HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/2008 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTraditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Mayor Councilmembers
Ben White John Crompton
Mayor ProTem James Massey
Lynn McIlhaney Dennis Maloney
City Manager Lawrence Stewart
Glenn Brown David Ruesink
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding annexation planning in general as well as a
recommendation concerning the proposed annexation of three areas in the City’s extraterritorial
jurisdiction under the exempt status.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a proposal to increase parking rates.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Usage of City Soccer Athletic Facilities.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding nuisance noise issues and responses.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding on-going efforts to realize a signature event for the
City.
7. Council Calendar
December 18 Arts Council of Brazos Valley – Carols & Canapes, 5:30 p.m.
December 18 P&Z Workshop/Regular meeting, 6:00 p.m.
December 24-25 City Offices Closed for Holiday
January 1 City Offices Closed for Holiday
January 5-7 4th Annual Texas Transportation Forum, 8:00 a.m.
January 8 Council Workshop/Regular meeting, 3:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.
January 12 Council Mini Retreat, Carters Creek Conference Room, 8:30 am
8. 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
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council of the Brazos
Valley, Audit Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Brazos
Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, Cemetery Committee, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief
1
Council Workshop Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Page 2
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Funding Review Committee, Library Committee, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League
of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Research Valley Partnership, Regional
Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Texas Municipal League, Transportation
Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board, Zoning Board of
Adjustments, BVSWMA, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
10. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference
Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the
City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated
litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Application with TCEQ for permits in Westside/Highway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply
Corporation.
b. Sewer CCN permit requests.
c. Water CCN permit requests.
d. Water service application with regard to Wellborn Special Utility District.
e. Bed & Banks Water Rights Discharge Permits for College Station and Bryan
f. Attorney-client privileged information and possible contemplated litigation of prior expenditures
of College Station funds made by Paul Urso to Texcon.
g. Legal aspects of Water Well, permits and possible purchase of or lease of water well sites.
h. Cliff A. Skiles, DVM & C.A. Skiles Family Partnership, Ltd. Water permit applications with the
Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District.
i. JK Development v. College Station.
j. Taylor Kingsley v. College Station.
k. State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of Mikal Klumpp v. College Station.
l. TMPA v. PUC (College Station filed Intervention).
m. City of Bryan suit filed against College Station, Legal issues and advise on Brazos Valley Solid
Waste Management Agency contract, on proposed methane gas contract. Update on legal
proceedings for Grimes County Landfill site and contracts for development of Grimes County site.
n. Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn McIlhaney, and
Ben White.
11. Action on executive session, or any workshop agenda item not completed or discussed in today’s
workshop meeting will be discussed in tonight’s Regular Meeting if necessary.
12. Adjourn.
APPROVED:
______________________________
City Manager
2
Council Workshop Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Page 3
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas
will be held on the 16th day of December, 2008 at 3:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas
Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this 13th day of December, 2008 at 2:00 pm
__
E-Signed by Connie Hooks
VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt
__________________________
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 December 13, 2008 at 2:00 pm and remained so posted continuously
for at least 72 hours preceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following date
and time: _______________________ by ___________________________.
Dated this _____day of _______________, 2008.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By____________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the ______day of _________________,
___________________Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:________
This 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.
3
16 December 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 2
Annexation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding annexation
planning in general as well as a recommendation concerning the proposed
annexation of three areas in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction under the exempt
status.
Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on 20
November and recommended moving forward with the annexation of the exempt
areas as presented by staff. The Commission also asked staff to consider annexing
additional property located between FM 2154 and I&GN Road. The additional
property was added to annexation area #1 and is shown as hatched on the attached
map.
Summary: In June of this year, the City Council instructed staff to begin the
planning process for areas that could be annexed using the three year process and
the exempt process. Since that time, staff has met on several occasions to discuss
areas that could potentially be annexed under both scenarios. In summary, staff’s
original recommendation was to move forward with the annexation of three areas
(totaling approximately 757 acres) via the exempt process now and pursue the three
year annexation process upon completion of the comprehensive plan and further
development of our fiscal impact model. The additional area recommended by the
Planning & Zoning Commission represents approximately 86 acres, bringing the
current total to 843 acres.
Staff has also identified areas that could be placed in the three year annexation plan
and will be prepared to present these areas for discussion at the workshop meeting.
Budget & Financial Summary: A detailed Fiscal Impact Analysis is included in the
attached summary report.
Attachments:
1. Map of Proposed Annexation Areas
2. Recent Annexation History
3. Proposed Annexation Timeline
4. Draft P&Z Minutes
5. Annexation Impacts – Summary Report
4
5
1
RECENT ANNEXATION HISTORY
1994
· Annexation policy driven by electric CCNs—utility service (electric and service basins for
2 waste water Treatment plants)
1995 and 1996
· 1994 annexation plan completed
· Approximately 5,225 acres annexed
December 1999
· Annexation plan adopted (as required by new State law) – it stated that the City of
College Station has no areas identified for annexation. It also stated that the City may
annex properties that are exempt from the annexation plan process.
April 2001
· Annexation feasibility study presented to Council (part of Council Strategic Plan)
· Council gave direction to move ahead with Priority 1 areas (exempt areas—general),
which later became know as the “2002 annexation”
October 2002
· 2002 annexation complete (4,200 acres)
March 2003
· Utility extension policy formalized as part of the on-going annexation strategy
November 2004
· Annexation petition in F&B area granted (6.843 acres)
February 2006
· Change in ETJ utility extension policy—previously land owners that wanted city utilities
had to request annexation (exceptions could be granted). Generally, the time and cost
involved in permitting private sewage facilities, developing them, and providing
continuous maintenance for dense ETJ developments are prohibitive. With sewer CCNs,
the City is able to provide public services that will allow for denser development with
waste water facilities to city standards. The only way to ensure that the quality of
development that can occur with this service is to all city standards (infrastructure
construction, fire code, building code, park provision, etc.) is to annex.
As the City is responsible for planning and development of these utilities, and as we do
not have land use controls in the county, it lends to a more aggressive annexation policy
to bring these properties in and control the land use (“therein established an annexation
policy and program to incorporate affected areas in a manner that sufficiently addresses
planning and development issues for the extended utility systems”).
June 2006
· Council stated in a workshop session that they wanted to pursue annexation through
exempt areas and through a 3-year annexation plan
6
2
December 2006
· Staff presented four areas (totaling 3,411 acres) to Council for possible annexation
through the exempt status. Council encouraged staff to move forward with the
annexation process and asked staff to increase the size of annexation area 4 and add
another area (annexation area 5).
February 2007
· Staff presented Fiscal Impact Analysis for five annexation areas as instructed by Council.
Council received the information and encouraged staff to move forward with the
annexation process.
August 2007
· Workshop Session: Staff presented preliminary thoughts on areas that could be included
in a 3-year annexation plan
· Regular Session: Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the preparation of an
annexation service plan and establishing two annexation public hearings (16 and 19
November 2007). However, HB 1472 (see below) caused a delay in the annexation
process and the two public hearings did not take place in November as originally
scheduled.
September 2007
· Staff presented Council with information regarding the 3-year annexation plan. Staff also
made Council aware of a new State Law (HB 1472) that requires Cities to offer a
development agreement in lieu of annexation when the property is appraised as
agricultural. Council instructed Staff to give property owners 45 days to respond to
annexation development agreement offers.
November 2007
· Council approved 29 annexation development agreements representing approximately
3,400 acres of the original 6,700 plus acres scheduled for annexation.
January 2008
· Council approved an ordinance authorizing the preparation of an annexation service plan
and establishing two annexation public hearings (24 & 29 January 2008) for six areas.
The sixth area (Kyle View Estates) was added at the request of the developer.
February 2008
· Council approved an ordinance annexing four of the six annexation areas (annexation
area five was removed). Council also directed staff to reduce the size of annexation area
four.
March 2008
· Council approved the annexation of modified area four (as directed by Council in their
February meeting)
June 2008
· Workshop Session: Staff presented a general overview of the three year annexation plan
process and presented a map showing areas that could potentially be considered as part
of a three year annexation plan. Council indicated that they would like to pursue
annexation through the three year process and the exempt process, indicating a desire
to use the exempt process to annex properties not annexed earlier in the year.
7
Annexation Plan Process
Proposed Schedule
1
2009 Exempt Properties
P&Z Meeting
(20 November)
Council
Workshop
(December)
Development
Agreement
Offers
(January/February)
Prepare Annexation
Service Plan
(April/May)
See match
line on page 2
Ordinance
Establishing
PH dates
(March ‘09)
Send notice to:
· Property owners
· Service Providers
· Railroads
(April)
A-Team Meetings
(August-October)
8
Annexation Plan Process
Proposed Schedule
2
2009 Exempt Properties
City to make service
plan available to the
public (June)
2nd Public Hearing
(June)
Council may
adopt annexation
ordinance
(July)
Effective date
of annexation
ordinance
(August ‘09)
1st Public
Hearing
(June)
Property
Surveys
(May)
match line
9
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, November 20, 2008
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman John Nichols, Noel Bauman, Paul Greer, Doug
Slack, Thomas Woodfin and Hugh Stearns
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bill Davis
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planners Jason Schubert,
Lauren Hovde and Matt Robinson, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Assistant City
Engineer Josh Norton, Senior Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, Planning Administrator
Molly Hitchcock, Director Bob Cowell, Assistant Directors Lance Simms and Gabriel Elliott,
First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Carrie McHugh and
Staff Assistant Brittany Caldwell
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion on annexation planning in
general as well as a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed annexation
of three areas in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction under the exempt status. (LS)
Assistant Director Lance Simms presented the proposed annexation of three areas in the
City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction under the exempt status. The exempt annexation areas
recommended by staff include land between FM 2154 and Creek Meadows Subdivision
(Area 1), land southeast of Creek Meadows Subdivision (Area 2), and land on the east
side of State Highway 6 South (Area 3). He also presented staff’s thoughts on areas that
could be included in the three-year annexation plan.
Commissioner Woodfin stated that the property on the west side of FM 2154 needs to be
included in annexation area one.
There was general discussion regarding the annexation areas.
Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing.
10
William Mather, president and managing partner for Texas World Speedway, stated that
none of the proposed annexation areas fit into the definition of exempt properties because
there has to be one or more residence on each tract.
Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Mather’s comment, Mr. Simms stated that the City can and has
annexed vacant properties without single-family housing on it.
Chairman Nichols stated that areas one and two make sense, but area three is a significant
piece of property that may need to be considered during the three-year plan. He also
stated that including the property on the west side of FM 2154 to the exempt package
complicates the plan.
Commissioner Woodfin motioned to recommend approval of the exempt annexation
package of three areas with the condition that the package be expanded to include
land across FM 2154 from the one area so that both sides of the road would be
considered. He recommended that the three-year annexation plan should wait until
after the City adopts its new Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Greer seconded
the motion, motion passed (6-0).
11
Annexation Impacts
Summary Report
3 December 2008
12
Table of Contents
Page
Area Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 1
Reasons to Consider Annexation ..................................................................................... 2
Immediate Impacts
Police Services..................................................................................................... 3
Fire Services (Including EMS, Code Enforcement
and Fire Prevention) ........................................................................................... 3
Solid Waste Collection......................................................................................... 3
Public Works ....................................................................................................... 4
Building Permits and Inspections ......................................................................... 4
Planning…………………………………………………………………………... 4
Fiscal Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 5
Summary by Annexation Area ......................................................................................... 7
Revenue Summary .......................................................................................................... 8
Methodology for Revenue Calculations ........................................................................... 9
Appendix A - Service Standard Collection of Annual Public Costs
Area 1 ............................................................................................................... 10
Area 2 ............................................................................................................... 11
Area 3 ............................................................................................................... 12
Appendix B - Map of Annexation Areas ……………………………………………….. 13
13
1
Annexation Cost Considerations
Summary Report
There are many reasons a city considers annexation. These include securing tax base,
providing for utility planning, ensuring good land use and thoroughfare planning,
providing for safe building construction as well as providing room for future population
growth. As areas on the periphery of a city begin to develop and use city services it is also
important to consider bringing them into the city limits. Historically annexation has been a
very important factor in sustaining the population growth of Texas cities. Annexation is a
growth strategy and has been a critical one for Texas cities in the past. Recent legislative
changes have made annexation more difficult and there are many considerations in using
this strategy in any community.
A critical part of any annexation consideration is the anticipated impact caused on service
delivery, including the immediate "day after" services and the ultimate costs and revenues
expected upon full build-out. This report is intended to present all of these cost
considerations.
There are three areas being considered for possible annexation under the exempt status at
this time. A map of the proposed annexation areas is included as Exhibit B. A general
description of each area is provided below:
Area #1 contains seven parcels, five dwelling units, and approximately 207 acres. It is
generally located along FM 2154, south of the Wellborn community. The vast majority of
this area is appraised as agricultural use for property tax purposes. There is less than one
mile of public roadway in this area.
Area #2 is a 50 acre parcel generally located south of Greens Prairie Trail. This area is
vacant, appraised as agricultural use for property tax purposes, and contains no public
roadway.
Area #3 contains six parcels and approximately 584 acres. It is generally located on the
east side of State Highway 6 South at its intersection with Peach Creek Cut-Off Road.
There are no residential units or public roadways in this area.
14
2
Annexation Considerations
In order to provide for a stable tax base, enable land use and thoroughfare planning, assure
orderly growth, and provide for safe building construction, all areas should be considered
for annexation. Area #1 will ensure that the City is able to control a portion of the FM
2154 corridor as the majority of the frontage within this area is undeveloped. Since the
property in Area #1 is largely vacant, annexing this area will also secure room for future
growth as needed by the city. Area #2 is currently vacant and located between the city
limits and a 55 acre tract that is subject to the terms of a non-annexation development
agreement. Area #3 provides control of a portion of the frontage along the east side of
State Highway 6 South, a major City gateway and it is also a prime location for future
commercial development activity. The City also holds the CCN for water service in Area
#3 and we currently provide water service to this area.
Areas #1 and #2 are totally within the Wellborn Special Utility District's service area and
served by the Wellborn Special Utility District. Areas #1 and #2 are in the electric service
territory of Bryan Texas Utilities (BTU). Electrical power for area #3 is provided by
Entergy.
Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code allows Cities to annex up to ten percent
of its size in any given year. This amount is allowed to be accrued and may accumulate
for up to three years. Currently, College Station may annex up to 3,174 acres. The total
acreage under consideration as part of this proposal is approximately 843 acres.
15
3
Immediate Impacts of Annexation
The first cost consideration involves those services that are provided immediately upon
annexation. These include police services, fire protection, emergency medical services,
code enforcement, solid waste collection, public R.O.W. maintenance, utility maintenance
(as applicable), planning & zoning, and building permitting and inspections. The
Departments responsible for these services have provided information to assess the
potential impact of annexing the areas under consideration. The following is a summary of
the initial impacts by Department:
Police Services
The areas proposed for annexation should not have an adverse impact on the Police
Department's ability to provide services. The land uses as proposed, do not create a need
for more officers at this time. As development occurs, there is a possibility that beats will
have to be restructured to adequately distribute the additional workload. The Police
Department will monitor and address issues as the areas proposed for annexation are built
out and a larger demand for emergency services is necessary.
Fire Services
Annexation of all areas will have a moderate impact on the Fire Department’s service
levels. As with any potential annexation there will be impacts on the Fire Department’s
ability to deliver services within designated drive times. As a result of these annexation
processes there may be a need to add additional resources to the fire department to meet
the service demands. Planning for a new fire station that houses staffing for one fire engine
and one ambulance is currently underway for the west side of the city. The Fire
Department is also considering the need for an additional station on the east side of SH 6
in the southern portion of the city. In the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, funds were included to
purchase of a 2,500 gallon water tanker and a grass firefighting truck. This equipment will
enable the Fire Department to effectively respond to off-road areas and areas not currently
covered by fire hydrants.
The College Station Fire Department will continue to work with the Brazos County
Volunteer Fire Departments through existing mutual aid agreements to protect newly
annexed areas as growth occurs. It is important to note that the annexation of these areas
may negatively impact the City’s next ISO evaluation.
Solid Waste Collection
The proposed exempt annexation areas can be absorbed by the Sanitation Division without
additional personnel or collection equipment. These areas are currently being serviced by
private waste service providers. Per state law, existing contracted services may continue
to be provided by the company for a period of two years after the effective annexation
date.
16
4
Public Works - Road mowing and maintenance
Right-of-Way and maintenance costs are approximately $7,500 per mile annually.
Therefore, the total annual cost for ROW mowing and maintenance related to this
annexation proposal is estimated to be less than $4,000.
Building Permits and Inspections
The areas under consideration should not have an adverse impact on current service levels.
Once the annexed areas begin to develop, service levels may have to be adjusted to reflect
the additional workload unless personnel are added.
Planning
The proposed exempt annexations areas may have a slight adverse impact on current
service levels. The Planning and Development Services Department currently services this
property by way of administration of Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements of
the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. The ETJ (and
therefore platting authority) will slightly expand as a result of annexing these areas. For
newly annexed territory, planning and development services will be provided immediately
upon annexation. Depending on the on the rate of development, there may be a slight
impact on current performance levels. Once annexed areas begin to develop, service
levels may have to be adjusted to reflect the additional workload unless additional
personnel are added.
17
5
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Short-Term Fiscal Impact
The current appraised value of the property contained in all three areas is $10,605,100. Based
on the current City of College Station tax rate of 43.94 cents per $100 of valuation, the City
could expect to receive annual property tax revenues of $46,599. These areas will not be
annexed until after 1 January 2009, therefore, they City will not begin receiving property tax
revenues until 2010.
A summary of the current appraised value and respective tax revenue estimate for each
annexation area is provided below:
Area Appraised Value Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
1 $2,445,350 $10,745
2 $423,500 $1,861
3 $7,736,250 $33,993
Total $9,384,080 $46,599
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 widely accepted Service Standard Method was used1. 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 newly annexed areas.
2. This analysis provides estimates for these areas once they are fully developed. Some
of these areas may not develop for 20+ years. The costs / benefits in the interim will
vary, but typically costs to the City are higher until the areas fully develop.
1 - More information on this method is available in The Fiscal Impact Handbook by Robert Burchell
& Davide Listokin.
18
6
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 change future fiscal impacts.
Demands and Costs
The analysis begins by using future land use assumptions, based on development in
accordance with the City's adopted Land Use Plan, to estimate the population for each
annexation area. Using existing development as a model, the average number of dwelling
units for residential areas is calculated. Census data for persons per household is used to
calculate the projected population.
Existing service levels for the City are then used to calculate the demand for City services
in the annexation areas. An equal level of service is applied to the annexation area to yield
the demand for services. Costs per year for the demanded services are calculated using
cost ratios to compensate for the varied nature of service provided by different
departments. This results in a cost per year to provide the existing level of service to the
annexation areas.
Revenues
Revenues are calculated for property taxes, sales taxes, and utility fees. Estimates are
based on current revenues from the existing City applied to the projected development in
the annexation areas.
Conclusions
The following tables summarize the results of the fiscal impact analysis. According to the
results of the fiscal impact analysis, annexing all three areas will result in a financial loss to
the City. Annexation areas #1 and #2 represent a loss of $37,033 and $8,832 respectively.
Annexation area #3 has the highest overall cost at $264,061. It is important to note that
this model does not capture any revenue from “one time” charges such as building permit
fees and development fees.
Overall the results show that annexing all three areas would cost the City $309,926
annually once these areas are fully developed. It should be noted that future changes in the
Land Use Plan or development patterns will affect these projections.
19
7
Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis by Area
Area 1
Costs $108,119
Property Tax Revenues $31,191
Sales Tax Revenues $18,050
Utility Revenues $21,845
Total -$37,033
Area 2
Costs $26,176
Property Tax Revenues $7,608
Sales Tax Revenues $4,408
Utility Revenues $5,328
Total -$8,832
Area 3
Costs $770,492
Property Tax Revenues $222,139
Sales Tax Revenues $128,714
Utility Revenues $155,578
Total -$264,061
20
8
Summary of Revenues at Build-out
Property Tax Revenue – Area 1 $31,191
Property Tax Revenue – Area 2 $7,608
Property Tax Revenue – Area 3 $222,139
Total Property Tax Revenues $260,938
Sales Tax Revenue – Area 1 $18,050
Sales Tax Revenue – Area 2 $4,408
Sales Tax Revenue – Area 3 $128,714
Total Sales Tax Revenues $151,172
Utility Revenues – Area 1 $21,845
Utility Revenues – Area 2 $5,328
Utility Revenues – Area 3 $155,578
Total Utility Revenues $182,751
Total Revenues $594,861
Total Costs $904,787
Total Annual Fiscal Impact -$309,926
Note: Potential revenues from building permit fees
(not included in the above) constitute a one time
positive impact of $269,598 over the life of the
development.
21
9
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 (43.94 cents per $100
of valuation).
Residential Utility Amounts
§ $14.40 = Average Monthly Residential Sanitation Bill (provided by Utility Customer Service)
§ $30.00 = Average Monthly Residential Water Bill (staff estimate)
Retails Sales Tax
§ Per capital retail sales tax was calculated based on a per person sales tax rate collection of $190
annually. This average was obtained by taking a ten year average of annual sales tax revenue
collected by the City and dividing it by the estimated population.
The existing population of the proposed annexed area was subtracted from the full build out estimated
population, and multiplied by the estimated annual sales tax collection per resident.
(Annual Sales Tax Collection / Annual Population Estimate) = Annual Sales Tax Collected per
Person
[(Future Population - Existing Population) * Annual Sales Tax Collected per Person = Retail Sales
Tax
The $190 is likely a conservative estimate of actual per person sales tax collections.
Utility Charges
Electricity
The proposed annexation areas will not be served by College Station Utilities. There are no anticipated
electric utility revenues from any areas.
Water
Of the three proposed annexation areas, two (areas 1 and 2) are currently served by a special utility district
(SUD).
Sanitation
All areas in the proposed annexation areas will have City sanitation services. Revenues were calculated by
multiplying the 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.
22
10
Annexation
Service Standard Calculation of Annual Public Costs
Area 1
Anticipated Government Number of Manpower Budget $ Per Future Add’l Annual Capital to Add’l Annual Total Cost
Population Function Employees Ratio 2008 - 2009 Employee Employees Operating Cost Operating Capital Cost To Public
95 Fiscal Services 44.75 0.50 3,615,285$ 80,788$ 0.05 3,804$ 0.006 23$ 3,827$
General Government 176.25 1.95 17,764,925 100,794 0.19 18,693 0.011 206 18,898
Police 166.50 1.84 14,306,878 85,927 0.18 15,054 0.047 708 15,762
Total Oct. 2008 Fire 122.00 1.35 11,606,479 95,135 0.13 12,213 0.029 354 12,567
Population Streets & Drainage 43.00 0.48 6,399,815 148,833 0.05 6,734 1.361 9,165 15,899
Sewer 49.50 0.55 5,159,354 104,229 0.05 5,429 1.021 5,543 10,972
90,285 Sanitation 35.25 0.39 5,841,863 165,727 0.04 6,147 - - 6,147
Water 29.00 0.32 4,494,569 154,985 0.03 4,729 0.608 2,875 7,605
Utility Billing 29.50 0.33 2,210,294 74,925 0.03 2,326 0.011 26 2,351
Parks 133.00 1.47 10,414,229 78,302 0.14 10,958 0.286 3,134 14,092
Total College Station 828.75 81,813,691$ 0.87 86,086$ 22,033$ 108,119$
General Government includes: General Government, Information Services, Planning and Development Services, Public Works (Admin, Facilities Maint,
Engineering), Parking Enterprise, Fleet Maintenance, and Communications. BVSWMA is not included.
Notes:
1. Capital to operating cost ratios from Finance Dept.
2. Future population calculated according to acreage in land use scenarios.
3. The City will not be providing electrical service in this area.
Personnel Budget
39.50 4,348,431 gen gov
4.00 351,817 insurance funds
26.25 3,402,779 info serv
39.50 2,938,471 dev serv
21.00 2,620,872 public works (admin, facilities maint, engineering)
11.00 883,807 cip dept
4.00 341,814 community development fund
9.00 507,342 parking
15.00 1,564,948 fleet
7.00 804,644 communications
176.25 17,764,925 Total
Not Included
68.50 70,198,165 Electric
27.25 4,605,503 BVSWMA
95.75 74,803,668 Total
924.50 156,617,359 Total per FY09 Approved Budget
Appendix A
23
11
Annexation
Service Standard Calculation of Annual Public Costs
Area 2
Anticipated Government Number of Manpower Budget $ Per Future Add’l Annual Capital to Add’l Annual Total Cost
Population Function Employees Ratio 2008 - 2009 Employee Employees Operating Cost Operating Capital Cost To Public
23 Fiscal Services 44.75 0.50 3,615,285$ 80,788$ 0.01 921$ 0.006 6$ 927$
General Government 176.25 1.95 17,764,925 100,794 0.04 4,526 0.011 50 4,575
Police 166.50 1.84 14,306,878 85,927 0.04 3,645 0.047 171 3,816
Total Oct. 2008 Fire 122.00 1.35 11,606,479 95,135 0.03 2,957 0.029 86 3,042
Population Streets & Drainage 43.00 0.48 6,399,815 148,833 0.01 1,630 1.361 2,219 3,849
Sewer 49.50 0.55 5,159,354 104,229 0.01 1,314 1.021 1,342 2,656
90,285 Sanitation 35.25 0.39 5,841,863 165,727 0.01 1,488 - - 1,488
Water 29.00 0.32 4,494,569 154,985 0.01 1,145 0.608 696 1,841
Utility Billing 29.50 0.33 2,210,294 74,925 0.01 563 0.011 6 569
Parks 133.00 1.47 10,414,229 78,302 0.03 2,653 0.286 759 3,412
Total College Station 828.75 81,813,691$ 0.21 20,842$ 5,334$ 26,176$
General Government includes: General Government, Information Services, Planning and Development Services, Public Works (Admin, Facilities Maint,
Engineering), Parking Enterprise, Fleet Maintenance, and Communications. BVSWMA is not included.
Notes:
1. Capital to operating cost ratios from Finance Dept.
2. Future population calculated according to acreage in land use scenarios.
3. The City will not be providing electrical service in this area.
Personnel Budget
39.50 4,348,431 gen gov
4.00 351,817 insurance funds
26.25 3,402,779 info serv
39.50 2,938,471 dev serv
21.00 2,620,872 public works (admin, facilities maint, engineering)
11.00 883,807 cip dept
4.00 341,814 community development fund
9.00 507,342 parking
15.00 1,564,948 fleet
7.00 804,644 communications
176.25 17,764,925 Total
Not Included
68.50 70,198,165 Electric
27.25 4,605,503 BVSWMA
95.75 74,803,668 Total
924.50 156,617,359 Total per FY09 Approved Budget
24
12
Annexation
Service Standard Calculation of Annual Public Costs
Area 3
Anticipated Government Number of Manpower Budget $ Per Future Add’l Annual Capital to Add’l Annual Total Cost
Population Function Employees Ratio 2008 - 2009 Employee Employees Operating Cost Operating Capital Cost To Public
677 Fiscal Services 44.75 0.50 3,615,285$ 80,788$ 0.34 27,109$ 0.006 163$ 27,272$
General Government 176.25 1.95 17,764,925 100,794 1.32 133,210 0.011 1,465 134,675
Police 166.50 1.84 14,306,878 85,927 1.25 107,280 0.047 5,042 112,322
Total Oct. 2008 Fire 122.00 1.35 11,606,479 95,135 0.91 87,031 0.029 2,524 89,555
Population Streets & Drainage 43.00 0.48 6,399,815 148,833 0.32 47,989 1.361 65,313 113,302
Sewer 49.50 0.55 5,159,354 104,229 0.37 38,687 1.021 39,500 78,187
90,285 Sanitation 35.25 0.39 5,841,863 165,727 0.26 43,805 - - 43,805
Water 29.00 0.32 4,494,569 154,985 0.22 33,702 0.608 20,491 54,193
Utility Billing 29.50 0.33 2,210,294 74,925 0.22 16,574 0.011 182 16,756
Parks 133.00 1.47 10,414,229 78,302 1.00 78,091 0.286 22,334 100,425
Total College Station 828.75 81,813,691$ 6.21 613,478$ 157,014$ 770,492$
General Government includes: General Government, Information Services, Planning and Development Services, Public Works (Admin, Facilities Maint,
Engineering), Parking Enterprise, Fleet Maintenance, and Communications. BVSWMA is not included.
Notes:
1. Capital to operating cost ratios from Finance Dept.
2. Future population calculated according to acreage in land use scenarios.
3. The City will not be providing electrical service in this area.
Personnel Budget
39.50 4,348,431 gen gov
4.00 351,817 insurance funds
26.25 3,402,779 info serv
39.50 2,938,471 dev serv
21.00 2,620,872 public works (admin, facilities maint, engineering)
11.00 883,807 cip dept
4.00 341,814 community development fund
9.00 507,342 parking
15.00 1,564,948 fleet
7.00 804,644 communications
176.25 17,764,925 Total
Not Included
68.50 70,198,165 Electric
27.25 4,605,503 BVSWMA
95.75 74,803,668 Total
924.50 156,617,359 Total per FY09 Approved Budget
25
13
Appendix B
26
December 16, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No 3
Parking Rate Presentation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a proposal to
increase parking rates.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on
the proposed parking rate changes.
Summary: The policy issue for the City Council to consider in this item is moving
the parking operations toward full cost recovery. The City Fiscal and Budgetary
Policies say Full Fee Support will be obtained from enterprise operations.
The Northgate Parking Garage opened in 2001 and was built to improve the parking
situation in Northgate and contribute to the redevelopment in the Northgate area.
The parking rates were initially set based on recommendations from a consultant
hired by the City. Soon after the garage opened the parking rates were lowered
substantially due to low usage of the garage. Since that time traffic has steadily
increased in the parking garage and revenues have increased as well. One of the
goals in financing the garage is to have the parking fees pay for all the cost of the
garage including operations and debt service. Parking rates were last increased in
2006.
Currently the revenues in the Parking Fund cover the operating costs and a portion
of the debt service costs. It is time to consider increasing the parking fees in the
garage in order to achieve the goal of the garage covering all costs. Staff has
prepared a revised parking rate schedule to continue moving towards the parking
operation covering all costs including debt service costs.
At the meeting staff will show a schedule of the proposed rate changes with the
current rates.
The current parking rate ordinance gives the City Manager the ability to increase
rates within a certain range; however staff wanted to make a presentation to Council
prior to making these changes. Staff would like to make these rate changes effective
January 1 in time for the spring semester at Texas A&M University.
Budget & Financial Summary: Currently the Parking Fund generates revenues
sufficient to cover operating costs of the fund. Debt service costs are currently not
completely covered. The recommended rate changes are designed to increase
revenues in the Parking Fund to cover all costs including debt service.
Attachments:
Current and Proposed Parking Rate Structure
27
Proposed Parking Fee Changes
The following are proposed changes to the parking fees in Northgate.
Northgate Parking Garage
FY 09 Proposed Change
FY08 Increases FY 09
Leases
24/7
Annual
680
100
780
Semester
235
35
270
Monthly
65
10
75
Daily
Annual
415
60
475
Semester
145
20
165
Monthly
40
10
50
Per hour Fee
First Hour
Free Pay Pay
2 a.m. to 7 p.m.
0.50
0.50
1.00
7 p.m. to 2 a.m.
1.00
1.00
2.00
Maximum Daily Fee
6
4
10
Implement January 1, 2009
Street Meters
· Current rate is 25 cents per hour and free after 5:00 PM.
· Proposed rate is 50 cents per hour 24 hours per day.
Implement January 1, 2009.
Parking Lot
· Current rate is 50 cents per hour.
· Proposed rate is 1.00 per hour.
Implement June 1, 2009
28
December 16, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 4
Usage of City Soccer Athletic Facilities
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Marco A. Cisneros, Director, Parks and Recreation
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Usage of City
Soccer Athletic Facilities, as requested by Council at the November 5, 2008 meeting.
Recommendation(s): Staff requests that the Council provide input on priority of usage by
various organizations on soccer athletic facilities operated by the City of College Station.
Summary: The City of College Station operates various soccer athletic facilities used for
City operated functions through the Parks and Recreation Department, CSISD, and
numerous outside user groups representing a variety of sports. As these facilities are a
finite resource, the Department is working to insure that they are maintained in a safe
playable condition, while working with the various users to maximize the available usage.
Specific issues that have been identified in the management of these facilities include:
Maintenance of Facilities
Resident vs. Non-resident - Use and Fee
Youth vs. Adult – Priority of Service
Use by Unauthorized Groups
To address these issues, the Department is proposing a limit on the type and amount of use
that is on the fields. Additionally, the Department is proposing a tiered system to determine
priority of use be implemented to allocate field space within the limits established. Finally,
the Department with be working with CSPD and Code Enforcement, as well as with
resources available in the Parks and Recreation budget to address the Use by Unauthorized
Groups.
While this presentation will focus primarily on the use of soccer facilities, the Priority of
Usage Policy is intended to be expanded to all programs and facilities. The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, at their Nov. 18, 2008 meeting, recommended that the Priority
of Usage Policy be implemented for 2009 for soccer athletic facilities.
Budget & Financial Summary: There are no expenditure impacts at this time. The
Department will be coming to Council at a later date to discuss maintenance of facilities and
the costs associated with this maintenance. The change in designating recreation and
athletic programs as Core, Tier 1 or Tier 2 will have an effect on the revenues received from
user, the result of which cannot be determined until activities have been ranked.
Attachments:
1. CS Athletic Facility Priority of Usage Policy
2. Priority of Use Results Sheet
29
12/13/2008
College Station Parks and Recreation Department
Athletic Facility
Priority of Usage Policy
The City of College Station, through its Parks and Recreation Department is committed
to providing a wide range of leisure activities for its citizens while maintaining a safe
environment. The Parks and Recreation Department accomplishes this task through
direct service provision and by facilitating outside organizations. These organizations
can include, but are not limited to, College Station Independent School District, youth or
adult recreational sports groups and youth or adult competitive sports groups.
In order to insure that the services that are central to the Parks and Recreation
Department mission receive priority in facilities the following methodology has been
developed.
1. Programs offered by outside agencies considered to be Core programs – These are
programs that provide a benefit primarily to the general community including
City and CSISD programs.
2. Programs offered by outside agencies considered to be Tier One programs –
These are programs that provide a benefit to the community but also include an
individual benefit to the participant.
3. Programs offered by outside agencies considered to be Tier Two programs –
These are programs that provide primarily a benefit to the individual with little or
no benefit to the community at large.
Determination of level, Core, Tier One, Tier Two, will be made by the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
In order to preserve a safe playing environment, multi-use fields may be limited to the
following:
· Sand Based Field - 12 hours per week – Games only
o Veterans Park and Athletic Complex
· Native Soil Field - 25 hours per week
o Central Park
o Southwood Valley Athletic Park
Baseball and Softball fields will be evaluated based on the playing surface.
APPROVED:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
November 18, 2008
DATE
30
Priority of Use
Based on Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Rankings
Completed December 9, 2008
Core Programs –
Provide Community Benefit
Greatest level of support
Tier 1 Programs –
Provide Community/Individual
Benefit
Greater Portion of Direct cost
and indirect costs recovered
Tier 2 Programs –
Provide Individual Benefit
Minimum public support
Cost plus recovery for direct
costs plus percentage of
indirect costs
Learn to Swim Youth Athletics (City Programs) Youth Baseball – Select
Public Swim Youth Baseball - Recreational Youth Soccer – Select
Kids Klub Youth Soccer - Recreational Youth Softball – Select
Starlight Music Series Youth Tackle Football Swim Team – Annual
Competitive
Christmas in the Park Adult Athletics (City Programs) Facilitated Concerts
EXIT Teen Center Programs Adult Cricket Facilitated Tournaments
Lincoln Rec Center Programs Adult Soccer Aquatic Facility Rentals
Senior Services Programs Adult Ultimate Frisbee Athletic Facility Rentals
Hosted Tournaments Xtra Education Program Building Rentals
CSISD Programs Aquatic Programs Home School Programs
31
December 16, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 5
Nuisance Noise Overview
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Michael Ikner, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding nuisance noise
issues and responses.
Recommendation(s): None
Summary: This item was requested by Council during the October 23, 2008 workshop.
Noise is a reoccurring issue in College Station. While great strides have been made to
address loud party scenarios in a timely manner, there are other nuisance noise concerns
that are often questioned. As such, this overview will attempt to provide understanding of
other nuisance noise scenarios and a review of options we have to address these types of
situations.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
32
December 16, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 6
Signature Event Task Force
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding on-going efforts
to realize a signature event for the City.
Recommendation(s): N/A
Summary: Details will be provided during the presentation.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
33