220714 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions
Council questions and staff responses for items on July 14, 2022 City Council Meeting
6.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on alignment options for Corporate Parkway at
William D. Fitch and potential impacts to the City’s Thoroughfare Plan in the general area.
Sponsors: Emily Fisher, Jason Schubert
Question: Since the citizens of Pebble Creek have raised the question about Pebble Creek Parkway
itself: When was Pebble Creek Parkway first shown on the City’s thoroughfare plan? How was it shown
as extending to the South?
Response: A Master Development Plan was approved for the Pebble Creek Subdivision by City Council in
May 1992. The Coversheet for the item describes two future minor arterials going through the
subdivision. A copy of the City’s Thoroughfare Plan from 1992 could not be located though the attached
one from 1997 shows Pebble Creek Pkwy extending north and south of the subdivision. The street was
planned to extend south and then project outside the city limits toward Peach Creek Road. The
Thoroughfare Plan has been updated multiple times over the years to include additional thoroughfares
out into the ETJ and shows Pebble Creek Pkwy extending south into the ETJ around the Southern Pointe
development and connects into the existing grade separation on SH 6 south of Santa’s Wonderland.
The 1997 and 2001 Throughfare maps are attached.
Question: When was this road connection first part of a thoroughfare plan? Is it currently funded?
Response: The City’s Thoroughfare Plan had thoroughfares extending north and south of the Pebble
Creek at least since the Master Development Plan for subdivision was approved by City Council in May
1992. To the north, Corporate Pkwy is on City-owned land so will be a future City capital project. A
section from Midtown Drive to the east (Phase 1) that would provide frontage to create new business
park lots has been designed but funding has not been identified for construction. Phase 2 of the
Corporate Pkwy extension would connect it to William D. Fitch Pkwy but only alignment alternatives
have been developed for that section. A future extension of Pebble Creek Pkwy to the south would
come when the adjacent tract to the south develops, which would include a rezoning and then platting
to construct the street. Currently, it is not funded.
6.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the nonprofit organization Unlimited
Potential, as requested by City Council.
Sponsors: Debbie Eller
Question: How much property tax would this property pay if it were not removed from the tax rolls?
Response: The estimated taxes without exemptions calculated on the currently assessed value of
$1,481,663 is $33,238.41 (amount posted on Brazos Central Appraisal District)
Question: How much money in JFRC CDBG funds is UP projected to receive?
Response: The JRFRC allocated $33,884 in CDBG funds. The City of Bryan will be the funding entity for
2022-2023.
Question: Are the representatives from UP making a presentation during this item? I do have a few
other questions best directed to UP personnel. If they are not going to be in attendance, please let me
know and I will submit those to staff instead, for instance, how many residents are UP projected to
serve annually?
Response: The Board Chair and Executive Director will make the presentation and will be available for
questions. They will be prepared to discuss the building, program, anticipated client numbers, staffing,
policies, and procedures.
7.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a change order for delivery and testing of
the Wellborn Road Dynamic Message Sign.
Sponsors: Emily Fisher
Question: By what date would we have needed to have heard this item for it to have been approved
first rather than ratified after the fact?
Response: We requested the contractor hold off ordering the sign until we had approval from TXDOT on
location and placement of sign. As we awaited this approval, the contractor submitted a change order
for storage and testing of the sign, which was not included in the original bid of the project. Along with
the change order, the contractor informed us that due to market conditions, the cost of the sign was
only valid until May 29, 2022. We received approval from TXDOT on May 10 and immediately gave the
contractor notice to proceed with ordering the sign as well as approval of the change order to avoid cost
increases.
7.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a local on-system improvement project
agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the installation of a dynamic message
sign on Wellborn Road (FM 2154).
Sponsors: Emily Fisher
Question: Is this the same sign as item 7.3? Can we see a picture of the sign? Is it going over the road?
Is the idea that we ordered a sign too big for us to handle ourselves, so we have to pay the contractor
extra to install it onsite at time of delivery?
Response: Yes, both items are for the same sign. Attached is a rendering of the sign in its proposed
location on Wellborn Rd. We prefer that the city’s contractors handle storage of materials, such as
signal poles and large signs. We have limited space to store items and the risk remains on the
contractor as long as they are still in possession of materials.
Visio DMS sign concept