210826 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions
Council Questions and Staff Responses for Items
on the August 26, 2021, City Council Meeting
Item 7.2 – Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding additional information for
the implementation of a remote pay parking system for on-street parking and in City-owned
parking lots and facilities.
Sponsor: Amy Albright, Eric Chapman
Question: Is the plan to charge for Wayne Thomas ballfield parking lots, or Crompton Park lots?
Response: Currently, there is no plan to charge for Wayne Smith Ballfields' parking lots, as the
City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department already offers this area to RV owners
to park in or utilize for a daily/nightly fee. We have not had discussions related to Crompton
Park. We have discussed other City-owned parking lots, such as City Hall.
Question: If a car is parked before the signs are displayed, (like the night before, or a couple
hours before) would that car still receive a ticket since when it was parked there, there was no
indication that it would become a paid spot?
Response: Yes – this is similar to the current operations related to existing game day parking
regulations. This also aligns with how game day parking functions on campus.
Item 8.3 – Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding approval of a Contract
Renewal for the City’s Annual Price Agreement with Techline Inc., for electric warehouse
inventory of Air Switches with a ten percent unit price increase in the amount of $18,900, for
a total not to exceed contract amount of $207,900.
Sponsor: Mary Ellen Leonard
Question: I would like the citizens to be aware of the first paragraph of the letter dated Feb 23,
2021. Similar to asking Chief Mann last time to read his. EVERY department is getting letters like
this, and it would be helpful for all taxpayers to be aware.
Response: The City standard contract allows for price increases up to 10% on renewals over the
term of the agreement. Since this item is considered routine, it was placed on the consent
agenda. Specific and additional information regarding this item is published publicly in the
agenda packet.
Item 8.5 – Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding ordinances amending
Chapter 38, “Traffic and Vehicles”, “Traffic Schedule III, Stop Signs” and “Traffic Schedule IV,
Yield Signs” by adding various new stop signs and yield signs.
Sponsor: Troy Rother
Question: Can you identify any of these which are in existing developed areas where citizens
may have to adjust to well-developed travel expectations? A map with the presentation would
be helpful.
Response: The signs in the Estates at Creek Meadows were a response to residents’ requests
because vehicles were not stopping for school-aged children crossing the streets. The signs in
the Mission Ranch subdivision were installed because the developer had installed Stop bars at
the intersections. It is less expensive to install the Stop signs versus paying to grind off the Stop
bar and leaving the scarred pavement. Per the BCS Guidelines, the City of College Station is
responsible for installing regulatory signs on public streets, and the Texas Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices requires that Stop signs be installed if Stop bars are used.
Please see the maps below. Stop signs are shown in red, Yield signs are green.
Item 8.7 – Presentation, discussion, and possible action ratifying the First Amendment to the
Property Purchase Agreement between the City of College Station and Costco Wholesale
Corporation for an approximately 18.670 acre tract of land located generally near the
intersection of Earl Rudder Freeway and Corporate Drive in the Midtown Business Park.
Sponsor: Natalie Ruiz
Note: This item will be discussed in Executive Session.
Item 9.1 – Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an
ordinance vacating and abandoning a 994 square foot portion of a 10-foot wide Public Utility
Easement, a 2,512 square foot portion of a 15-foot wide Public Utility Easement, and a 2,512
square foot portion of a 15-foot wide Right of Way within Lots 16, Block ‘C’ of the College
Heights Subdivision, according to the plat recorded in Volume 124, Page 259, of the Official
Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Sponsor: Alma Guerra
Question: What is the advantage to the city of abandoning easements and rights of way?
Response: Many older plats included rear lot alley rights-of-way and easements for access and
utilities. Currently, the Unified Development Ordinance requires ROW and easement dedication
with development. As properties redevelop these dedicated ROWs and easements may no
longer be needed to serve their original purpose or could be reconfigured to better serve the city
and the new development. The abandonment process is the mechanism that provides for the re-
utilization of these previously dedicated ROWs and easements. The advantage to the City in
abandoning ROWs/easements it no longer needs is that there is removed maintenance
responsibility, infrastructure can be reconfigured to the betterment of both city and
development, and the property can be added to the tax roll for development/redevelopment.