of the lease, would be
responsible for any renovations to the facility and repairs that would be needed to open and
operate in the lease space. It was decided that instead of committing to an expenditure of
funds to repair all known and potential infrastructure and equipment problems, the most
cost effective option would be to remove the structure.
Budget & Financial Summary: Demolition and removal of debris will be done in-house by
Department of Public Works personnel.
Attachments: N/A
60
NEW COVERSHEET FORMAT EXAMPLE 1
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
Interlocal Agreement with Texas A&M University System for a Temporary Air
Quality Monitoring Station in Lick Creek Park
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Schmitz, Interim Director of Parks & Recreation
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the extension of
an Interlocal Agreement with the Texas A&M University Department of Atmospheric
Sciences through December 31, 2011 for an air quality monitoring station located in Lick
Creek Park.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Interlocal
Agreement for the existing air quality monitoring station and tower in Lick Creek Park. The
original presentation regarding this research project was made at the November 9, 2004
City Council workshop and the initial Interlocal Agreement was approved at the December
9th, 2004 meeting and was dated January 13, 2005. The current agreement expired on
October 31, 2006 and this amendment will extend the agreement through December 31,
2011.
Summary: This project is being conducted by the TAMU Department of Atmospheric
Sciences in cooperation with The University of Texas and The University of Houston to
continue to conduct a regional study of the effects on rural areas from air-borne pollution
generated in the Houston/Galveston metro region. The study will provide a means to
determine the levels of atmospheric pollutants entering College Station and will establish a
data base for other research efforts in the area.
The monitoring station is currently located west of the equestrian parking area (old gravel
parking lot) and includes a fenced enclosure with a temporary tower that supports the
monitoring equipment. The facility is screened by existing trees and has not changed the
use of the park. It has had very minimal impact upon the park visitors.
The study supports the City of College Station Strategic Plan through collaboration with
other agencies, promotion of regionalism and promotion of the health, safety and general
well being of the community. The project is coordinated by Dr. Gunnar W. Schade with the
Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University.
Budget & Financial Summary: All expenses related to the installation, operation and
removal of the monitoring station and facilities are the responsibility of Texas A&M
University.
Attachments:
1. Interlocal Agreement with TAMU System dated March 1, 2011
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Clinical Affiliation Agreement with College Station Medical Center
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Robert Alley, Fire Chief
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a
resolution to participate in a Clinical Affiliation Agreement with the College Station Medical
Center for the Emergency Medical Services Program.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution authorizing the City
Manager to sign the signature page of the Clinical Affiliation Agreement.
Summary: The City of College Station continues to support the coordination of the College
Station Fire Department members working with the College Station Medical Center to
complete their emergency medical clinical hours. Paramedics of the College Station Fire
Department work with Dr. Eric Wilke and staff members at the College Station Medical
Center side by side to gather required knowledge, skills and abilities to complete their
certifications.
Budget & Financial Summary: There is no financial impact to the city.
Attachments:
Clinical Affiliation Agreement – on file in the City Secretary’s Office
Resolution
75
76
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Medical Ambulance Service to Brazos County
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Robert Alley, Fire Chief
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a
resolution to update the Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Medical Ambulance Service to
respond to emergencies in Brazos County and to establish the annual fee for FY 2011 at
$216,230.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
Summary: The City of College Station currently provides Emergency Medical Ambulance
Service to emergencies in Brazos County. The new established amount of $216,230 will be
paid in quarterly installments of $54,057.50. The new established annual fee for 2011 will
represent a collection rate of 100% cost recovery for the Emergency Medical calls that we
respond to in Brazos County in accordance with our current fee schedule. This amount
represents a decrease of $57,301 from the FY 2010 amount of $273,531. This decrease is a
result of the fact that there were less emergency medical calls in Brazos County from the
previous year and increased collections for Emergency Medical calls.
A meeting will be scheduled for the end of May 2011 with Fire Chief Mike Donoho of the City
of Bryan, Fire Chief R.B. Alley of the City of College Station and the Brazos County Judge to
discuss the amount for the FY 2012 annual fee.
Budget & Financial Summary: Brazos County will pay the City of College Station
$216,230 to provide Emergency Medical Services to the county for FY 2011.
Attachments:
Resolution
Interlocal Agreement
Response Map Exhibit A
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2i
Amendment to School Resource Officer Inter-Local Agreement
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding amending the
Inter- Local Agreement (ILA) with the College Station Independent School District (CSISD)
regarding School Resource Officers (SRO).
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.8 Evaluating Public Safety Needs. Goal I.1
Spending tax payer money efficiently.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the amended ILA.
Summary: Through an evaluation of our current School Resource Officer program with
CSISD and discussions with both A&M Consolidated High School Principal Buddy Reed and
CSISD Superintendent Eddie Coulson, it has been determined that both the College Station
Police Department and the School District will be able to meet their desired objectives by
moving from two assigned School Resource Officers at the Highschool to one. This will
allow the Police Department to re-deploy this resource by adding an additional sworn officer
to the Criminal Investigation Division who will be focused primarily on gang intelligence and
gang activity in our community.
Budget & Financial Summary: The salary and benefits for the School Resource Officer
assigned to the Highschool was divided, in which CSISD paid fifty percent and the City of
College Station paid fifty percent. The City of College Station will pick up the additional
costs that CSISD would have paid on pro-rated basis for FY 11, which will total
approximately $24,600.
Attachments:
Copy of the amended ILA.
86
87
88
89
April 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2j
Water Meter Purchase Contract
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Coleman, Director of Water Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion recommending approval for
the water meter purchase contract with Aqua-Metric Sales Co. for the amount of
$149,432.70.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially sustainable city providing response to core
services and infrastructure.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval to purchase Sensus iPERL water
meters from Aqua-Metric Sales Company through the Houston-Galveston Area Council
(HGAC) contract. (Contract #WM08-10).
Summary: Sensus Ipearl meters are the state of the art in water metering technology.
These meters have no moving parts and virtually eliminate unaccounted water losses
experienced with standard meters that occur due to mechanical wear. Ipearl meters carry a
twenty year warranty and can be easily retrofitted for automated meter reading capabilities.
Aqua-Metric Sales Company is the HGAC contract dealer for Sensus water meter
assemblies and related products. Products and services offered through HGAC have been
subjected to either the competitive bid or competitive proposal format based on Texas
statutes under the Local Government Code Chapter 252.
This purchase order is for 1,299 water meters, and they will be placed in high-usage
locations to maximize their value. These meters are the third phase of our meter
replacement program, which more than pays for itself by providing accurate readings and
thereby reducing “lost revenue.” These meters are an excellent value to the City and
therefore staff recommends approval to purchase them.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds budgeted and available in the Water Fund.
Attachments:
Vendor quote
90
Contract Pricing Worksheets
Rev 02-05-07
NOTE: Purchase Orders are not valid unless
a copy of the completed worksheet and the
customer's order are faxed to HGACBuy at:
713-993-4548
This Workbook contains three versions of HGACBuy's Contract Pricing
Worksheet. One is for Standard Equipment / Services, one is for Catalog
or Price Sheet type purchases, and the third is for Motor Vehicles only.
See tabs at bottom to select appropriate Worksheet.
Please contact H-GAC staff about use of the worksheets if you have any questions.
Toll Free - 800.926.0234
91
Please contact H-GAC staff about use of the worksheets if you have any questions.
92
Contract
No.:WM08-10 Date
Prepared:3/4/2011
Buying
Agency:Contractor:
Contact
Person:
Prepared
By:
Phone:Phone:
Fax:Fax:
Email:Email:
Quan Unit Pr Total
0
1,230 114.4 140712
0
1,230 7.09 8720.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149432.7
Quan Unit Pr Total
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
149432.7
CONTRACT PRICING WORKSHEET
For Catalog & Price Sheet Type Purchases
This Worksheet is prepared by Contractor and given to End User. If a PO is issued, both documents
MUST be faxed to H-GAC @ 713-993-4548. Therefore please type or print legibly.
City of College Station
Butch Willis
Aqua-Metric Sales Company
Lee Godson
903-520-8950
3/4" Sensus Iperls PC 17 L PL Page 3
210-967-6305
Description
A. Catalog / Price Sheet Items being purchased - Itemize Below - Attach Additional Sheet If Necessary
General Description
of Product:Sensus Iperls
cwillis@cstx.gov
Catalog / Price Sheet
Name: Sensus Meter Pricing
lee.goodson@aqua-metric.com
Total From Other Sheets, If Any:
Subtotal A:
For this transaction the percentage is: Check: Total cost of Unpublished Options (B) cannot exceed 25% of the total of
the Base Unit Price plus Published Options (A+B).
Touch Pad/Pit Lid Assemblies PC 17 L PL Page 3
Delivery Date: D. Total Purchase Price (A+B+C):
B. Unpublished Options, Accessory or Service items - Itemize Below - Attach Additional Sheet If Necessary
(Note: Unpublished Items are any which were not submitted and priced in contractor's bid.)
Subtotal B:
Total From Other Sheets, If Any:
C. Trade-Ins / Special Discounts / Other Allowances / Freight / Installation / Miscellaneous Charges
Description
Subtotal C:
93
April 14, 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Lincoln House of Hope Rezoning
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning
Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning Lot 14,
Block 3 of the Hrdlicka Subdivision, being 0.22 acres located at 1013 Eleanor Street, from
R-1 Single-Family Residential to PDD Planned Development District for a community
services center.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Neighborhood Integrity
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their
April 7, 2011 meeting and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the request with the
condition that the structure built or placed on the property incorporate a residential-style
pitched roof (minimum 4/12) within three years of the issuance of the initial Certificate of
Occupancy for the community services structure on the property. Staff also recommended
approval of the request with the condition of a residential-style roof pitch.
Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for
zoning map amendments:
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as “Neighborhood Conservation.” The Plan states that redevelopment in these
areas should be sensitive to existing residents of the neighborhood and that rezoning in
these areas should provide additional character protection and address non-conforming
issues. The primary goal is to protect and enhance the existing neighborhood, including
the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Both the physical design and the land use will affect the character of the neighborhood
and the quality of life of its residents. Structures should be designed to enhance
community identity and should include buffers and architectural features to ensure
compatibility. The applicant has proposed a modular building with additional
architectural features that are common on older single-family homes, such as a front
porch, window shutters, and decorative lighting. The structure may not, however,
provide for a pitched roof – a primary characteristic of single-family structures.
2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property
and with the character of the neighborhood: The property is adjacent to single-
family properties and a small neighborhood church, and the Lincoln Center is located
across Eleanor Street. The services offered by the Lincoln House of Hope primarily serve
residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and are intended to be complementary to
those offered by the Lincoln Center. All of the surrounding property is zoned R-1 Single-
Family Residential. Non-residential uses can be compatible with single-family uses if
designed properly. The proposed structure includes design elements commonly found in
older single-family neighborhoods, such as window shutters, decorative lighting and a
94
front porch. The structure is not proposed to include a pitched roof as the structures in
the area have.
3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The
property is a small residential lot within the Lincoln Area Association and is surrounded
by single-family homes, a neighborhood-scale church, and the Lincoln Center. The
applicant states that the Lincoln House of Hope’s services and programming were
created based on needs identified by the surrounding community and that many
program participants and families that utilize the services live in the area and walk to
the center. The property is suitable for a community services center of the proposed
scale.
4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The
property is currently zoned and platted for single-family development and has a single-
family home on the lot. The existing structure is dilapidated and in the process of being
removed. Most of the surrounding properties are developed as single-family homes.
The property is suitable for single-family development.
5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
The property is zoned and platted for single-family development. Most of the
surrounding properties are developed as single-family homes. The property is
marketable for single-family development.
6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There is an existing 8-inch
water line on the south side of Eleanor Street. A 6-inch sanitary sewer line on the north
side of Eleanor Street currently serves the property. This site is located within the Bee
Creek drainage basin with runoff being collected by a series of inlets and storm sewer
pipes. Access will be provided via Eleanor Street, which is classified as a local street.
All infrastructure appears to be adequate to serve the proposed development.
REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN
Land Use
The following uses are proposed with the PDD zoning: Food and clothing distribution,
WIC services, after school tutoring, community meeting space, bible study, GED classes,
and other life skills-based classes.
Purpose & Intent Statement
The applicant has provided the following information related to the purpose and intent of
the proposed zoning district:
“The training and services that come from the Lincoln House of Hope are offered
to the community in faith. We are hopeful that people can live richer, fuller, and
more complete lives because of the ministries listed above.”
Architectural Design & Materials
The applicant proposes a single-story, modular structure located toward the rear of the
lot that will include residential building elements commonly found in older single-family
neighborhoods, such as decorative lighting, window shutters, and a front porch. The
building may not, however, have a pitched roof – one of the more distinguishable
elements of a single-family structure. The building is proposed to be approximately
95
2,000 square feet in area with an eave height between 9-12 feet, and an overall building
height of 20 feet.
Signs
The applicant proposes a low profile sign (4 feet tall by 7 feet long) with indirect lighting
along Eleanor Street. The sign is proposed to be consistent with City park signs in the
area.
Lighting
The applicant proposes to use decorative lights on the structure. The parking lot will be
lit from the street sign back toward the structure to help reduce light pollution toward
the street, while keeping the parking lot secure.
Base Zoning and Meritorious Modifications
The underlying zoning district will be R-1 Single-Family Residential for standards not
identified in the PDD zoning. At the time of site plan, the project will need to meet all
applicable site and architectural requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Through the PDD, the applicant is requesting the following meritorious modifications:
1. Section 3.5.E.2 “Site Plan Review Criteria” of the Unified Development
Ordinance - related to the provision of sidewalks
The applicant requests that a no sidewalk be required along Eleanor Street
because no sidewalks exist to tie into.
2. Section 7.1.2 “Single-Family Protection” of the Unified Development
Ordinance
The applicant is requesting that the height of the structures not be limited by the
adjacent single-family structures.
3. Section 7.2.E “Interior Islands” of the Unified Development Ordinance
The applicant is requesting that no interior parking island be required in the
parking area.
4. Section 7.2.I “Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required” of the
Unified Development Ordinance
The applicant proposes five on-site parking spaces to serve the proposed use. In
addition, the Lincoln House of Hope has a parking agreement with the Lincoln
Center for over-flow parking. The Unified Development Ordinance does not have
a specific parking requirement for a community service center, but requires 1/75
s.f. for a fraternal lodge, 1/250 s.f. for office space, 1/100 s.f. for private schools
(including tutoring).
5. Section 7.6.F “Buffer Standards” of the Unified Development Ordinance
The applicant proposes to leave the existing vegetation in place along the
northern property line adjacent to a single-family home. At the rear of the lot,
the application proposes a 6-foot cedar fence along the lot lines that will
resemble a single-family fenced backyard. The Unified Development Ordinance
requires a minimum 6-foot wood fence and buffer plantings along the side and
rear property lines.
6. Section 7.9.B.2 “Building Mass and Design” of the Unified Development
Ordinance
The applicant is proposing to utilize building elements that are more residential in
nature, including a front porch, window shutters, and decorative lighting.
96
7. Section 7.9 B.3 “Building Materials” of the Unified Development
Ordinance
The applicant is proposing a modular structure with a façade material similar in
appearance to wood siding. Generally, wood siding is limited to 30% of the
façade.
The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for PDD
Concept Plans:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will
be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area: The applicant has
proposed the development of a community services center and states that “the
Lincoln House of Hope will provide much needed services for the residents in this
area. These services help to promote sustained stability for the neighborhood.” The
Lincoln House of Hope is currently leasing a structure on an adjacent lot.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be
consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section: The Comprehensive
Plan designates this area as “Neighborhood Conservation.” The Plan states that
redevelopment in these areas should be sensitive to existing residents of the
neighborhood and that rezoning in these areas should provide additional character
protection and address non-conforming issues. The primary goal is to protect and
enhance the existing neighborhood, including the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Both the physical design and the land use will affect the character of the
neighborhood and the quality of life of its residents. Structures should be designed to
enhance community identity and should include buffers and architectural features to
ensure compatibility. The applicant has proposed a modular building with additional
architectural features that are common on older single-family homes, such as a front
porch, window shutters, and decorative lighting. The structure may not, however,
have a pitched roof as nearby structures in the area do.
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites
and will not adversely affect adjacent development: The proposed
development includes a single-story structure and a small parking lot capable of
holding five or six vehicles. The structure will be located toward the rear of the lot
and will include residential building elements commonly found in older single-family
neighborhoods, such as decorative lighting, window shutters, and a front porch. The
structure may not, however, have a pitched roof – one of the most distinguishable
single-family building elements.
The property is adjacent to single-family properties, a small neighborhood church,
and the Lincoln Center. The services offered by the Lincoln House of Hope primarily
serve residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and are intended to be
complementary to those offered by the Lincoln Center.
4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to
a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned
by a homeowners association: No dwelling units are proposed.
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements,
including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities: None
proposed.
97
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity: The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of
vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses
reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses
in the area: “The Lincoln House of Hope provides services that are within walking
distance of many people that are in need. Because most of the traffic is pedestrian in
nature, the Lincoln House of Hope will not adversely affect traffic condition on
Eleanor or Holleman. Any overflow traffic can easily be accommodated through
parking at the Lincoln Center.”
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Background Information
2. Small Area Map (SAM) & Aerial
3. Ordinance
98
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Lincoln House of Hope is operated by Community Service Center (CSC), a community
service ministry of the A&M Church of Christ. The House of Hope currently operates out of a
leased structure at 403 Holleman Drive, just south of and adjacent to the subject property.
Current programming at the House of Hope includes food and clothing distribution, WIC
services, and GED classes for area residents, as well as providing meeting space for
community groups.
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: April 7, 2011
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: April 14, 2011
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public
hearing:
Lincoln Area Association
Property owner notices mailed: 21
Contacts in support: None as of date of staff report
Contacts in opposition: None as of date of staff report
Inquiry contacts: Two as of date of staff report
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive
Plan
Zoning Land Use
North Neighborhood
Conservation
R-1 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family
South Neighborhood
Conservation
R-1 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family &
Vacant
East Neighborhood
Conservation
R-1 Single-Family
Residential
St. Matthis Baptist
Church
West Neighborhood
Conservation
R-1 Single-Family
Residential
Lincoln Center across
Eleanor Street
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1949
Zoning: R-1 Single-Family
Final Plat: Hrdlicka (1960)
Site development: A single-family home has been on the property since 1940 and
is in the process of being removed.
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
14 April 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Non-Annexation Development Agreements
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding three non-
annexation development agreements associated with the Wellborn annexation.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the non-annexation development
agreements. Based upon previous direction from the Council, staff also recommends
conditionally approving the development agreements contingent upon annexation.
Summary: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council with the opportunity
to approve three non-annexation development agreements associated with the proposed
Wellborn annexation. In compliance with State statue, the City of College Station extended
13 non-annexation development agreement offers to owners of property located within the
area identified for annexation. The non-annexation development agreements contain the
following provisions:
· A guarantee that the City will not annex the property for a period of ten (10) years
unless the terms of the agreement are violated.
· A promise by the owner(s) to use the property in a way that is consistent with the
City’s A-O (Agricultural Open) zoning district.
· A promise by the owner that no person will file a plat or related development
document for the property.
· A provision that a violation of the agreement by the landowner by commencing
development will constitute a petition for voluntary annexation.
· A provision requiring building construction allowed by the agreement to comply with
the applicable City codes and ordinances.
· A provision that the agreement be recorded in the property records at the County
Clerk’s Office so that the agreement will run with the land.
The three non-annexation development agreements represent 35.9 acres or approximately
5.3% of the original area identified for annexation.
Budget & Financial Summary: A Fiscal Impact Analysis (projecting costs and revenues
upon full build-out of the proposed annexed areas) was developed when preparing the
exempt annexation package. The annexation development agreements may have the effect
of extending the time required to reach ultimate build-out.
Attachments:
1. Map Showing Areas Affected by Non-Annexation Development Agreements
2. Non-Annexation Development Agreement Summary
3. Standard Development Agreement (hard copies of all development agreements are
available in the City Secretary’s Office)
109
110
CHAPTER 43 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Sections 43.035 and 212.172 of the Texas
Local Government Code by and between the City of College Station, Texas (the “City”)
and the undersigned property owner(s) (the “Owner”). The term “Owner” includes all
owners of the Property.
WHEREAS, the Owner owns a parcel of real property (the “Property”) in Brazos
County, Texas, which is more particularly and separately described in the attached
Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to have the Property remain in the City’s extraterritorial
jurisdiction, in consideration for which the Owner agrees to enter into this Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to Sections 43.035 and 212.172 of
the Texas Local Government Code, in order to address the desires of the Owner and the
procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and the City acknowledge that this Agreement is binding upon
the City and the Owner and their respective successors and assigns for the term (defined
below) of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is to be recorded in the Real Property
Records of Brazos County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. The City guarantees the continuation of the extraterritorial status of the
Owner’s Property, its immunity from annexation by the City, and its immunity from City
property taxes, for the term of this Agreement, subject to the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as provided in this Agreement, the City agrees not to annex the
Property, agrees not to involuntarily institute proceedings to annex the Property, and
further agrees not to include the Property in a statutory annexation plan for the Term of
this Agreement. However, if the Property is annexed pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, then the City shall provide services to the Property pursuant to Chapter 43 of
the Texas Local Government Code.
Section 2. The Owner covenants and agrees not to use the Property for any use other
than for agriculture, wildlife management, and/or timber land consistent with Chapter 23
of the Texas Tax Code, except for existing single-family residential use of the property,
without the prior written consent of the City. The Owner covenants and agrees that the
Owner will not file any type of subdivision plat or related development document for the
Property with Brazos County or the City until the Property has been annexed into, and
111
zoned by, the City. The Owner covenants and agrees not to construct, or allow to be
constructed, any buildings on the Property that would require a building permit if the
Property were in the city limits, until the Property has been annexed into, and zoned by,
the City. The Owner also covenants and agrees that the City’s A-O (Agricultural Open)
District zoning requirements apply to the Property, and that the Property shall be used
only for A-O (Agricultural Open) District zoning uses that exist on that Property at the
time of the execution of this Agreement, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.
However, the Owner may construct an accessory structure to an existing single-family
dwelling or an accessory structure for the benefit of agricultural uses in compliance with
all applicable City ordinances and codes. The Owner acknowledges that each and every
owner of the Property must sign this Agreement in order for the Agreement to take full
effect, and the Owner who signs this Agreement covenants and agrees, jointly and
severably, to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City against any and all legal
claims, by any person claiming an ownership interest in the Property who has not signed
the Agreement, arising in any way from the City’s reliance on this Agreement.
Section 3. The Owner acknowledges that if any plat or related development document is
filed in violation of this Agreement, or if the Owner commences development of the
Property in violation of this Agreement, then in addition to the City’s other remedies,
such act will constitute a petition for voluntary annexation by the Owner, and the
Property will be subject to annexation at the discretion of the City Council. The Owner
agrees that such annexation shall be voluntary and the Owner hereby consents to such
annexation as though a petition for such annexation had been tendered by the Owner.
If annexation proceedings begin pursuant to this Section, the Owner acknowledges that
this Agreement serves as an exception to Local Government Code Section 43.052,
requiring a municipality to use certain statutory procedures under an annexation plan.
Furthermore, the Owner hereby waives any and all vested rights and claims that they may
have under Section 43.002(a)(2) and Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code
that would otherwise exist by virtue of any actions Owner has taken in violation of
Section 2 herein.
Section 4. Pursuant to Sections 43.035(b)(1)(B) of the Texas Local Government Code,
the City is authorized to enforce all of the City‘s regulations and planning authority that
do not materially interfere with the use of the Property for agriculture, wildlife
management, or timber, in the same manner the regulations are enforced within the City‘s
boundaries. The City states and specifically reserves its authority pursuant to Chapter
251 of the Texas Local Government Code to exercise eminent domain over property that
is subject to a Chapter 43 and/or Chapter 212 development agreement.
Section 5. The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) is ten (10) years from the date
that the Mayor’s signature to this Agreement is acknowledged by a public notary.
The Owner, and all of the Owner’s heirs, successors and assigns shall be deemed to have
filed a petition for voluntary annexation before the end of the Term, for annexation of the
Property to be completed on or after the end of the Term. Prior to the end of the Term,
the City may commence the voluntary annexation of the Property. In connection with
annexation pursuant to this section, the Owners hereby waive any vested rights they may
112
have under Section 43.002(a)(2) and Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code
that would otherwise exist by virtue of any plat or construction any of the owners may
initiate during the time between the expiration of this Agreement and the institution of
annexation proceedings by the City.
Section 6. Property annexed pursuant to this Agreement will initially be zoned A-O
(Agricultural Open) pursuant to the City’s Code of Ordinances, pending determination of
the property’s permanent zoning in accordance with the provisions of applicable law and
the City’s Code of Ordinances.
Section 7. Any person who sells or conveys any portion of the Property shall, prior to
such sale or conveyance, give written notice of this Agreement to the prospective
purchaser or grantee, and shall give written notice of the sale or conveyance to the City.
Furthermore, the Owner and the Owner’s heirs, successor, and assigns shall give the City
written notice within 14 days of any change in the agricultural exemption status of the
Property. A copy of either notice required by this section shall be forwarded to the City
at the following address:
City of College Station
Attn: City Manager
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Section 8. This Agreement shall run with the Property and be recorded in the real
property records of Brazos County, Texas.
Section 9. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any covenant of this
Agreement is void or unenforceable, including the covenants regarding involuntary
annexation, then the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 10. This Agreement may be enforced by any Owner or the City by any
proceeding at law or in equity. Failure to do so shall not be deemed a waiver to enforce
the provisions of this Agreement thereafter.
Section 11. No subsequent change in the law regarding annexation shall affect the
enforceability of this Agreement or the City’s ability to annex the properties covered
herein pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Section 12. Venue for this Agreement shall be in Brazos County, Texas.
Section 13. This Agreement may be separately executed in individual counterparts and,
upon execution, shall constitute one and same instrument.
Section 14. This Agreement shall survive its termination to the extent necessary for the
implementation of the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 5 herein.
113
Entered into this ____ day of _________________, 2011.
__________________________________________
Owner
Printed Name: ______________________________
__________________________________________
Owner
Printed Name: ______________________________
__________________________________________
Owner
Printed Name: ______________________________
__________________________________________
Owner
Printed Name: ______________________________
__________________________________________
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
_________________
Mayor Date
ATTEST:
City Secretary Date
APPROVED:
City Manager Date
City Attorney Date
Chief Financial Officer Date
114
STATE OF _____________ )
) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF ___________ )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2011,
by in his/her capacity as owner of
__________________________________.
Notary Public in and for
the State of __________
STATE OF TEXAS )
) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BRAZOS )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of
, 2011, by Nancy Berry, in the capacity as Mayor of the City of College Station, a
Texas home-rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality.
Notary Public in and for
the State of Texas
115
Summary of Non-Annexation Development Agreements
14 April 2011
Owner Name Property
Description
Acres
Silvy, Nova J. & Valeen A McMahon A-167
Tract 8.1
18
Thomas, Penelope Sue A McMahon A-167
Tract 29
13.9 (of 20)
Whitt, David L. A McMahon A-167
Tract 22.5
4
116
14 April 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 3
Wellborn Annexation Ordinance
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning and Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
ordinance annexing approximately 649 acres located in the ETJ on the southwest
side of the City generally known as the Wellborn area.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: I. Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure, II. Neighborhood Integrity, and III. Diverse
Growing Economy
Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on 16
December 2010 and voted 5-2 to recommend moving forward with the annexation
process. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as presented.
Summary: This ordinance provides for the annexation of approximately 649 acres
on the southwest side of the City generally known as the Wellborn area (further
described in the attached ordinance). Council approved an ordinance establishing
two public hearings and directing staff to prepare an annexation service plan for the
area on 27 January 2011. The two public hearings were held on 22 March and 24
March 2011.
The annexation service plan is attached to the ordinance and effectively acts as a
contract between the City and the residents of the annexed area.
Budget & Financial Summary: See attached Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Attachments:
1. Annexation Area Map
2. Background Information
3. Fiscal Impact Analysis
4. Ordinance
117
118
Wellborn Annexation
Background information
Comprehensive Plan Considerations:
Chapter eight of the City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses growth management and
capacity and identifies the Wellborn area for annexation in the “near term”, or within
three to ten years of the Plan’s adoption (May 2009). Chapter eight also provides
specific guidance regarding each proposed annexation area and lists the following
reasons for annexing the Wellborn area:
o Provides control of gateway frontage (i.e., FM 2154);
o Part or all of area qualifies for non-annexation development agreements;
o Area is adjacent to the City on two or more sides; and,
o Preserves existing character
Further, chapter two of the Comprehensive Plan provides a discussion of community
character and proposes the creation of a future district plan that respects and preserves
the appeal of the Wellborn area. It states, in part, “The area contains elements of a rural
historic community (e.g., cemetery, community center, post office) which contribute to
a unique character that the area residents have stated a strong preference to retain.
The focus of this district plan should be working with the residents to identify and retain
the elements of the community that contribute to its rural character.”
Zoning and other Regulatory Considerations:
Annexation would bring the Wellborn area into the full regulatory control of the City.
While state law provides Texas cities with limited authority within its ETJ, annexation
allows the City to apply its full land-use controls and development standards. This
additional control includes zoning which is a critical tool in terms of implementing the
Comprehensive Plan.
119
1
Proposed Wellborn Annexation
Fiscal Impact Analysis – Revised
7 March 2011
Annexation Area
Approximately 649 acres on the southwest side of the City generally bordered by
Capstone Drive, I&GN Road, Koppe Bridge Road, and the existing City limits and
bisected by FM 2154 (AKA Wellborn Road).
Short-Term Fiscal Impact
Projected Revenues
Ad Valorem Tax Revenue - The current appraised value of all property in the annexation
area is $25,368,620 Based on the current City of College Station tax rate of 44.75 cents per
$100 of appraised valuation, the City could expect to receive annual property tax revenues of
approximately $113,524 from the area. Based on the current annexation schedule, the City
will not begin receiving property tax revenues from the annexation area until late 2012.
Sales Tax Revenue - Several retail establishments and two restaurants currently exist in the
annexation area. Following annexation, these establishments will be subject to city sales tax.
Staff conservatively estimates the potential sales tax revenue to be $60,000 annually.
Anticipated Costs
Surveying Cost - A survey of the area is required as part of the annexation process. The
amount of the surveying contract is $16,800.
Compensation to Emergency Services District (ESD) No. 1 - State law requires cities to
provide compensation to Emergency Services District for territory loss due to annexation. The
amount of compensation varies based on several factors such as the appraised value of the
annexation area and the amount of the district’s debt. The proposed annexation area is
currently served by ESD No. 1; therefore, the city will need to provide compensation
according to state law. While there are several variables that determine the final payment
amount, Staff estimates that the City would owe ESD No. 1 approximately $15,000 upon
annexation.
Road/Street Maintenance - The City proposes to provide a two-course seal coat for the
existing gravel roads and streets within the annexation area. Specifically, McCullough Road,
Church Street, Madison Street, Live Oak Street, and Royder Road will receive the two-course
seal coat. The estimated cost for said work is $102,710. The funding source for the road/street
improvements will likely be the general fund.
Wastewater CIP – The City proposes to provide wastewater infrastructure within the
annexation area. Specifically, a gravity main will be installed on the east side of FM
2154, a lift station will be constructed at the intersection of FM 2154 and Greens Prairie
120
2
Trail, and a force main will be provided along Greens Prairie Trail. The estimated cost
for said work is $3,332,836. Funding for the wastewater CIP will likely be accomplished
by issuing bonds, necessitating a slight increase in wastewater utility bills. The estimated
debt service for this project is approximately $262,000 per year. Staff estimates that an
increase of approximately two percent (2%) would be needed to fund the proposed
improvements.
Summary of Short-Term Fiscal Impact
Revenue (annual)
Property Tax $113,524
Sales Tax $60,000
Total Annual Revenue $173,524
Costs (one-time)
Survey Work $16,800
Compensation for ESD No.1 $15,000
Seal Coat Roads/Streets $102,710
Wastewater CIP* $3,332,836
Total One-Time Costs $3,467,346
*Note: The annual debt service for this project is approximately
$262,000 per year for a twenty year period.
121
3
Full Build-Out Scenario
The fiscal-impact analysis used here is a tool that estimates the annual costs and revenues
that the City will incur once the identified property is fully developed. This information
is provided to help project the need for municipal services, to monitor the costs of land
use decisions, and to give officials information for making growth and planning
decisions.
For this analysis the Service Standard Method was used1. A spreadsheet showing the
details is included as Appendix A. This analysis should be treated as an estimate based
upon the best data available. In addition, it is important for decision makers using this
information to understand the assumptions upon which it is based.
1. In this model it is assumed that the current level of municipal services in College
Station will be maintained in the newly-annexed area.
2. This analysis provides estimates for the area once it fully develops. The costs /
benefits in the interim will vary but typically costs to the City are higher until the area
fully develops.
3. All costs and revenues are in current dollars based on current budget data.
4. The model is based on existing tax and utility rates that may change over time.
Future changes to the land use plan may also alter future fiscal impacts.
Demands and Costs
This analysis began by using a combination of the existing land uses and the future land
use designations in the proposed annexation area (Rural and Restricted Suburban) to
estimate the population for the annexation area. Using existing development as a model,
the average number of dwelling units for the residential areas was calculated. Finally,
census data for persons per household was used to calculate the projected population.
Existing service levels for the City were then used to estimate the demand for City
services in the proposed annexation area. An equal level of service was applied to the
annexation area to yield the demand for services. Costs per year for the demanded
services were calculated using cost ratios to compensate for the varied nature of service
provided by different departments. This resulted in a cost per year to provide the existing
level of service to the proposed annexation area at full build out.
Revenues
Revenues were calculated for property taxes, sales taxes, and utility fees. These
estimates were determined by applying current revenues from similar areas in the City to
the projected development pattern in the annexation areas.
1 - More information on this method is available in The Fiscal Impact Handbook by Robert Burchell & Davide
Listokin
122
4
Conclusions
The following table summarizes the results of the fiscal-impact analysis. Based on the
results of the fiscal-impact analysis, annexation will result in annual revenues to the City
of $35,510 upon full build-out. It is important to note that this model does not capture any
revenue from “one time” charges such as building permit or development fees. As
mentioned before, future changes in the Land Use Plan or development patterns may
affect these projections.
Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis
at Full Build-Out
Property Tax Revenues $113,524
Sales Tax Revenues $60,000
Utility Revenues $44,528
Total Revenues* $218,052
Costs (from Appendix A) $191,502
Total Annual Fiscal Impact** $26,550
*Note: Potential revenues from building permit fees (not included in
the above) constitute a one-time positive impact of $61,620
over the projected life of the development.
**Note: For the first twenty years, the annual debt service for the wastewater
CIP project will be approximately $262,000 per year, resulting is a total annual fiscal
impact of ($235,450).
123
5
Methodology for Revenue Calculations
Property Taxes
$173,135 = Average homestead valuation for “Single Family Medium.” Value is based on average
provided by Brazos County Appraisal District and current city property tax rate (44 .75 cents per $100
of appraised value).
Residential Utility Amounts
$14.40 = Average monthly residential sanitation bill (provided by Utility Customer Service)
$27.27 = Average Monthly Residential Wastewater Bill (provided by Utility Customer Service)
Retail Sales Tax
Retail sales tax was estimated by identifying the existing retail and restaurant uses within the
annexation area and applying known sales tax revenues from comparable uses currently within the
City.
Utility Charges
Electricity
The proposed annexation area is served by Bryan Texas Utilities. No electric utility revenue is anticipated
from the area.
Water
The proposed annexation area is served by Wellborn Special Utility District. No water revenue is
anticipated from the area.
Wastewater
The city currently provides wastewater service to a portion of the annexation area. It is estimated that, upon
build-out, the city will have 50 sewer connections with a monthly rate of $37.49 each.
Sanitation
The proposed annexation area will have City sanitation services. Revenues were calculated by multiplying
the monthly residential rate ($14.40) by the estimated number of residential units in each area.
Projected Miscellaneous Revenues
Single family units were calculated based upon a standardized Building Permit Fee Schedule. An
additional $100 is added per unit to represent miscellaneous permit fees such as electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing.
All inputs are based upon average calculated values.
124
6
Anticipated Government Number of Manpower Budget $ Per Future Add’l Annual Capital to Add’l Annual Total Cost
Population Function Employees Ratio 2010-2011 Employee Employees Operating Cost Operating Capital Cost To Public
205 Fiscal Services 39.50 0.42 3,113,654$ 78,827$ 0.09 6,743$ 0.006 40$ 6,784$
General Government 113.75 1.20 12,628,149 111,017 0.25 27,348 0.011 301 27,649
Police 184.50 1.95 14,626,374 79,276 0.40 31,676 0.047 1,489 33,164
Total January Fire 130.00 1.37 11,899,890 91,538 0.28 25,771 0.029 747 26,518
2011 Population Streets & Drainage 31.00 0.33 5,087,992 164,129 0.07 11,019 1.361 14,997 26,015
Wastewater 49.00 0.52 6,151,920 125,549 0.11 13,323 1.021 13,603 26,926
94,660 Sanitation 35.50 0.38 6,300,060 177,466 0.08 13,644 - - 13,644
Utility Billing 28.50 0.30 2,258,503 79,246 0.06 4,891 0.011 54 4,945
Parks 129.00 1.36 9,284,486 71,973 0.28 20,107 0.286 5,751 25,857
Total College Station 740.75 71,351,028$ 1.60 154,521$ 36,981$ 191,502$
General Government includes: General Government, Information Technology, Planning and Development Services, Public Works (Admin, Facilities Maint,
Engineering), Fleet Maintenance, and Communications. BVSWMA, Water, and Electric is not included.
Notes:
1. Capital to operating cost ratios from Finance Dept.
2. Future population calculated according to acreage in land use scenarios, then existing population was subtracted.
3. The City will not be providing water service in this area.
3. The City will not be providing electrical service in this area.
- -
Appendix A
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144