HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrick Thoughts on Development Changes in Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Re-Zoning - Blanche BrickBrick - Thoughts on Transportation Infrastructure and Development
June 27, 2015
P&Z and City Council are receiving numerous requests for changes in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and for rezoning of property for more dense development.
Many of these requests have been granted resulting in greater pressure on existing water and transportation infrastructure. Others have been delayed in an attempt to find better ways
of evaluating infrastructure needs. (e.g.Aspen Heights, June 25, 2015). Without a major investment in our road infrastructure the future means either a curtailment of development,
or unprecedented congestion, or both.
In 2010 citizens of College Station voted not to approve a Transportation Fee of $2 a month added to the utility bills which would have provided a dedicated fund of $1million annually
for rehabilitation of existing roads. We are now witnessing the effect of deferred maintenance that has resulted from that rejection in the form of incremental deterioration of the
quality of the existing road system.
In 2011, the City Council voted not to approve a recommendation from P&Z to establish impact fees for water and wastewater. This meant the city would retain the 5 Impact Fee areas that
had been created at the request of developers to allow development to take place where infrastructure was not in place to support it, but that no impact fees for these purposes would
be imposed citywide on new development. At this point in time, it appears that citywide impact fees on new development should be reconsidered to meet the demands of growth but we need
information from staff on whether this would be effective in meeting funding needs.
In regard to Transportation, impact fees are much more complicated than those for water/wastewater since roads are an “open system” . This makes it more difficult to assign fees than
in the water/wastewater area which is a “closed system.” Specific users of these services can be identified. Still, we need staff to look at impact fees on transportation to let us
know whether such impact fees could be adopted and, if adopted, how much these would alleviate the present situation in regard to transportation issues.
If impact fees are removed from consideration for road funding because of the complexity associated with implementation, it appears three choices are available to the Council to fund
the impact of growth on the transportation infrastructure. I believe the magnitude of the need is such that it is likely some combination of all three sources should be explored. If
we fail to definitively act on this issue and continue to simply hope it will go away, then the result is likely to be both increased traffic congestion and a curtailment on development.
Establish a transportation fee added to utility funds (which is done in the city of Bryan). Essentially, this is a reprise of the referendum of 2010 which was defeated. However, now
the negative impact of that failure is visibly obvious on the deteriorating roads, the voters may be prepared to reconsider that option.
Dedicate the ROI from the utility enterprise funds exclusively to transportation infrastructure. By “ringfencing “ the ROI exclusively for roads, it will provide an option and flexibility
to future councils to raise the ROI if they deem it necessary for this purpose.
Offer Bond issues with tax increases as required to fund capital transportation needs. Obviously, this has to be done. However, the need is so great that it is probably unrealistic to
expect property tax backed bonds to fund it all. At this point, we need to see from staff the magnitude
of the bond funding that would be needed over the next 10 years if bonds were the only option we were prepared to consider.