HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/2008 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTraditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Mayor Councilmembers
Ben White John Crompton
James Massey
Dennis Maloney
Lynn McIlhaney
City Manager Lawrence Stewart
Glenn Brown David Ruesink
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:00 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 an overview of Roadway Impact Fees for
Consideration of Implementation.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding growth management including the Comprehensive
Plan, regulations in the ETJ, and infill practices.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding P&DS Department activities 2007-08 and
proposed activities for 2008-2013 based on the adopted Business Plan.
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding recommended projects for inclusion in 2008 bond
referendum.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of siting study and design of the
Northgate Restrooms.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on annexation, including a proposed
timeline and approach to the three-year annexation plan.
8. Council Calendar
June 13 Reception for City of Bryan-Park & Recreation Director Darrell Lovelette, 11:30 am,
Bryan City Hall
June 13 Citizen Fire Academy Graduation, 6:00 pm, Council Chambers
June 16 IGC Meeting, 12:00 pm, BVCOG offices
June 16 Texas Tailgate Party and Welcome from Mayor Ben White 6:00 pm
June 17 CPAC Meeting 6:00 pm, Conference Center
June 17-19 3rd Annual Best Practices in Bldg University/City Relations Conference 8:00 am
June 26 Council Workshop / Regular Meeting 3:00 pm & 7:00 pm
1
Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, June 12, 2008 Page 2
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
9. 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.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council Subcommittee of
the Council, 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 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 (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
11. 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. Legal aspects of Water Well and possible purchase of or lease of water well sites.
g. JK Development v. College Station.
h. Taylor Kingsley v. College Station.
i. State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of Mikal Klumpp v. College Station.
j. TMPA v. PUC (College Station filed Intervention).
2
Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, June 12, 2008 Page 3
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
k. Legal issues and advice on Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency Contract, on proposed
methane gas contract, on proposed Franchise with City of Bryan for B.T.U. Electric, on proposed pole use
for College Station and Bryan electric lines, and update on legal proceedings for Grimes County Landfill site
and on contract for site acquisitions.
Real Estate {Gov’t Code Section 551.072}; possible action The City Council may deliberate the purchase,
exchange, lease or value of real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect
on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person. After executive session discussion, any final
action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Land Exchange
Competitive Matter {Gov’t Code Section 551.086}; possible action The City Council may deliberate, vote,
or take final action on a competitive matter in closed session. The City Council must make a good faith
determination, by majority vote of the City Council, that the matter is a Competitive Matter. A “Competitive
Matter” is a utility-related matter that the City Council determines is related to the City of College Station’s
Electric Utility Competitive Activity, including commercial information, which if disclosed would give
advantage to competitors or prospective competitors. The following is a general representation of the
subject(s) to be considered as a competitive matter.
a. Power Supply
Economic Incentive Negotiations {Gov’t Code Section 551.087}; possible action The City Council may
deliberate on commercial or financial information that the City Council has received from a business
prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the city with which the City
Council in conducting economic development negotiations may deliberate on an offer of financial or other
incentives for a business prospect. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be
in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Hotel and Conference Center
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074}; possible action The City Council may deliberate the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer. After executive
session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be
discussed:
a. City Attorney
12. 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.
13. Adjourn.
APPROVED:
______________________________
City Manager
3
Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, June 12, 2008 Page 4
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 12th day of June, 2008 at 2:00 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 9th day of June, 2008 at 1:30 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 June 9, 2008 at 1:30 pm 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 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.
4
June 12, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 2
Roadway Impact Fees
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an overview of
Roadway Impact Fees for Consideration of Implementation.
Recommendation(s): N/A
SUMMARY: At the May 22, 2008 Council Workshop Meeting, City Council voted unanimously requesting
staff to bring a presentation of Roadway Impact Fees to the June 12, 2008 Council Workshop Meeting.
This presentation was subsequently slated for the June 5th Planning and Zoning Commission, which
serves as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The attached memorandum provided to the Impact Fee
Advisory Committee gives a written summary of presentation. There was no action required of the
Impact Fee Advisory Committee.
This presentation was brought to the Council Transportation Committee on December 18, 2007.
This presentation provides general background on Roadway Impact Fees including information on how
the fees “work” and how they could be implemented. In short, impact fees are a viable method of
financing roadways in cities experiencing significant growth such as College Station. The equity
underlying how the state law defines impact fees is that a portion of the attributable burden for
associated infrastructure costs is shifted from the existing rate payer to the new development which is
creating the increase demand.
Staff is seeking direction from Council whether to proceed to implement Roadway Impact Fees, i.e.
advertising for a Request for Proposals for contracting with a consultant including the associated
transportation engineering analysis.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Roadway Impact Fee – Consideration of Implementation, Memorandum
5
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: ALAN GIBBS, P.E. – CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: ROADWAY IMPACT FEES – CONSIDERATION OF IMPLEMENTATION
DATE: MAY 29, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________________________
At the May 22, 2008 Council Workshop Meeting, City Council voted unanimously
requesting staff to bring a presentation of Roadway Impact Fees to the June 12, 2008
Council Workshop Meeting. The requested presentation as well as this Committee’s
associated presentation is informational providing a background on Roadway Impact Fees
including general information on how the fees “work” and how they could be implemented.
This memorandum provides a written summary of presentation. (Note that the addendum
items are not included within packet due to length, but are available upon request.) There is
no action required of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee requested with this item at this
time.
Background
Cities across the nation are experiencing financial challenges to meet infrastructure demands.
One financing option is Impact fees which date back to the 1920’s nationally, but was
enacted in Texas in 1987. Since then numerous cities throughout Texas have utilized impact
fees including College Station beginning in 1992. This first local impact fee was for a
sanitary sewer line improvement. Three additional sanitary sewer and a water impact fees
locally have followed. In Texas, impact fees can be utilized for water, sanitary, drainage and
roadway improvements.
6
2
College Station’s continued growth has placed a recognized strain on our transportation
system. Recent studies have identified unfunded street projects totaling in excess of $130
million. The fundamental question we should ask is should the burden of increased
infrastructure costs be paid by all the existing tax payers equally? Or should the burden be
largely placed on the specific development causing the demand? Legislation would indicate
it is appropriate and has enabled developments to pay their fair, attributable share.
An impact fee is by design an equitable option to assist in financing needed infrastructure
including street improvements for municipalities. In Texas, impact fees are governed by
Local Government Code Chapter 395 (Addendum A) which standardizes and limits the
parameters for fee calculation, assessment and collection. The Code defines an impact fee as
“…a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in
order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements for
facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development.” As the
definition notes, impact fees are statutorily required to be calculated such that the fee is
directly attributable to the “impact” the subject new development creates on or for public
infrastructure. In other words, impact fees shift a portion of the capital growth costs from
existing bill payers to the development who is generating the growth and new demands.
Roadway Impact Fee
Roadway Impact Fees are simply a charge imposed against new development to fund
construction of major roadways needed by those who drive to and from the new
development. The State defines applicable ‘roadway facilities’ as arterial or collector streets
that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan including the city share of
costs associated with federal or state roads including costs related to utility line relocation
and the establishment of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances and rights of way.
Note also that ‘new developments’ that are subject to pay impact fees include any
construction which increases the number of service units. Note that schools have been
general exempted under recent legislation.
Following up on the earlier discussion that impact fees are equitable, roadway impact fees
are specifically proportionate to the probably traffic to be generated by the new
development. Assessments are therefore based on the roadway improvements anticipated to
be needed because of the new development within a defined service area over the next 10
years, as well as the portion of existing roadway that are used to serve the property.
Note that our recent Impact Fee contract involved the City hiring Rimrock Consulting to
specifically look at the feasibility of having a city wide utility impact fee which did not
include a feasibility of roadway impact fees. There was also a 1995 Impact Feasibility Study
conducted for the City of College Station performed by James Duncan where Rimrock was a
sub-consultant. This 1995 study evaluated at Drainage, Water/Sewer, and Transportation.
At that time, they did not recommend pursuing transportation impact fees primarily because
"the cost of upgrading state and federal roads cannot be included in an impact fee program,
and developers are already paying most of the cost of (capacity-expanding) road
7
3
improvements. As a result, there is some question about the need to develop transportation
impact fees in College Station." However in 2001, changes to the Texas Local Government
Code 395.01(8) have allowed costs on state and federal street projects to be eligible, which
remove this limitation.
Several Texas cities have adopted roadway impact fees to assist paying for street
improvements. Some of these cities include Arlington, New Braunfels, Taylor, Kennedale,
Plano, Greenville, and McKinney to name a few. A sample ordinance from Greenville,
Texas is provided in Addendum B.
Fee Calculation
To implement an impact fee, a capital improvement plan is required to identify
improvements with their capacity, level of current usage, and commitments for usage, costs
of improvements necessitated by new development based on land use assumptions, ratio of
service units to various types of land uses, the total number of projected service units, and a
credit for associated city anticipated revenues.
The fee calculation must provide a reduction of these allowable costs by accounting for or
crediting the anticipated ad valorem tax and utility service revenues the City would receive
from the new development. This credit can be estimated by a flat 50% credit or a detailed
analysis. The credit essentially ensures that costs are not over-recovered when taxes/rates
and impact fees are considered as an integrated funding system.
State law defines the specific costs that can be included within impact fees as: primarily
improvements or expansion identified in an associated capital improvements plan,
specifically including construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land
acquisition costs, preparing or updating consultant fees, and projected interest charges to
finance identified improvements. Items which cannot be included within the fee include:
expansions not identified within the capital improvements plans,
repair/operations/maintenance costs, expansions or improvements to serve “existing”
development in order to provide safer regulatory standards or better service, and
administrative or operating costs.
Roadway Service Areas
Service Areas for roadway impact fees are limited to city limits and shall not exceed 6 miles
beyond the roadway improvement. In general this area is the area that significantly benefits
from the roadway improvements and is therefore the area were the impact fees are levied.
Again, assessed impact fees only include the cost for roadway improvements within a
development’s service area. Likewise, impact fees collected must be spent within that
development’s service area. The allowable 6 mile maximum service areas would likely divide
College Station into three areas which would cover most all of the City.
8
4
Preparing a Roadway Impact Fee
‘Land Use Assumptions’ (LUA) would be required to be projected for the anticipated
growth over a 10 year period for the service area. This would consist of projected number
of units of the residential growth and projected square feet of non-residential building
growth. This would in turn yield estimates of the amount of roadway system expansion
needed over the 10 year period of the study.
‘Roadway Capital Improvement Plan’ (CIP) would be prepared by a transportation planning
engineer. The plan would identify capital improvements or facility expansions for which
impact fee may be assessed and or which impact fee funds can be spent. This will assess the
capacity of the roadways, at a given level of service, and how much of that capacity is needed
for the next ten years.
‘Service Unit’ is a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge
attributable to an individual unit development calculated in accordance with generally
accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends. For
roadway impact fees specifically, the service unit is typically the equivalent of one vehicle
driving one mile during the afternoon peak hour traffic period, which is also known as a
Vehicle Mile.
9
5
‘Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit’ is derived amount which the fee cannot exceed
by statute. The following general steps determine the maximum assessable fee per service
unit. Also an example (Service Area ‘A’) is provided tracking with each step in the right
column.
Steps: Example:
Service Area ‘A’
1. Project the amount of growth in service area 1500 Residential Units
and 70,000 SF retail
2. Estimate the additional vehicle miles based on 10,000 Vehicle Miles
growth projections
3. Calculate the amount of roadway construction 8.9 Lane Miles
needed to accommodate growth
4. Estimate cost of needed roadway improvements $33 Million
5. Subtract the determined credit for the ad valorem $16.5 Million
tax and utility service revenues generated by new
development
6. Divide this resulting cost by the total vehicle miles ($16.5 Million) /
added over the next 10 year period to determine (10,000 Vehicle Miles)
the Maximum Assessable Fee per Service Unit = $1,650 per Vehicle Mile
7. Council may adopt a fee at or below the <=$1,650 per Vehicle Mile
calculated Maximum Assessable Fee per Service i.e. Council adopts
Unit $1,100 per Vehicle Mile
A more detailed Impact Fee Implementation (Addendum D) is provided detailing public
hearings, notices, and Advisory Committee and City Council actions. Note the
implementation is approximately a 12-month process from initial discussion with hiring a
consultant to enactment. Additionally there is a one year grandfathering provision beyond
enactment before collection can begin.
Assessment and Collection of Roadway Impact Fee
Specific fees are assessed (or determined) and vested at the time of platting with regard to
the CIP collection and the specific fee calculation is at the time of Building Permit. Also, the
ratio of use to square footages to Vehicle Miles per Development Unit must be quantified.
The additional general steps determine the actual impact fee. Also an example
(Development ‘XYZ’) is similarly provided tracking with each step in the right column.
10
6
Steps: Example:
Development ‘XYZ’
1. Determine the number of Development Units 5,000 SF shopping center
(i.e. 1000 SF = 1 Development Unit) in Service Area ‘A’
= 5 Development Units
2. Estimate the number of vehicle miles per For a shopping center
development unit (i.e. from defined table in = 2.0 Vehicle Miles /
CIP) Development Units
3. Multiply number of Development Units by (5 Development Units) x
Vehicle Miles per Development Unit to (2.0 VM / DU)
determine total Vehicle Miles = 10.0 total Vehicle Miles
4. Multiply total Vehicle Miles by the fee per (10.0 total Vehicle Miles) x
Vehicle Mile adopted to determine the Impact ($1,100 per Service Unit)
Fee = $11,000 Impact Fee
Conclusion
The implementation of impact fees is a viable method of financing roadways in cities
experiencing significant growth. The equity underlying impact fees is that it shifts a portion
of the attributable burden for associated infrastructure costs from the existing rate payer to
the development which is creating the increase demand. Development appears to be
outpacing the transportation system needed to serve it causing the City to evaluate new
funding methods. Finally, note that should the City chose to pursue implementing Roadway
Impact Fees, there is an approximated two-year period to from commencing to collecting
impact fees.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Addendum
A. Local Government Code Chapter 395 – Financing Capital Improvements Required by
New Development in Municipalities, Counties, and Certain Other Local Governments
B. City of Greenville, Texas, Chapter 26 Subdivisions, C. Article 26.02 Impact Fees
C. City of College Station, Texas, Executive Summary on Proposed Priority Street Projects
and Alternate Funding Mechanism
D. Impact Fee Implementation Sheet
11
June 12, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 3
Growth Management
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding growth
management including the Comprehensive Plan, regulations in the ETJ, and infill practices.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council provide direction to staff on what
portions of the growth management study prepared by Kendig Keast Collaborative should
be further developed into ordinance revisions.
Summary: At their meeting on May 22, 2008 the Council unanimously requested this item
be brought back to the Council for further discussion and direction. Council retained KKC to
perform an analysis of current development practices in the ETJ and to formulate
recommendations to address the pattern. This information was delivered to Council in the
summer of 2007 and was again followed by a presentation and request for direction by staff
in October 2007. In February 2008 after discussions with stakeholders staff requested
direction from Council on what items (if any) should proceed to ordinance development. At
that meeting Council instructed staff to incorporate the discussion into the CPAC discussion
on the Comprehensive Plan update and to not proceed with any ordinance amendments.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Consultant’s Growth Management Report (revised version)
2. Staff Recommendation to Council on Growth Management (October 2007)
3. Staff Recommendation to Council on Growth Management (February 2008)
12
Figure 1, Historic Growth Patterns
The urban form has become increasingly fragmented since the 1980s.
Source: City of College Station
TOOLBOX OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
“The best way to predict your future is to create it.”1
INTRODUCTION
Over the course of the last six decades, College Station has experienced rapid growth, averaging 90
percent per decade. Excluding the 1940s (263 percent) and 1970s (111 percent), the average rate of growth
per decade has been 42 percent. While the amount of growth has slowed since 1980, with 29 percent
growth during the 1990s (compared to 111 percent and 41 percent during the 1970s and 1980s,
respectively) it exceeds the rate of growth of Brazos County (34 percent) and Texas (22 percent).2 From an
economic perspective, the increase in population and corresponding employment growth is a positive
indicator of the City’s economic competitiveness and stability. A continuation of this economic growth is
– and must remain – a primary goal of the community.
1 ~ Peter Drucker
2 This is partially explained by the relative size of the respective jurisdictions.
13
Draft 01/04/08 Page 2 of 27
A question confronting this community, however, is not only how to attract and sustain economic
development but how to maximize its net fiscal benefits. The pattern of growth and efficiency of service
provision are contributing factors, among others. As displayed in Figure 1, Historic Growth Patterns,
beginning in the 1970s the form of development has become increasingly scattered. In fact, since the Year
2000, the number of platted lots in the ETJ has averaged 16.6 percent of the total annual platted lots.3 As
for the projected population, assuming a continuation of recent trends, the ETJ is expected to increase in
population by 17 percent by the Year 2016.4 The trend of peripheral growth is long‐standing as
development began to scatter in 1980s and has since increasing sprawled outward. Continuation of this
pattern – and trend – will become increasingly problematic, resulting in an increased inefficiency of
services thereby lessening the economic gain and placing a growing strain on the fiscal resources of the
community.
Reasons for the Growth Pattern
There are several reasons why this growth pattern has occurred, including, but not limited to, the
following:
There is a lure to green field development due to the ease of development approval, particularly since
the City has no authority within its ETJ to regulate:
- The use of any building or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes;
- The bulk, height, or number of buildings constructed on a particular tract;
- The size of a building that can be constructed on a particular tract of land, including without
limitation any restriction on the ratio of building floor space to the land square footage;
- The number of residential units that can be built per acre of land; or
- The size, type, or method of construction of a water or wastewater facility that can be constructed
to serve a developed tract of land, subject to specified criteria.5
The City’s oversize participation ordinance allows the City to pay up to 100 percent of the total cost
for any over‐sizing of improvements that it requires in anticipation of future development. There are
no stated exceptions or criteria regarding its cost effectiveness; financial feasibility; or conformance
with utility master plans, the comprehensive plan, or other development policies. Furthermore, the
current Comprehensive Plan does not define a designated growth area nor is it directly coordinated
with the utility master plans. Therefore, there is no mechanism to coordinate the pattern and timing
of development and ensure cost efficiency in the provision of adequate public facilities and services.
This must be a focus of the current Comprehensive Plan, coordinated with updates of the City’s
water, wastewater, and drainage master plans.
The City’s decision to extend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) boundary for sewer
service to coincide generally with its ETJ enables development to occur throughout the ETJ. While
there are advantages by way of limiting the number of private package plants and controlling the
quality of sewer infrastructure, this contributes to an inefficient pattern of development. Without a
growth sequencing plan to direct the location and timing of development, consistent with the City’s
infrastructure planning and capital programming, the City has limited control of its development
pattern.
The fiscal impact analysis used to judge the feasibility of annexation appears to be an abbreviated
model that does not fully account for the long‐term operating and maintenance costs, the distance
3 Based upon plat data provided by the City
4 Based on a City forecast, “Development Trends in the Extra‐territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
5 Section 212.003, Extension of Rules to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
14
Draft 01/04/08 Page 3 of 27
required to extend utility services, or the timing of build‐out. Further, the City’s future land use plan
and corresponding zoning districts are too general and thus, do not offer a clear indication of the
likely uses and densities. Therefore, to more accurately determine the net fiscal benefit of annexation
a more elaborate, robust model must be developed and used.
There are both allowances and limitations within the zoning ordinance, including:
- The minimum lot size within the Agricultural‐Open “A‐O” district is only five acres. Instead, the
minimum lot size could be increased to 20 acres or larger ensuring preservation of the
agricultural character and enabling the City to determine the timing by which facilities will be
provided and urban development is allowed. Zoning, in this case, may serve as an effective
growth management tool.
- The Rural Residential Subdivision “A‐OR” district allows a minimum lot size of one acre
meaning that residences on septic systems and wells are permitted. Use of this district in the
outlying areas of the corporate limits where adequate municipal facilities are not yet available is
contributing to development fragmentation.
- There are a relatively large number of use‐based zoning districts. Essentially, this means that a
zone change is necessary to respond to a shift in the market, which adds process and delays
development. This is a disincentive for development to occur in the City rather than the ETJ
where it is much easier and with less delay. Instead, the ordinance should allow more flexibility
while increasing the development standards in line with the City’s expectations and desired
outcomes.
- There is a multi‐step process required for the Planned Mixed‐Use “P‐MUD” and Planned
Development “PDD” districts, which lengthens the review and approval time, increases
development costs, and is a disincentive for what is otherwise a preferred development type.
- The ordinance allows for zoning classification at the time of annexation without any criteria as to
when and under what circumstances the City will consider a change in zoning. Therefore, a zone
change to a more intensive district may be allowed without consideration as to its consistency
with the City’s growth plan, capital improvement plan, or other criterion.
- There are no incentives, such as density bonuses, integrated into the ordinance to encourage
certain development types. An increased density in exchange for development clustering and
increased open space could allow a rural development environment within the City limits rather
than necessitating ETJ development to achieve this character.
- The requirements for use transitions and buffering are generally ineffective providing reason to
develop in the open countryside in relief of the impacts of abutting development.
There are several rural water providers (Wellborn Special Utility District, Brushy Creek Water Supply
Corporation, and Wickson Creek Special Utility District) and sewer providers (Carter Lake Water
Supply Corporation and River Side Wastewater Treatment Plan) around the periphery of the City
and ETJ, meaning that development may get access to public water and sewer systems that meets the
standards of the Texas Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) without requiring connection to
the City’s utility systems.
The Brazos County Health Department’s requirements for permitting septic systems is a minimum of
a one acre lot, whether there is public water available or a private well. This exceeds the State’s one‐
half acre minimum, and is now being considered by the County Commission for an increase to a
minimum of two acres. While an increase in the minimum allowable lot size for authorization to
construct a septic system is both warranted and helpful, unless it is further increased it still allows
rural development throughout the ETJ.
15
Draft 01/04/08 Page 4 of 27
There is a five‐acre exemption of the platting requirements within State law that allows rural
development to occur without platting and thus, without any provision for right‐of‐way dedication,
delineation of easements, or other applicable – and warranted ‐ development requirements.6
The City’s parkland dedication requirements apply only within the City limits meaning that there are
no requirements for the provision of parkland or payment in‐lieu of land dedication. Therefore,
effectively, this is an economic advantage for developing outside of the City limits to avoid payment
of these fees.
Development outside the City limits does not pay City taxes. Therefore, residents and businesses
outside the City limits benefit from access to municipal facilities and services, such as parks, trails,
libraries, and other community facilities, but do not share the tax burden associated with constructing
and maintaining those facilities and services. Over time this increases the tax burden on in‐City
residents.
Land is less expensive outside the City limits due, in part, to the absence of public infrastructure and
improvements, which equates to cheaper development and hence, lower home costs.
There is an attraction to the open, rural landscape, which will slowly disappear with increasing
development over time and a lack of land use controls to protect the desirable character.
Potential Implications of Sprawl
While the growth of the community has brought great opportunity, without adequate foresight and
preparedness it may involve long‐term consequences, including:
Erosion of a defined community edge thereby blurring its boundaries and contributing to a loss of
community identity. This can be most readily seen along each of the entrances into the community
where there is a proliferation of uses extending well beyond the City limits.
Degradation of environmental resources, e.g. floodplains, wetlands, habitat, vegetated areas, etc.
Overwhelmed public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, and wastewater systems) and services (e.g.,
police and fire protection, parks, libraries, and schools), in some cases, creating unsafe conditions.
A lack of coordinated planning between individual developments leading to, among other things, a
discontinuous and disjointed street system and inability to plan for linear linkages and greenways.
Premature and unexpected shifts in traffic patterns causing congestion and environmental impacts as
development occurs in an uncoordinated fashion before adequate road infrastructure is in place.
The provision of private streets and infrastructure systems such as package treatment plants, for
which the burden may shift to the City in future years without the requisite funding to pay for it.
Cumulative impacts on the natural environment due to stormwater runoff and non‐point source
pollution of area streams and watercourses.
Inefficient provision of services meaning a larger investment in infrastructure systems with fewer
than the optimal number of connections to pay for it.
Increased traffic, as vehicles have to traverse relatively longer distances to reach places of work,
shopping, services, education, recreation, and entertainment. This means that more public dollars
must be expended on road building, expansion, maintenance, street lighting, and traffic enforcement.
Declining community character and agricultural operations, as formerly large, contiguous farms are
broken up by scattered development and the proliferation of “exurban”, 5‐plus acre lots. The
agricultural industry is a significant sector of the regional economy, and the presence of local
6 Section 212.004. Plat required (a)
16
Draft 01/04/08 Page 5 of 27
agricultural products is good for local consumers. Moreover, farming is an important part of the
region’s heritage that continues to contribute to the quality of life and identity of the community.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Often, the elements that fuel growth (e.g., community livability, quality schools, economic diversity, etc.)
are slowly and ultimately sacrificed by the pattern, quality, and character of development. The integrity
of public fiscal resources is also compromised because the new development is inefficient and does not
contribute sufficient revenues to cover the costs of the services it demands. Modern “growth
management” is a combination of techniques that allow municipalities to direct its pattern of growth and
the timing of infrastructure provision, leading to better long‐term economic sustainability. In broad
terms, growth management techniques include:
Comprehensive planning to establish the policy basis for the institution and administration of growth
regulations;
Regulatory approaches, including zoning and subdivision controls, which to varying degrees,
directly impact the character, form, location, and quality of development.
Annexation, which expands the geographic jurisdiction of the City to implement a full range of
regulatory and fiscal approaches to growth management.
Development and/or participation agreements, which provide for infrastructure funding (and may, in
some instances, include land use controls).
Impact fees, which provide funding for capital improvements that are needed to serve new
development.
Improvement districts and political subdivisions, which are independent entities that provide for
infrastructure funding and operation.
Interlocal cooperation contracts as a means for local governments to agree with other units of
government with regard to providing administrative functions, infrastructure, and public services.
Extension of publicly‐owned utilities by way of capital improvement programming.
In Texas, state law provides a complex set of rules regarding which growth management techniques are
available, and how those techniques may be implemented. The purpose of this issue paper is to
summarize the provisions that may serve as viable and practical solutions for the City to manage its
community character, efficient provision of adequate public infrastructure and services, and long‐term
fiscal health. This paper also establishes a framework for growth management, with strategic directions
as to the changes in policies and practices to better manage future growth and development.7
There are an array of strategies for managing the pattern and timing of development, ranging from
simply minimizing the impacts of growth without affecting the pattern to strictly controlling it. Given the
limitations of Texas law there are few, if any, mechanisms currently available to entirely prevent sprawl.
For the purposes of this discussion the growth management techniques are as follows:
7 This review of the applicable statutes is intended to provide a general overview of available tools and techniques, and shall not be
considered legal advice with regard to the validity of any of the identified approaches or the potential legal consequences of
implementing any particular approach. Potential risks are identified only if explicitly set out in the statutes. KKC recommends that
the City consult with its attorney with respect to the legality and potential risks and exposures presented by any particular
approach.
17
Draft 01/04/08 Page 6 of 27
In many cases, the availability of a particular growth
management technique depends upon the type of
municipality (e.g., general law or home rule), the population of
the County, and the population and geography of the City.
The City of College Station is a home rule municipality with a
2000 population of 67,890 persons. Per Section 42.021 of the
Texas Local Government Code, the extraterritorial jurisdiction
(“ETJ”) extends 3½ miles from the City limits. College Station is
located in Brazos County, which has a 2000 population of
152,415 persons.
Comprehensive Planning
Chapter 213 of the Texas Local Government Code contains a broad authorization to develop and adopt a
Comprehensive Plan.8 The statute allows the City to decide for itself what its Comprehensive Plan will
address and how it will relate to the land development regulations. With regard to content, the statute
says a Comprehensive Plan may:
Include, but is not limited to, provisions on land use, transportation, and public
facilities;
consist of a single plan or a coordinated set of plans organized by subject and
geographic area; and,
be used to coordinate and guide the establishment of development regulations.
State law provides that “A municipality may define,
in its charter or by ordinance, the relationship
between a Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations, and may provide standards for
determining the consistency required between a
plan and development regulations.” In other words,
there is not a requirement that the comprehensive
plan be applied in strict terms in all land use
decision‐making. However, there is latitude
regarding the extent to which the land development regulations may be used to implement the plan. This
is essential if the City is to successfully control its destiny.
It does not appear that the City Charter specifically authorizes the purpose or use of a Comprehensive
Plan. While a plan is generally recognized as a “guide” for decision‐making, given its relevance and
essential role in managing the City’s growth and development, it is advisable for the City to specify its
value in its long‐range planning interests. Therefore, this may be an opportunity to make the plan for
authoritative in land development decisions and capital expenditures.
The City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) identifies as one of its objectives to “Implement the
Comprehensive Plan through compliance with its individual elements.” Furthermore, the relationship
between the UDO and Comprehensive Plan is expressed as follows:
“It is intended that this UDO implement the City’s planning policies as adopted as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, as amended and periodically updated.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, and any associated plans or studies adopted by the City Council,
shall be required to be amended prior to, or concurrent with, permitting development which would
conflict with the plan.
The alignments of proposed thoroughfares and bikeways on the “College Station Thoroughfare Plan
map? And the “College Station Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan map” are generalized locations that are
subject to modifications to fit local conditions, budget constraints, and right‐of‐way availability that
warrant further refinement as development occurs. Alignments within 1,000 feet of the alignment
shown on the aforementioned maps will not require a thoroughfare plan amendment.”9
8 Chapter 213 is not the only source of authority to adopt a comprehensive plan. Home rule may also be a source of authority, which
is accomplished via the City charter is some Texas communities, e.g. Georgetown.
9 Section 1.6, Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, July 3, 2006
18
Draft 01/04/08 Page 7 of 27
Therefore, to further strengthen the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and UDO, the
following should occur in the interest of better managing growth:
Areas within the City limits that are not within the defined “growth area(s)” should be zoned
Agricultural‐Open “A‐O”, provided the minimum lot size in increased from five to 20 acres, or more.
The decision as to the zoning of newly annexed property must strictly adhere to the City’s growth
plan. Annexation of land that is not within the defined “growth area(s)” must be zoned “A‐O”,
giving the City the decision as to the timing of development and its provision of services.
The area defined as “Rural” on the Land Use Plan10 should strictly adhere to the City’s growth plan.
Those portions of this area that are inadequately served and are not feasible for the extension of
adequate public facilities and services should be re‐designated as Agricultural‐Open.
The Rural Residential Subdivision “A‐OR” district should coincide with the boundaries of the
“Rural” designation on the Land Use Plan. The ordinance should subsequently be revised to increase
the minimum lot size from one to five acres, with density bonuses for development clustering and
increased open space.
The use designations on the Future Land Use Plan should be reconciled with the zoning districts.
Rather than indicating land use with a general reference to density, both should more clearly define
the intended character of development. In other words, low, medium, and high density residential
should include additional performance standards to ensure the intended character. Standards such
as maximum gross density and open space and floor area ratios will better ensure the development
outcomes. Otherwise, if more than one zoning district is allowed and there are not definitive
standards, there is no mechanism for the City to control the development character. As it relates to
growth management this is essential as a means for improved utility systems planning (since the
density and hence, infrastructure demands are known) as well as controlling the form and character
of development.
The Comprehensive Plan offers the ability for the City to establish its growth policies, which must then be
directly related to the zoning regulations to effectuate them. This must be accomplished in tandem with
the City’s water, wastewater, and drainage master plans, as well as the capital improvement program.
Generally, the Comprehensive Plan should direct development first, to the areas where there is already
adequate infrastructure and secondly, to the areas that may be readily and efficiently served with public
facilities and services. Targeted upgrades of the infrastructure may be required to facilitate an infill
development program. Lastly, the areas around the periphery of the City that may not be efficiently
served ‐ or are simply premature for development – should be reserved in the near term for agricultural
(Agricultural‐Open) or very low intensity uses (Rural Residential Subdivisions) with infrastructure
staging for longer‐term development. The means of executing these general policies are described in
detail below.
The City’s over‐sizing policy should cite as an exception for refusing to extend water or wastewater
mains consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The update of the plan must then define the area for
which urban development is to be accommodated. More specifically perhaps is the definition of the areas
that are not intended for infrastructure investment during the horizon of the plan and thus, subject to the
growth control mechanisms of this paper. In so doing, rather than responding to development, instead,
10 Land Use Plan, November 2004
19
Draft 01/04/08 Page 8 of 27
Illustrative Examples of Area Delineations
Developed Area
Protection Area
the City may proactively direct development to occur in appropriate locations and concurrent with the
availability and provision of adequate public facilities and services.
Through the course of plan development the following areas should be identified and delineated, as
displayed in the illustrative examples:
The developed area is where there is existing
infrastructure. Remaining opportunities within
this defined area would consist of infill
development, redevelopment, and areas that are
immediately contiguous to existing
development. It is important to note than there
is approximately 2,010 acres of vacant,
residentially‐zoned land within the City limits.
This amount of developable land will support
an additional population of 18,650 persons11,
which is approximately 60 percent of a mid‐
range estimate of added population by the Year
2025. Therefore, the plan must quantify and
determine the area necessary to support the
projected population and employment
increases, and coordinate the infrastructure
plans accordingly.
The protection area encompasses areas of
floodplain, wetland, streams and drainage ways,
or other natural areas that warrant permanent
protection. These are areas where the City’s
zoning or subdivision regulations should
prohibit development. The protection area may
also include the Agricultural‐Open “A‐O”
district that is intended to remain in agricultural
use and where residential development is
restricted.
The growth area is where new growth is to be
encouraged for which there are readily available
services that may be efficiently extended. This is
the area where the City will commit to
extending infrastructure and improvements to
support urban development. The size of this
area should support 20 years of development potential. This area may be further delineated to
include five‐year growth increments to be timed with the extension of facilities and services. It is
common to upsize this area by 20 to 30 percent to allow market flexibility. The size and location of the
growth areas need to be closely evaluated and clearly defined given the amount of currently available
land. The City would also need to revisit these areas and make periodic adjustments.
11 This assumes four units per acre and 2.32 persons per dwelling unit (U.S. Census, 2000)
20
Draft 01/04/08 Page 9 of 27
Illustrative Examples of Area Delineations - Continued
Growth Areas
Holding Zones
The holding zone is all remaining land in the
ETJ and outside of that identified above
described areas. Due to the limitations of State
law, this is the most difficult of the four areas to
address. Given the reasons identified earlier,
development may now occur within this area.
Development in areas for which the City cannot
readily and efficiently provide services is clearly
premature and results in sprawl. Therefore, the
question is to what extent the City is willing to
enact control by the below described growth
management techniques.
In order for the City to manage the location of
development it must employ some of the techniques
described below. Effectively, the strategy should
direct a vast majority of development to occur in the
developed and growth areas as infill or contiguous
development. The controls must be designed to
minimize the amount of urban development in the
holding zone.
Amendment of the Subdivision Regulations
The most readily available means for minimizing the
impacts of peripheral growth is by way of amending
the subdivision regulations. However, while certain
controls may be put in place to solve anticipated
problems, this approach will not have any material
affect on the pattern or timing of urban growth. It
remains though, a warranted and necessary step to
ensure quality development and to ameliorate
unnecessary problems.
Unlike zoning regulations, the value of the subdivision regulations is that they may be extended into the
ETJ.12 While subdivision controls typically include requirements for lot size, access, and infrastructure,
State law also authorizes the City to adopt “other municipal ordinances relating to access to public roads
or the pumping, extraction, and use of groundwater by persons other than retail public utilities . . . for the
purpose of preventing the use or contact with groundwater that presents an actual or potential threat to
human health” within the ETJ.13
12 Unlike subdivision controls within the City, enforcement of the subdivision regulations in the ETJ is limited to injunctive relief
(fines and criminal penalties in the ETJ are prohibited). See § 212.003(b) and (c), TLGC.
13 Section 212.003, Texas Local Government Code
21
Draft 01/04/08 Page 10 of 27
Summary: Subdivision Controls
Purpose: Generally, the purpose of
subdivision controls is to
regulate the dimensions of lots
and the provision of access,
utilities, and public facilities.
Strengths: Along with zoning, access
management, and other
regulatory tools, subdivision
controls are an important
means to ensure adequate
infrastructure and regulate
community character.
Generally, utilities may not be
connected to subdivided
property without an approved
plat.
Weaknesses: Subdivision controls generally
must stand alone in the ETJ
(where zoning is not allowed
without consent). Statutes do
not allow regulation (without
consent) as to land use, bulk,
height, number of buildings,
size of buildings, or residential
units per acre in the ETJ.
Access management standards applied within the ETJ
would help to avoid unsafe conditions while preserving
the capacity of the roadway.
Provided the Comprehensive Plan is sufficiently specific,
subdivision controls can be a strong tool for ensuring that
adequate water, sewer, and road service is provided to new
development in the City, and more importantly, in the ETJ.
This is so because State law provides that a plat shall be
approved if:
it conforms to the general plan of the municipality and its
current and future streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and
public utility facilities;
it conforms to the general plan for the extension of the
municipality and its roads, streets, and public highways
within the municipality and in its extraterritorial
jurisdiction, taking into account access to and extension of
sewer and water mains and the instrumentalities of public
utilities;
it conforms to any [adopted subdivision] rules . . . .14
By implication, the plat can be denied if the standards are not
met. This requires a Comprehensive Plan that sufficiently
defines the standards by which development must uphold.
For instance, the thoroughfare plan must encompass the entire
ETJ – and beyond in some cases – with denoted alignments of
collector and arterial streets, and other regional, intra‐ and
inter‐state highways.
Potential amendments to the subdivision regulations may
include the following:
(1) Access management standards could – and should –
be imposed consistent or similar to those
recommended by TxDOT. For example, if the spacing
requirement between driveways is 360 feet
(recommended for streets with 45 m.p.h. posted
speed), then 100 to 200 foot frontage lots with
individual drives would not be allowed. This would
preserve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of
roadways that may be improved to collector or
arterial standards in the future. Strict application of
spacing requirements would: (1) encourage platting
(which is required when infrastructure – here, access
streets – is dedicated); or (2) likely reduce lot depth,
which would make more efficient use of the land.
14 Section 212.010, Texas Local Government Code
22
Draft 01/04/08 Page 11 of 27
Section 212.004, of the Texas Local Government Code
exempts from subdivision requirements “a division of land into
parts greater than five acres, where each part has access and
no public improvement is being dedicated.” “Exempt”
development encourages lots that are narrow and deep, with
100 to 200 feet of frontage and 2,178 to 1,089 feet of depth.
This development form creates a number of challenges:
Narrow lots often front on roads that are intended to serve a
city wide mobility function. Connecting residential driveways
to these roads invites future traffic conflicts.
Narrow lots alter the rural character of the landscape – and
the rural economy – in five ways:
1. Buildings are closely spaced and close to the street
blocking views from the street of the open spaces behind
them;
2. The lots are “too small to farm and too big to mow,” so it is
not uncommon for the yards to be poorly maintained;
3. The land within the lots is often lost to agricultural use
because such uses generally need large, regularly-shaped
parcels, and assembling a reasonable leasehold from
separate residential landowners, 100 to 200 feet at a time,
is not practical (especially since the early morning noise
and dust from agricultural operations is ultimately likely to
be a point of contention between the homeowner and the
farmer);
4. The new residential uses are usually not compatible with
the existing agricultural uses, which generates increasing
political pressure against agriculture; and
5. When they reach a critical mass, the new residential uses
attract supporting commercial uses that further squeeze
agricultural land and agriculture-supportive commercial
uses.
By clustering development open views may be
protected thereby preserving a rural, open character.
(2) Although the City is not allowed to directly
regulate “the number of . . . units . . . per acre” in
the ETJ, as a practical matter, because the City
may regulate the dimensions and layout of the
lots, density may be, more or less, influenced by
authorized rules like minimum lot size,
minimum lot width, and right‐of‐way
dimensions.15 Therefore, if the City were to
require a minimum lot size of five acres, for
instance, due to the capacity of the adjoining
roadway and/or where there are not public
water and sewer systems available, effectively, a
relationship may be forged between lot size,
infrastructure demands, and the availability of
adequate public facilities. This authority is
granted to the City “to promote the health,
safety, morals, or general welfare of the
municipality and the safe, orderly, and healthful
development of the municipality.”16
(3) Together with the requirements for an increased
lot size could be an allowance – or incentive ‐ for
development clustering. The option would be
given to the land owner as to whether they
choose to develop with a large lot size or select a
clustering option that allows more density. In other words, rather than constructing a rural large lot
subdivision with no public open space, smaller lots would be required with a high ratio of public
open space. The result allows the rural character to remain with the advantages of fewer required
access points, less impervious cover, reduced water demands, increased recharge, and land
conservation. Given certain performance standards, the open land could continue to be used for
agricultural purposes.
(4) Through the delineation of “protection areas” the City
may strengthen their standards relating to the
protection and preservation of its resources. While the
City has regulations for floodplain areas, there are few
other standards for the delineation and protection of
wetlands, habitats, mature vegetated areas, or other
natural features. Resource protection standards
would provide a method and means for requiring
varying degrees of protection of resource features,
depending on their scale and significance, with
development flexibility and incentives by way of
density bonuses for constructing on the developable portions of the site. The use of density bonuses
15 Such rules are permitted by Section 212.010(4), TLGC, which allows the same rules for subdivision in the ETJ as in the
municipality. Of course, in the ETJ, these rules are limited by Section 212.003, TLGC, so, for example, if a developer found a market
for multiple homes or buildings on a single lot in the ETJ, the City could not prohibit the development.
16 Section 212.002, Rules, Subchapter A, Regulation of Subdivisions, Texas Local Government Code
23
Draft 01/04/08 Page 12 of 27
may allow a higher gross density as an incentive by adjusting lots sizes or using different housing
types in combination with an open space ratio.
(5) A development plat is a way for the City to regulate development within the City limits and ETJ that
may otherwise be exempt from the subdivision plat process.17 The City has provisions for
development plats, with stated exemptions. It is advisable for the City to reconsider the waiver
allowance as well as the exemptions and instead, require submittal of a development plat for all
projects in the ETJ. Such a requirement would be of great value to document all improvements,
easements, and rights‐of‐way, and most importantly, because it must be approved to conform to: (1)
the general plans, rules, and ordinances of the municipality concerning its current and future streets,
sidewalks, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public utility facilities; (2) the general plans, rules, and
ordinances for the extension of the municipality or the extension, improvement, or widening of its
roads, streets, and public highways within the municipality and in its extraterritorial jurisdiction,
taking into account access to and extension of sewer and water mains and the instrumentalities of
public utilities; and (3) [the subdivision plat regulations]. The subdivision plat process does not
allow the municipality to require building permits or enforce its building code in the ETJ.18
(6) Incorporation of the parkland dedication requirements into the subdivision regulations, which will
allow the dedication or fee in‐lieu provisions to be extended into and throughout the ETJ. Effectively,
this will ensure that development outside of the City limits is fulfilling its proportionate demands on
the community’s park system similar to the requirements for development inside the City. This
would remove this current advantage for developing in the ETJ.
Annexation
The means that most communities use to exercise control of the pattern and type of development outside
of the City limits is to extend the City limits by annexation. Annexation allows the City the ability to
impose its land development regulations, which provides an essential growth management tool to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. Annexation also extends the Cityʹs ETJ enabling it to regulate the
subdivision and development of land over a larger area. However, it is important to realize the stringent
requirements mandated by State law for extending services to newly‐annexed areas in a timely and
adequate manner, which must be comparable to pre‐existing services and service levels in similar
incorporated areas. Requirements for annexation include:
A three‐year annexation plan to identify specific properties the City intends to annex following a
three‐year waiting period;
Acting on annexation proposals within 31 days after the three‐year waiting period to prevent the
subject properties from becoming exempt from annexation for another five years;
Inventorying all current services in the annexation are (including services provided by all entities, the
condition of facilities, existing public safety response times, and current service costs);
Preparing a municipal service plan for the targeted area within 10 months of receiving data for the
service inventory;
Immediately extending basic public services (police, fire, and EMS) and “full municipal services,”
including necessary capital improvements, within 2.5 years of annexation, unless certain exceptions
apply (such as a negotiated service schedule for a requested annexation);
Possibly negotiating agreements in lieu of annexation to formalize interim service provision and cost‐
sharing arrangements and possible compliance with City ordinances or development standards;
17 The authority to require a development plats is provided in Section 212.044, Local Government Code.
18 Section 212.049, Texas Local Government Code
24
Draft 01/04/08 Page 13 of 27
Table 1, Annexation Level of Service Requirements
Generally
If the level of services,
infrastructure, and
infrastructure
maintenance in the
affected area before
annexation was:
Then services, infrastructure, and
infrastructure maintenance must
be:
Lower than in the
municipality
“Comparable to the level . . .
available in other parts of the
municipality with topography, land
use, and population density similar
to those reasonably contemplated
or projected in the [annexed]
area.”
Equal to the municipality “[T]hat same [pre-annexation] level
. . . .”
Superior to the
municipality
Re: services “Comparable to the level . . .
available in other parts of the
municipality with topography, land
use, and population density similar
to those reasonably contemplated
or projected in the [annexed]
area.”
Re: operating and
maintaining
infrastructure
Equal to or superior to the pre-
annexation level.
Potentially entering into arbitration proceedings if annexation planning and negotiation is
unsuccessful; and,
Potentially negotiating “strategic partnership agreements” with special districts.
Of significance in the law is an exemption from
the above requirements for annexation proposals
that will involve fewer than 100 tracts of land
where each tract contains at least one residential
dwelling. With the exception of sizeable
developments, most annexations are exempt
from the above requirements. Also, the City may
not annex more than 10 percent of its land area
in any given year. If it does not annex all of the
land that is allowed, the difference rolls over to
the next year. If multiple carryovers are
accumulated, the City can annex up to 30
percent of its land area in a single year.
State law provides for the minimum level of
service that must be extended to the annexed
areas, as described in Table 1, Annexation Level
of Service Requirements.
Significantly, State law does “not require that a
uniform level of full municipal services be
provided to each area of the municipality if
different characteristics of topography, land use,
and population density constitute a sufficient
basis for providing different levels of service.”19
Therefore, the law appears to allow the City to
annex territory and provide minimal services if
those services are commensurate with that provided in areas of similar “topography, land use, and
population density” within the City. Yet such a strategy is not necessarily without risk ‐‐ disputes with
affected landowners over levels of service could expose the municipality to civil penalties, court costs,
and attorneys’ fees.20 Accordingly, the City should plan carefully and involve the City Attorney early in
the process if it chooses a growth management strategy that involves providing a minimal (rural) level of
service to a newly annexed area.
Often, there are warranted reasons for considering annexation, including, among others, the ability to
impose the City’s land development regulations along major transportation corridors and in prime
development areas that may otherwise compromise the community’s long‐term interests. There are
several areas for which the City is now considering annexation. Since the primary purpose for
annexing these areas is to exert control of probable growth areas, it is advisable for the City to employ
19 Section 43.056(m), Texas Local Government Code
20 Section 43.056(l), Texas Local Government Code
25
Draft 01/04/08 Page 14 of 27
The Texas statutes set out several purposes for zoning. Zoning
regulations must be designed to:
1. lessen congestion in the streets;
2. secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers;
3. promote health and the general welfare;
4. provide adequate light and air;
5. prevent the overcrowding of land;
6. avoid undue concentration of population; or
7. facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewers, schools, parks, and other public requirements.
Source: Section 211.004, Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
Clustering allows development value while preserving
the rural, open character.
growth management techniques in these areas to prevent premature development. For instance,
unless the City is prepared to extend full municipal facilities and services – and such are determined
to be efficient and feasible – these area should be zoned for Agricultural‐Open, which may serve as a
holding zone until which time as the City determined development to be appropriate and of fiscal
benefit.
Zoning Regulations
Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code
authorizes the City to enact zoning regulations to
control building height and size; lot coverage; yards
and open spaces; population density; the location
and use of buildings; the location of land that may
be put to various business, industrial, residential, or
other purposes; the extraction of groundwater
(except by retail public utilities); and, in home‐rule
municipalities like College Station, the bulk of
buildings. Zoning regulations are not authorized
outside of the municipality’s corporate boundaries
without the consent of the affected landowner(s).21
In concert with annexation, all newly incorporated areas should to be zoned “A‐O” Agricultural‐Open,
without consideration of any other zoning district classification unless merited by way of being within a
defined “growth area.” However, to serve its growth management function, the minimum lot size must
be increased from five to 20 or more acres. Therefore, the open, rural character of these areas would be
maintained and their rezoning to another district classification could be timed with the City’s staged
growth plan and infrastructure improvement plans.
The City could allow for very low density residential
development in these agriculturally zoned areas by
allowing extreme clustering. This enables there to be
development value to this land and also allows for
construction of additional homes. As an example, one
dwelling unit per 20 acres with no required open space
equates to a gross density of 0.050 units per acre. A one
acre lot with a septic system and well and 85 percent open
space allows an increase to 0.070 units per acre. Similarly,
a one acre lot with a septic system and public water and 90
percent open space equates to the same 0.150 units per
acre. Therefore, clustered residential development may be
allowed with a corresponding high open space
21 Generally, the power to zone may only be exercised within the municipality. “The governing body of a municipality may divide
the municipality into districts of a number, shape, and size the governing body considers best for carrying out this subchapter.” §
211.005(a), TLGC (emphasis added). However, one way to enforce zoning regulations in the ETJ is to enter into a development
agreement with the affected landowner pursuant to Subchapter G of Chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code. See §
212.172(b), TLGC.
26
Draft 01/04/08 Page 15 of 27
requirement to preserve the agricultural character. Slightly higher levels of density may also be permitted
to allow more development value without compromising the character of pattern of peripheral
development.
The most viable means of growth management for the City, given the limitations of State law, is to annex
the maximum allowable 30 percent of its land area, followed by annexations of the maximum allowed 10
percent each year until the incorporated area encompasses land sufficient to support 30 to 50 years of
growth, all areas of strategic interest, and the defined long‐term growth boundary. This strategy,
however, requires the City to establish that there are areas within the corporate limits that have similar
“topography, land use, and population density” to those being annexed for which there are minimal
facilities and services being provided. If this is the case, a uniform level of municipal service is not
mandated making large‐scale annexation more feasible. If this cannot be established, a service plan must
be prepared and robust cost‐benefit analysis conducted to determine the feasibility of the annexations.
Then, a policy decision would be necessary to consider the value of annexation and growth control
versus the added cost for providing the state mandated services.
Zoning Ordinance Simplification and Development Streamlining
If the City is to successfully entice development to occur within the City limits rather than the ETJ, its
development processes and timing of approvals must not be a constraint. Since a plat is the only required
approval for development (of less than five acre lots) in the ETJ, the complexity of the process and length
of time to gain approval within the City may outweigh the benefits of in‐City development (public
utilities, improved emergency response times, increased convenience, zoning controls, etc.). Therefore,
although the City’s current process is not atypical, there are significant improvements to be made, of
which the more significant and relevant include the following:
First and foremost, there are opportunities to reduce the number of zoning districts. The structure of
the current districts requires a zone change should a property owner decide to development more
than one use or to change the use. At the same time, use‐based districts offer no assurance of the
character of compatibility of abutting developments.
The use‐based districts may be consolidated into fewer districts that are based on the intended
character of the district. For residential districts, character is defined by the allowable density and
required open space ratio, as well as other performance standards relating to the floor area ratio
(FAR), landscaping, etc. The character of non‐residential districts is defined by the use intensity
(measured by FAR) and a landscape surface ratio, along with standards relating to building scale,
lighting, signage, and other design requirements. As displayed in Figure 3, Illustrative District
Classification, within each district is allowed a range of development options, each with
corresponding standards to retain the intended character. The benefits of this approach include:
- Ability to determine the character of future development.
- Increased certainty in the development process and assurance of outcomes.
- Improved compatibility within and between districts.
- Multiple development options within each district adding flexibility while preserving
development character.
- Fewer zoning map amendments.
- Ability to preserve resources while achieving an equivalent or higher density.
- Ability to better plan for infrastructure needs.
- Allowance for mixed use without a separate Planned Development District zoning process.
27
Draft 01/04/08 Page 16 of 27
Table 3, Illustrative District Classification
Within the Suburban Residential zoning district, for example, are three development options, each with a
corresponding lot size, open space ratio (OSR), and allowed intensity/density. Note the incentive for planned
development by way of increased density while retaining 85 percent open space.
Adequate public facilities requirements would essentially
stage the scale of development concurrent with the
requisite capacity improvements. This may be applied to
roads, utilities, and schools, among others.
- Buffering commensurate with the level of impact.
- Lessens use incompatibility due to the cumulative nature of the current districts.
The above approach incorporates planned development as an option that is permitted by right,
subject to applicable standards. Density bonuses are used as an incentive for encouraging this type of
development, offering more density in exchange for increased open space and amenities. Therefore,
the approval process is streamlined by avoiding the timely zoning map amendment process.
Adequate Public Facilities Requirements
An approach that may help to manage the pattern of growth is allowing development to occur only as
adequate facilities and services are available. This requires other growth management provisions though,
to determine where and when infrastructure will be
provided. If the City commits to provide sewer service
with an expanded CCN and water is readily available
through other sources, then the question of adequate
public facility availability is a moot point. If however,
facilities are requested outside of the City’s designated
growth area, this mechanism may be effective if there is
not other means of acquiring the requisite infrastructure.
Also known as concurrency requirements, essentially this
mechanism ensures that infrastructure is existing or
readily – and efficiently ‐ available prior to or concurrent
with development. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
(APFOs) require applicants for new development to
demonstrate that facilities and services will be available to
serve the project at the time the development is available
28
Draft 01/04/08 Page 17 of 27
for occupancy. Utilizing this system, the City is able to adopt level‐of‐service standards, which can be
used as criterion for judging conformance with the subdivision regulations. The provisions of State law22
allow the City to condition property development for a portion of the infrastructure costs, which
supports this method. As an alternative, higher impact fees and/or increased developer participation in
infrastructure construction and financing may be necessary to shorten development timeframes.
This approach is practical in that it ties development to the capacity of the infrastructure systems to
support it. The value of this approach is its ability to establish a direct, causal link between the provision
of public facilities and the public health, safety, and welfare. The general components include:
1. Determining a service threshold at which demand exceeds the desired capacity of public facilities,
whether it is water and wastewater systems, roadways, parks, or schools. Generally, the difference
between the established threshold and the existing level of service is the amount available for
development.
2. Determining if there are projects that will be exempted or receive flexibility in meeting the threshold
requirements by way of achieving other community objectives, such as infill development, mixed
use, affordable housing, etc.
3. Determining the measures to remedy situations when the threshold is exceeded, including delay of
development until such time as the project no longer exceeds the threshold, reducing the project’s
impact to the point that it meets requirements, or mitigating the impact of the project by upgrading
public facilities or infrastructure.
4. Reserving the amount of capacity projected for a development during the time between approval of a
project and its completion, which counts against the total capacity of public facilities in future
applications for development. An expiration date for approved projects may be necessary so as not to
unnecessarily burden or deny other projects.
Provisions related to adequate public facilities could be added to the subdivision regulations. For
instance, the following – or similar – language could be used: “The City does not directly regulate the use,
density, or intensity of development in the ETJ. However, neither subdivision plat nor development plat approval
shall be granted for property located in the ETJ unless all of the following are demonstrated:
1. The water service to or within the development is sufficient to provide necessary potable water and sufficient
volume and pressure for fire flows to an appropriate number of appropriately spaced fire hydrants that are
necessary to protect the development.
2. The wastewater service to or within the development is sufficient to protect the health of the residents or the
general public.
3. The proposed subdivision plat or development plat has no material potential to cause contamination of a
municipal water supply that the City has jurisdiction to protect.”
Market Performance Standards
This approach is an alternative to an APFO, which better addresses the conflict between property rights
and the City’s obligation to provide infrastructure and services in a fiscally responsible manner. It
accomplishes the same things as performance standards in terms of added flexibility and clustering, but it
alters the approach to density and infrastructure level of service.
22 Section 212.904, Apportionment of Municipal Infrastructure Costs
29
Draft 01/04/08 Page 18 of 27
Traffic-sheds essentially identify the travel
areas for each road, allotting an
allowable density based upon a
proportional share of road capacity.
Many argue that the market is the best way to regulate development. This has merit only when all
elements are properly priced in the market. A problem as it relates to infrastructure, though, is that
support of development by adequate roads, police and fire services, schools, and other public services is
not part of the market equation. For example, road improvement and long‐term maintenance are not
considered in a real estate transaction. A person who purchases a home on a gravel road does not
necessarily pay less for the home. Therefore, when the road requires maintenance it becomes the City’s
obligation to make the improvements. Except for the most expensive housing, the tax revenue from
residential development is insufficient to cover the requisite costly infrastructure improvements and
service expansion.
A market performance ordinance addresses the capacity of
infrastructure. Where growth occurs roads will eventually require
widening or surface improvements as the traffic volumes exceed the
road capacity. Therefore, market performance ordinances create what is
known as traffic‐sheds for unimproved and under‐improved roads.
Since the traffic volumes and capacity of the road may be known, there
may be an allotment of dwelling units per acre based upon a
proportionate share of the road capacity. Therefore, the capacity is
spread evenly across all properties in the traffic‐shed rather than on a
first‐come‐first‐serve basis as in the APFO approach.
Each landowner has the right to use their proportionate share of the
available road capacity. Roads with very low capacity or where there is
a very large area within the traffic‐shed result in lower densities. The
difference is that the market offers the landowner a range of options not
available under other types of ordinances, including the following:
The allowable density may be altered by improving the road as part of the development cost. If a few
hundred feet of improvements are needed to improve capacity, the improvements will likely be
funded. If there is a long distance that must be improved it is unlikely that it will be funded, meaning
that the development pattern occurs in a more contiguous – rather than leapfrog ‐ manner.
A new road may be constructed to create a new traffic‐shed, which may reduce the size of the traffic‐
shed allowing increased density. This option is available only where there is direct access to an
improved collector or arterial roadway.
Development may occur in phases reserving the balance of land for subsequent phases as additional
capacity becomes available upon improvement of the road.
Development may occur at the permitted density with large acreages. If the acreages are of sufficient
size and have proper frontage, there may be added development potential upon improvement of the
road.
There may be a transfer of development rights to other property. Upon improvement of the road the
agricultural area may receive additional density allowing development at that time.
A landowner or group of landowners could form an improvement district to pay for road
improvements, subject to City standards and criteria.
30
Draft 01/04/08 Page 19 of 27
Table 2, Impact Fees
Summary
Purpose: To allocate the costs of
providing additional
infrastructure to serve new
development to that new
development.
Strengths: Fair share fee allocation; cash
payments help avoid
potentially dangerous
piecemeal improvements to
dedicated rights-of-way.
Limitations: No street impact fees may be
charged in the ETJ (where
formerly rural roads are likely to
be more easily overwhelmed
by new development).
Since State law specifically indicates that “a municipality shall not regulate: … (4) the number of
residential units that can be built per acre of land”,23 there would have to be a legal basis established for
the ordinance based on the City’s jurisdiction to “promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of
the municipality and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of the municipality.”24
Impact Fees
Impact fees are charged to new development for the construction of new infrastructure that is needed to
serve the development. They are related to special assessments, except that: (1) they are charged to new
development upon approval rather than to all owners within a particular district; and (2) they may only
be charged for the fair share of infrastructure required as a result of the new development. Provided in
Table 2, Impact Fees, is a summary of their purpose, strengths,
and limitations.
Impact fees facilitate a planned, coordinated approach to
providing infrastructure. In Texas, impact fees may be used to
fund water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities;
wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water,
drainage, and flood control facilities; and roadway facilities
that are needed to serve new development according to a
capital improvements plan (including planning, engineering,
land acquisition, and construction).25 They cannot be used to
fund:
Facilities that are not in the capital improvements plan;
Repairs, operation, or maintenance of existing facilities;
Upgrades to existing facilities to meet new standards;
Upgrades to existing facilities to better serve existing
development;
Operating costs of the local government; and
Payments on debt that is not related to expenditures that may be paid by impact fees.
Impact fees must be supported by technical analysis of qualified professionals, set out in a capital
improvements plan. The plan must:
Describe existing capital improvements and projected costs to meet existing needs (including stricter
safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, if applicable);
Analyze the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the
existing capital improvements;
Describe the capital improvements (including costs) that are necessitated by and attributable to new
development based on the approved land use assumptions;
Provide a definitive table that relates capital improvements costs to “service units” that will serve as
the basis for impact fees;
23 Section 212.003, Extension of Rules of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Texas Local Government Code
24 Section 212.002, Rules, Texas Local Government Code
25 Impact fees for roadway facilities may not be charged in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. See § 395.011(b), TLGC.
31
Draft 01/04/08 Page 20 of 27
Estimate the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area, based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; and
Project the demand for capital improvements required by new service units, over a reasonable period
of time up to 10 years.
Impact fees use the same theoretical basis as adequate public facilities ordinances. Essentially, the City
would establish the capacity of all applicable facilities and the required standard; for example, the level of
service (LOS) for roads or number of acres of parks per one thousand persons. The impact fee is then
established to generate the funds needed to provide the desired level of service for all facilities. Rather
than exhausting capacity, impact fees require payment for a proportionate share of the burden created.
Since the City has impact fees for some defined service areas,26 this instrument could be expanded to
encompass other areas of the City and ETJ, as allowed by State law. Impact fees may be particularly
appropriate for portions of the City’s defined growth area for which there are no plans for infrastructure
improvements within the five‐year capital improvement program. This would essentially allow
development to occur consistent with the growth plan, but without committing the City to prematurely
construct such facilities and services. Specific criteria must be established as to the appropriateness of and
under what circumstances the City may consider the use of impact fees to allow development to occur –
or not occur – in areas outside of the defined growth area(s). This would be an essential prerequisite for
the development of this program to ensure that the integrity of the City’s growth strategy may be upheld.
Conservation Easements
Conservation easements cover a broad range of purposes, whether it is for wildlife or resource
management, scenic preservation, or to limit the use of land. A few communities are using conservation
easements to control their growth and preserve their agricultural areas, such as Solebury Township in
Bucks County, Pennsylvania. With a conservation easement, the landowner continues to own the land
and is responsible to maintain it. The land remains on the tax roles although there may be significant tax
advantages to the landowner for the dedication of an easement, which also lowers the cost of acquisition.
An agricultural easement could allow the landowner the right to continue to farm the land and keep their
home and buildings. It could also allow some additional development.
An important aspect of this concept is its flexibility. It can identify a variety of restrictions and
development options that may be tailored to the needs of the landowner and the City as the agency
accepting the conservation easement. This provides an opportunity to tailor the acquisition to meet
landowner concerns and reduce the cost of the easement.
This instrument is most appropriate for and may best be used to supplement a host of other management
techniques, rather than as an independent method of conserving resources and open space. For instance,
there may be attractive incentives integrated into the zoning ordinance whereby density bonuses are
offered in exchange for preservation of open space. This tool can and is being used effectively in some
jurisdictions.
26 Chapter 15, Impact Fees
32
Draft 01/04/08 Page 21 of 27
Table 3, Development Agreements
Summary
Purpose: Allow municipalities and
developers within the ETJ to
negotiate and agree to terms
regarding annexation, land
use controls, infrastructure and
utilities.
Strengths: Allows municipalities to
exercise some control over the
use, character and quality of
the development within the
ETJ, provided that the
landowner consents.
Limitations: Many limitations reduce the
leverage of the municipality to
encourage developers to
enter into a development
agreement.
Development Agreements
Development agreements are written contracts that can be used for a wide variety of purposes, including
to impose land use and environmental controls (planning authority, existing zoning regulations, new
land development regulations, or specific uses and development, and environmental regulations) over
property in the ETJ in exchange for the provision of infrastructure and public services (e.g., streets;
drainage; and water, wastewater, and other utilities), and/or a guarantee to annex the property (on
agreed upon terms), or not to annex the property for a period of not more than 15 years. Development
agreements run with the land, but do not bind end‐buyers of fully developed lots, except with respect to
land use and development regulations that apply to the lots. Provided in Table 3, Development
Agreements, is a summary of their purpose, strengths, and limitations.
Development agreements are contracts, and as such, require
negotiation and execution by the City and developer. In many
cases, there is little incentive for the developer to enter into a
development agreement because the City has relatively little
leverage. For example:
The City may not condition the provision of municipal
utilities on the execution of a development agreement.27
No leverage is created by impact fees for roadway facilities
because such fees “may not be enacted or imposed in the
extraterritorial jurisdiction.” This is apparently so even if
the roadway facilities are provided by development
agreement.
Developers have several alternatives to provide for
infrastructure and utilities, such as a petition for the
creation of a political subdivision (as described below). The
City may place only very limited conditions on the
formation of the political subdivision.28
This is not to say however, that the City has no leverage. Indeed, cooperation may bring mutual
advantages to the City and developer, especially if the City is able to provide timely infrastructure and
services on reasonable terms. Since the City may enter into development agreements with landowners in
the ETJ29 this may offer an opportunity for providing services in exchange for abiding by the City’s
development regulations and meeting other community objectives, e.g. resource protection, etc.
Improvement Districts
Improvement districts may be created to fund infrastructure improvements by special assessment against
the property owners who principally benefit from them in fair proportion to the level of their benefit.
Improvement districts are run by the governmental unit that creates them, in this case, the City. They
have the power to impose a special assessment, but not to tax. Provided in Table 4, Improvement
Districts, is a summary of their purpose, strengths, and limitations.
27 “A municipality may not require [a development] agreement . . . as a condition for providing water, sewer, electricity, gas, or
other utility service from a municipally owned or municipally operated utility that provides any of those services.” § 212.174, TLGC.
28 The conditions do not involve land use controls or annexation.
29 Development agreements are authorized by Subchapter G of Chapter 212, Texas Local Government Code.
33
Draft 01/04/08 Page 22 of 27
Table 4, Improvement Districts
Summary
Purpose: To fund public improvements
and programs by assessing
those landowners who benefit
from them.
Strengths: Those who pay special
assessments are those who
directly benefit from the
improvements funded by
them; improvement districts
are administered by the
governmental unit that formed
them.
Limitations: Potentially lengthy process for
improvement district
formation.
Public improvements that may be funded by an improvement district include:
1. landscaping;
2. erection of fountains, distinctive lighting, and signs;
3. acquiring, constructing, improving, widening, narrowing,
closing, or rerouting of sidewalks or of streets, any other
roadways, or their rights‐of‐way;
4. construction or improvement of pedestrian malls;
5. acquisition and installation of pieces of art;
6. acquisition, construction, or improvement of libraries;
7. acquisition, construction, or improvement of off‐street
parking facilities;
8. acquisition, construction, improvement, or rerouting of
mass transportation facilities;
9. acquisition, construction, or improvement of water,
wastewater, or drainage facilities or improvements;
10. the establishment or improvement of parks;
11. projects similar to those listed in 1 through 10 above;
12. acquisition, by purchase or otherwise, of real property in
connection with an authorized improvement;
13. special supplemental services for improvement and promotion of the district, including services
relating to advertising, promotion, health and sanitation, water and wastewater, public safety,
security, business recruitment, development, recreation, and cultural enhancement; and
14. payment of expenses incurred in the establishment, administration, and operation of
the district.
And, in the case of home rule municipalities like College Station:
15. levying, straightening, widening, enclosing, or otherwise improving a river, creek, bayou, stream,
other body of water, street, or alley; [and]
16. draining, grading, filling, and otherwise protecting and improving the territory within the
municipality’s limits.
The City may create an improvement district within its corporate limits or ETJ, after a process in which:
A petition is initiated by the affected landowners or the local government;
One or more public hearings are held regarding: the advisability of the improvement; the nature of
the improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement; the boundaries of the public improvement
district; the method of assessment; and the apportionment of costs between the district and the
municipality or county as a whole;
The local government issues an improvement order (by majority vote); and
Notice of the order is published.30
An ongoing service plan must be approved by the City. The plan “must cover a period of at least five
years and must also define the annual indebtedness and the projected costs for improvements.” The
30 The local government may also undertake a feasibility study and appoint an advisory committee with regard to the formation of
the improvement district. See §§ 372.007 and 372.008, TLGC.
34
Draft 01/04/08 Page 23 of 27
Table 5, Interlocal Cooperation Contracts
Summary
Purpose: To increase the efficiency of
local governments by
enhancing cooperation
among them.
Strengths: High degree of flexibility to
contract in order to provide a
wide variety of governmental
services.
Limitations: Interlocal cooperation
contracts facilitate the use of
other growth management
tools, therefore their
effectiveness depends largely
upon how well they are
implemented and what they
provide for.
service plan must include an assessment plan31 and must “be reviewed and updated annually for the
purpose of determining the annual budget for improvements.”
Use of this instrument may be feasible and warranted as a means for meeting the infrastructure needs
within the City’s “growth area(s)” for which the City is not yet prepared to commit capital resources. This
may include outlying portions of the “growth area(s)” where near‐term infrastructure provision and
service expansion is not yet feasible.
Interlocal Cooperation Contracts
Interlocal cooperation contracts are authorized by Chapter 791, Texas Government Code (TGC). The
purpose of the interlocal cooperation contract is to: “increase the efficiency and effectiveness of local
governments by authorizing them to contract, to the greatest possible extent, with one another and with
agencies of the state.” Provided in Table 5, Interlocal Cooperation Contracts, is a summary of their
purpose, strengths, and limitations. Chapter 791 provides broad authority for municipalities to contract
with each other, with counties, with special districts and political subdivisions, with federally recognized
tribal governments that are located in the state of Texas, and
with state agencies to provide “governmental function[s] or
service[s] that each party to the contract is authorized to
perform individually.” Such functions and services include:
“Functions normally associated with the routine operation
of government, including tax assessment and collection,
personnel services, purchasing, records management
services, data processing, warehousing, equipment repair,
and printing.”
“Police protection and detention services; . . . fire
protection; . . . streets, roads, and drainage; . . . public
health and welfare; . . . parks and recreation; . . . library and
museum services; . . . records center services; . . . waste
disposal; . . . planning; . . . engineering; . . . administrative
functions; . . . public funds investment; . . . comprehensive
health care and hospital services; or . . . other
governmental functions in which the contracting parties
are mutually interested.”
Water supply and wastewater treatment, various types of correctional and criminal justice facilities,
transportation infrastructure, and purchasing contracts.32
Growth management is most effective when approached from several levels of government. Therefore,
interlocal cooperation contracts are advised between the City, Brazos County, as well as each of the
applicable water control and improvement districts (WCIDs).
31 City and County owned property is not exempt from assessment. See §§ 372.014, TLGC.
32 Sections 791.021 et seq., TGC set out additional substantive and procedural requirements for these types of agreements.
35
Draft 01/04/08 Page 24 of 27
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Given limited mechanisms within State law to directly manage growth,33 the City must use a multi‐
pronged strategy to effectively direct its future growth and development in a contiguous and fiscally
responsible manner. First and foremost, the City must have a sound statement of its growth policies
through the Comprehensive Plan, effectively stating the purpose and intent for managing the timing and
pattern of urban development. The Comprehensive Plan must be sufficiently detailed to express the
general pattern and character of future development, as well as the general plan for providing (or
allowing to be provided) the infrastructure (i.e. streets, water and sewer lines, drainage facilities, parks,
etc.) required to support it. Without a certain degree of specificity as to the City’s sequential growth plan ‐
and its corresponding capital infrastructure plan ‐ the City will be handicapped in its ability to
adequately regulate the subdivision of land in the peripheral and outlying portions of its ETJ.
The standards of approval set out by the Texas Local Government Code,34 state that:
(a) The municipal authority responsible for approving plats shall approve a plat if:
1. it conforms to the general plan of the municipality and its current and future streets, alleys,
parks, playgrounds, and public utility facilities;
2. it conforms to the general plan for the extension of the municipality and its roads, streets, and
public highways within the municipality and in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, taking into
account access to and extension of sewer and water mains and the instrumentalities of public
utilities, et al;
Since the approval of subdivision development is ministerial in function given the above requirement, the
City must use the authority granted to it by Chapter 212, Municipal Regulation of Subdivisions and
Property Development, to spell out its “general plan” and what is required for the subdivision of land. In
other words, “level the playing field” with regard to the expectations of development standards in the
ETJ that are proportional and comparable to that in the City limits. After all it is the expectation that the
ETJ will become part of the City at an appropriate point in the future thereby warranting adherence to the
City’s plan.
Lastly, the City must consider its authority to annex land into the corporate limits, which offers the most
direct control as to managing the timing, pattern, and character of future development. While
strengthening the subdivision regulations is an essential step, its most substantive benefit is to affect the
standard of development without the benefit of specifying the use or character (density, intensity, bulk,
height, etc.) of land.35 The City must therefore, consider its plan for incorporating that portion of the ETJ
that is within its defined growth area, either by way of landowner petition or City‐initiated annexation. In
and of itself, incorporating land does not necessarily commit it for urban development. Rather,
depending on the plan and timing for the provision of adequate facilities and services, the City may
choose to zone areas outside of the defined near‐term growth area (to be defined through the
Comprehensive Plan process) Agriculture‐Open “A‐O” until which time as it is appropriate to extend
adequate facilities and services.
33 There are no growth management provisions per se within State law other than the methods and means outlined in this paper.
34 Section 212.010. Standards for Approval, Texas Local Government Code
35 Section 212.003, Extension of Rules to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Texas Local Government Code, limits the City’s ability to
regulate in the ETJ the use, bulk, height, or size of buildings or property; the number of buildings or residential units; and the size,
type, or method of construction of a water or wastewater facility that meets minimum standards of state and federal regulatory
entities, et al.
36
Draft 01/04/08 Page 25 of 27
There are a series of steps that are advisable for the City to take in its commitment to manage its urban
form. These include:
1. Strengthen the Sewer Extension Policy – The application requesting a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity (CCN) that generally coincides with the boundaries of the ETJ (assuming authorization
by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) obligates the City to provide sewer service
when it is requested and consistent with its sewer extension policy. It is therefore, essential that the
City critically review and subsequently clarify and strengthen its sewer extension policy to ensure
that development occurs in a manner that is consistent and compatible with its growth plan and
capital infrastructure plan. The policy should include, but not limited to, provisions regarding:
a. Consistency with the strategic growth staging plan and future land use plan outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the City’s utility master plans and the five‐year capital improvement plan;
c. Strict adherence to the City’s growth policies and rural development standards, including
verifiable demonstration on behalf of the subdivider that adequate facilities and services (i.e.
minimum required fire flows, on‐site drainage capacity, road capacity, parkland dedication, etc.)
are present or will be present concurrent with development phasing; and
d. Criteria regarding the cost effectiveness and fiscal impact on the City for its participation in over‐
sizing improvements that it requires for future development.
2. Amend the Subdivision Regulations – The following amendments are advisable:
a. Establish a minimum lot size of 20 acres for rural development that is within the ETJ. So as not to
be inconsistent with the limitation of State law concerning regulating the density of development
in the ETJ, allow an equivalent density to coincide with the five acre platting exemption36 with a
mandatory requirement for development clustering. Effectively, this approach reallocates density
and does not limit it below what is allowed by State law. For instance, the lot size may be
reduced to two acres as long as the density remains at 0.25 units per acre. As an incentive, the
City may also allow a reduction in lot size to as small as one acre (or greater should it increase to
two acres as now being considered by the County Commission) to coincide with the Brazos
County Health Department’s requirement for permitting septic systems, with an increase in
density from 0.25 to 0.30 or more.
b. Clarify and strengthen the provision in the current subdivision regulations stating that “All
subdivisions shall be provided with water supply and distribution systems for fire protection and
domestic use.”37 More specifically, the regulations should establish under what circumstances
development is required to connect to a public potable water system or is allowed on‐site service.
Furthermore, minimum quantity (gallons per minute), pressure (psi), hydrant spacing, and
minimum line size should be established within the City’s standards. In cases where fire
protection demands are greater than set forth by City standards, then the supply and pressure
requirements for fire protection should control. Fire hydrants should be placed in accordance
with City standards, State Board of Insurance, Insurance Service Organization, or adopted Fire
Code requirements, whichever is most stringent.
36 Section 212.004, Plat Required, Texas Local Government Code, provides that “A division of land under this subsection does not
include a division of land into parts greater than five acres, where each part has access and no public improvement is being
dedicated.
37 Section 8: General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design, Subsection 8‐O, Water Supply, City of College Station
Subdivision Regulations (reference Ordinance No. 1971 of August 27, 1992)
37
Draft 01/04/08 Page 26 of 27
1. For public water systems, provisions should be added to the City’s standards specifying that
water service by a public water supply approved by TCEQ may be permitted if the
subdivider provides an executed agreement with a retail public utility demonstrating that:
a. the retail public utility has or will have the ability to supply the total flow anticipated
from the ultimate development and occupancy of the proposed subdivision; and
b. The subdivider has paid the cost of water meters and other necessary connection
equipment, membership fees, water rights acquisition costs in accordance with
provisions of the City Code on water rights.
2. For non‐public water systems, the subdivider should have prepared and provide a copy of a
groundwater availability study and certifies long‐term quantity and quality of available
groundwater supplies, and a demonstration that the water meets standards for water quality
required for community water systems as set forth by the State.
c. To preserve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of rural roadways, which may become urban
arterials in the future, adopt access management requirements for rural development that are
consistent or similar to those recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
The minimum spacing of property access points should be based on the posted speed limit, with
greater spacing required for roads with higher posted speeds. The minimum widths of lots must
then correspond to the access standards to allow adequate access for each property or
development. In the example outlined in 2.a. above, a clustered development should have a
single point of joint access rather than individual driveways accessing the abutting roadway.
Application of these access requirements would encourage platting and likely reduce lot depth.
d. The above recommended amendment pertaining to access management will help to control the
number and location of access points to rural roadways but does not restrict the volume of traffic
that may be generated by development relative to the capacity of the adjacent roadway. In the
outlying portions of the ETJ the City should consider the use of traffic sheds, together with the
increased minimum rural lot size requirements, as an important approach to ensure that traffic
does not outstrip the capacity of the rural roadway. This approach controls the amount of
development by the capacity of the roads in the traffic shed by dividing the capacity of the traffic
shed in a peak hour by the number of acres in the traffic shed. Each landowner would then have
the right to use their proportion share of the available capacity. (Note: The options available to the
landowner are outlined on Page 18.)
3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance – For those portions of the future growth area that are within the City
limits but not yet suitable for urban development there are advisable amendments to the zoning
ordinance, as follows:
a. Similar to the above recommended minimum lot size for rural development, increase the
minimum lot size of the Agriculture‐Open “A‐O” district from five to 20 acres. A series of
development options should be allowed within the district allowing smaller lots sizes and
increased densities with corresponding increases in the amount of open space. For instance,
development types may include farmstead, cluster, and planned options with density bonuses
provided for cluster and planned development. This approach will prevent sprawling large‐lot
development and instead, result in development clustering thereby preserving the open,
agricultural character.
b. Prepare infill development standards so as to allow feasible development of vacant parcels
within the developed area of the City. Undeveloped tracts within the City limits usually remain
vacant for a variety of reasons, sometimes resulting from “green field” development
38
Draft 01/04/08 Page 27 of 27
requirements or a publicly infeasible zone change. In these instances there need to be options and
standards in place to allow compatible development.
4. Annexation of Areas Prone to Development –
a. For the purpose of protecting the City’s long‐term interests regarding ETJ development, strategic
community assets, and adjacent to major transportation corridors, seek first, to attain by way of
voluntary petition inclusion of properties into the ETJ.38 To establish reason for such voluntary
inclusion the City may consider negotiation of a non‐annexation development agreement39 with
those landowners that are outside of the 10‐year growth area and not interested in development.
A certain amount of development may be granted subject to the recommendations of 2.a. above.
b. Use the City’s annexation authority on an “as needed” basis to incorporate other development
pressure areas. The City may annex up to 10 percent of its land area each year, with a maximum
carryover up to 30 percent. To enable maximum growth control the City should seek to annex the
primary growth areas (to be defined through the Comprehensive Plan), which will generally
constitute a 10‐year holding capacity.
c. The City is obligated to provide for the extension of full municipal services (including police
protection, fire protection, emergency medical services, solid waste collection with stated
exceptions, and operation and maintenance of water and wastewater facilities not within the
service areas of another provider; roads and streets including lighting; parks, playgrounds, and
swimming pools; and other publicly owned facilities, buildings, or services. However, the level of
services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance is only required to be comparable to that
available in other parts of the municipality with topography, land use, and population density.
Therefore, it is advisable for the City to undertake a study to gauge the level of service within
similar areas within the City limits to establish a legal basis as to the requirement for the
provision of “full municipal services.”
5. Intergovernmental Cooperation – Coordinate and cooperate with the Brazos County Health
Department’s pursuit of increasing the minimum required lot size for permitting septic systems from
one to two acres. This will further the City’s pursuit of preserving the rural, agricultural character of
the outlying portions of the ETJ that are not within the horizon of the growth plan.
38 Chapter 42, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Municipalities, Section 42.022, Expansion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, provides that
“The extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality may expand beyond the distance limitations imposed by Section 42.021 to include
an area contiguous to the otherwise existing extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality if the owners of the area request
expansion.
39 Section 212.172, Development Agreement, authorizes the City to make a written contract with an owner of land in the ETJ to,
among other things, guarantee the continuation of the extraterritorial status of the land and its immunity from annexation for a
period not to exceed 15 years.
39
Growth Management Strategies
Staff Recommendation (October 2007)
Stated purposes for growth management strategies:
· Protection of health, safety, and welfare of area citizens (traffic, drainage,
building safety, etc.)
· Maximize net fiscal benefits of growth and development to the City of College
Station
· Maximize the efficiency of the delivery of City of College Station public services
· Protection of area character, particularly clear delineation of rural and urban areas
· Protection of environmental resources
Techniques to respond to these purposes:
· Comprehensive Planning
· Zoning Regulations
· Subdivision Regulations
· Annexation
· Development Agreements
· Impact Fees
· Improvement Districts
· Interlocal Cooperation
· Capital Improvement Programming
To some extent, the City is engaging in each of these techniques. The consultant
recommends adjustments in each of these areas to effectively manage growth and
development to achieve the stated purposes. Further, the consultant states that the most
readily available means for minimizing the impacts of growth in the ETJ is through the
subdivision regulations, though such revisions must be accompanied by adjustments in
many of the other identified techniques.
Staff believes that all options presented by the consultant except for those identified for
no further action will result in achieving the stated purposes and therefore recommends
that the those items identified for text amendments proceed and that those items
identified for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan proceed.
Staff Recommended Options:
· Take No Action at This Time
· Proceed with Text Amendment
· Incorporate into Comprehensive Plan Update
40
Take No Action at This Time
ü Transfer or Purchase of Development Rights
ü Development Clustering – develop incentives for clustering of development in the
ETJ
ü Development Plat – revise waivers and exemptions
Proceed with Text Amendments
ü Access Management – minimum lot width of 400’
ü Minimum Lot Size - minimum lot size of 20 acres
ü Parkland Dedication – extend parkland dedication into ETJ (already enacted)
ü Urban Density Street Option – remove development incentive
ü Redevelopment Standards – streamlined redevelopment procedures
Incorporate into Comprehensive Plan Update
ü Resource Protection Standards – identification of resource protection areas and
related standards
ü City A-O Zoning – minimum lot size of 20 acres
ü City A-OR Zoning – minimum lot size of 5 acres
ü Character based Zoning – shift from use based zoning to character based zoning
ü Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – establish APFO or Concurrency
requirements
ü Traffic sheds – development of traffic shed provisions in development ordinances
ü Impact Fees – extension of impact fees into the ETJ
ü Conservation Easements – identification of protection areas and acquisition of
easements
ü Improvement Districts – establishment of improvement districts to pay for
infrastructure
ü Identification of Growth Areas – identify planned growth areas and protection
areas
ü Master Plans Related to Land Use Plan – ensure that all master plans (utilities,
thoroughfares, parks, etc.) relate directly to the city’s land use plan.
ü Revise Oversize Participation Requirements – revise OP practices to minimize
city participation in “non-growth” areas
Other Activities to Proceed with
ü Annexation – exempt areas and development and continued maintenance of 3
year annexation plan
ü Development Agreement – development agreements in the ETJ
ü Interlocal Cooperation – interlocal cooperation agreements with the County and
service providers regarding subdivision review, floodplain management,
thoroughfare planning, utility provision, etc.
41
ü CCN – extension of the City’s sewer service area into the ETJ to ensure that
service provision in the ETJ will be consistent with city’s growth management
strategies
ü Implementation of CIP – Continued development and funding of the City’s CIP
for capital projects within the City
42
June 12, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 4
Planning & Development Services Director’s Annual Report
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding P&DS Department
activities 2007-08 and proposed activities for 2008-2013 based on the adopted Business
Plan.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council receive the report and provide any
comments and/or additional direction to staff.
Summary: The Director of Planning & Development Services was hired in June 2007. The
purpose of the presentation is to discuss the activities and accomplishments of the
Department over the past year and to discuss the direction of the Department over the next
few years based on the adopted Business Plan.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
43
June 12, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 5
CIP Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding recommended
projects for inclusion in 2008 bond referendum.
Recommendation(s): The 2008 CIP Citizen Advisory Committee’s (CAC) recommendation
is attached.
Summary: Brian Bochner, the committee chair will present the committee
recommendation. The CIP Citizen Advisory Committee, appointed by City Council on
December 13, 2007, was charged with developing a prioritized list of capital projects to be
considered in a bond referendum on November 4, 2008. The CAC recommendations were
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5th. A small group from the CAC
may ask for an opportunity to present a minority viewpoint and recommendation.
Ballot language will need to be adopted by Council no later than August 14, 2008 in order
for the bond referendum to be on the November 4th ballot,
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. Recommendation Memo
2. Project sheets
3. List of all projects considered
4. Committee roster
44
1
Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Planning and Zoning Commission Members
From: Brian Bochner, Chair
Derek Dictson, Vice Chair
2008 CIP Citizens Advisory Committee
Date: May 8, 2008
Subject: Recommended Projects for Inclusion in 2008 Bond Referendum
On December 13, 2007 The College Station City Council appointed 31 citizens of the city to
serve on the 2008 Capital Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Committee (CIP CAC). The
City Council charged the CIP CAC to recommend a prioritized list of projects that can be funded
with General Obligation Bond funds to the College Station City Council.
The committee worked over four months to receive input and develop recommendations. The
committee heard input from the community during four different open meetings in January; was
educated about and discussed projects proposed by city staff, the public and themselves;
discussed city plans and policies that should be considered in selecting and prioritizing projects;
and through a multiple ballot process, developed a set of prioritized projects that the CIP CAC
recommends to the City Council to present for voter approval of General Obligation Bonds.
Recommendations
1. Five Year Program at Current Tax Rate
City staff has projected that approximately $60,000,000 will be available over the next five years
at the current property tax rate to fund capital improvements under a general obligation bond
program. Consistent with the Council’s charge for a five year program at the existing tax rate,
the CIP CAC recommends the projects listed in Table 1 as its highest priority recommendations
for inclusion in a five year bond program at the current tax rate.
Table 1. Recommended Projects and Prioritization for Five Year Program
Project
Number*
Project
Rank Project Title
Estimated
Cost ($)
Cumulative
Total Cost ($)
200 1 Fire Station #6 6,000,000 6,000,000
105 2 Jones-Butler Phase 1 2,650,000 8,650,000
121 3 Traffic Signals 3,000,000 11,650,000
405 4 Creekview Neighborhood Park 500,000 12,150,000
110 5 Victoria Avenue 2,200,000 14,350,000
45
2
403 6 Neighborhood Park Improvements 860,000 15,210,000
409 7 Lincoln Center Addition 3,060,000 18,270,000
401 8 Central Park Improvements 800,000 19,070,000
103 9 Barron Road Widening Phase 2 10,100,000 29,170,000
303 10 Library Expansion 6,000,000 35,170,000
122 11 Hike Bike Trail Completion 1,000,000 36,170,000
407 12 Lick Creek Park Trail Completion 100,000 36,270,000
104/111 13 Barron Road East(104)/Lakeway Drive (111) 11,550,000 47,820,000
117 14 Sidewalks 300,000 48,120,000
404 15 Skate Park 800,000 48,920,000
402 16 East Dist Maintenance Shop Replacement 990,000 49,910,000
302 17 Community Center 7,619,000 57,529,000
116 18 Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail 3,867,000 61,396,000
408 19 Neighborhood Parks Revolving Fund 1,000,000 62,396,000
* Number reference project sheets included as appendix.
These projects are listed in descending order of priority. Should final revenue projections
provide a little more or less than the current estimate of $60,000,000, the bottom projects on the
list can be included or excluded as needed to fit the resources available.
2. Seven Year Program at Current Tax Rate
The committee recognized that council has most recently approved a five year bond program.
However, the committee recommends a seven year program at the existing tax rate to offer
greater commitment and flexibility to meet evolving growth and needs of the community within
the existing property tax rate. Projects to be included in the recommended seven year program
are those listed in the five year program plus the projects listed in Table 2. These projects are
listed in descending order of priority; their priorities follow those included in the recommended
five year program.
The committee recognizes that the city has grown rapidly in the past decade and more. This has
resulted in a backlog of needs for capital improvements. The recommended seven year set of
projects could be financed at the current tax rate over seven years. If the council prefers to
proceed with a five year program at the existing tax rate, the above five year program is
recommended.
Table 2. Recommended Additional Projects and Prioritization for Recommended Seven Year
Program.
Project
Number*
Project
Rank Project Title
Estimated
Cost ($)
Cumulative
Total Cost ($)
121** 3 Traffic Signals 1,200,000 63,596,000
106 20 University Dr Pedestrian Improvements Phase 2 - 5 5,848,000 69,444,000
46
3
414 21 Lick Creek Park Nature Center 1,500,000 70,944,000
100 22 Rock Prairie Road East 6,000,000 76,944,000
406 23 Purchase Parkland 800,000 77,744,000
119 24 Oversize Participation 1,000,000 78,744,000
118 25 Future Right of Way Acquisition 2,000,000 80,744,000
410 26 Purchase Community Parkland SW CS 1,250,000 81,994,000
411 27 Southwood Park Improvements 550,000 82,544,000
* Number reference project sheets included as appendix.
**Two additional years of traffic signal construction at two signals per year will increase project 121’s cost by
$1,200,000
3. SH6-Rock Prairie Interchange and Widening and Tax Rate Increase
One project – the improvements of the SH 6-Rock Prairie interchange and widening of Rock
Prairie west to Normand (project #101/102 in attachments) – would normally be funded jointly
by TxDOT and the City. However, TxDOT is suffering a funding shortage and cannot fund their
normal share (about 2/3 the total cost) in the near term. However, to permit critical projects to be
expedited, TxDOT has available agreements that could permit the City to finance the full cost of
the project and recover the state’s portion of the cost over time. To this point the City has not
approached TxDOT to enter such an agreement to expedite the project.
The CIP CAC recommends that expediting this project would be desirable and beneficial to the
City, and that this project should be pursued with TxDOT. Since recovery of the state share is
uncertain at this time, it is recommended that this project and its funding arrangement be
presented to voters as a separate proposal for approval.
In either case the committee feels that the SH6-Rock Prairie interchange and widening should be
presented separately to voters since the funding arrangement would be unconventional and the
net cost to the city uncertain at this time. The committee recommends this project be proposed
for funding from an incremental tax rate increase.
Table 3. Recommended Rock Prairie Road Improvements Program
Project
Number Project Title
Estimated
Cost ($)
Cumulative
Total Cost ($)
102 Rock Prairie Interchange Upgrade – TxDOT jurisdiction 11,000,000 11,000,000
101 Rock Prairie Widening to Normand – City jurisdiction 3,500,000 14,500,000
Although listed as two projects, both projects need to be constructed at the same time to function properly. The
CIP CAC recommends presenting these as a single project. They are listed separately here because TxDOT has
jurisdiction over project 102.
Summary of Recommendations
The CIP CAC recommends:
1. A seven year program of projects that can be funded at the existing property tax rate; and
47
4
2. An additional project – the SH6-Rock Prairie interchange and widening to the west – to
be submitted to voters for separate approval at an increase in property tax rate.
However, if City Council chooses to proceed with only a five year program, the committee
recommends the smaller program at the existing tax rate along with the separate additional SH6-
Rock Prairie project which would be submitted for separate approval.
Basis for Recommendations
The CIP CAC members attended four January 2008 public meetings to receive public input
including statements suggesting and supporting various projects. The committee then met eleven
times to consider that input; received briefings from city staff about proposed projects; and
discussed the city strategic plan, policies, comprehensive and other plans, and other pertinent
information to prepare for the project selection and prioritization process. Over a period of
several weeks the committee weighed the needs for and benefits of each proposed project. In a
sequential process the committee ranked projects until it reached the above recommendations.
Twenty-eight committee members served through the complete process with an 87 percent
attendance rate.
Funding and Revenue Estimates
The committee members want to make clear to City Council that they considered projects as they
were presented by staff. The proposals for at least a few projects have changed since the projects
were presented to the committee. The committee also understands that as each project proceeds
toward implementation, more detailed planning and council decisions may result in further
changes and corresponding changes in estimated costs. This may change the total cost of the
recommended program and possibly the number of projects that can be fully funded. The
committee recommends that the listed priorities be used to adjust total program size to
accommodate cost estimate refinements over the coming months. The same is true regarding
refinements to estimated bonding capacity over seven or five years.
Other Information
The attached project sheets describe each recommended project and its currently estimated
capital and net additional operating/maintenance costs. Also attached is a list of all projects
considered by the committee for the 2008 bond program. A list of committee members is also
attached.
Att: Project sheets
List of all projects considered
Committee roster
48
PROJECT: Rock Prairie Road East PROJECT #: 100
FUND: 139 - Street Capital Projects PROJECT
BUDGET: $6,000,000
PROJECT TBD
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. OVERHEAD PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0$0 $0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
This project is for the widening of Rock Prairie Road east of the bypass from HWY 6 to Bird Pond Road. This
project was highly recommended in the East College Station Transportation Study. In 2003, voters approved
funding for the design of this section of roadway as well as funds for acquisition of right of way. The design is
about 60% complete and land acquisition is underway. The project budget includes construction costs to widen
from two lanes to two in each direction with a center turn lane, including bike lanes, sidewalks, storm drainage
facilities, and street lighting. Both Rock Prairie Rd and Bird Pond Rd are on the Thoroughfare Plan, and this
project was ranked as a High priority project.
49
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET: $550,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 50,000 500,000 $550,000
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $50,000 $500,000 $0 $550,000
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $3,000
Service $5,000
Capital $0
TOTAL 0 $8,000
5,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
3,000
This project will cover the two basketball courts adjacent to the pool and Teen Center at Southwood Athletic Park.
These are very popular courts and pavilions will add greatly to the use of the courts. This would also enhance the
programming abilities of the EXIT Teen Center.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
$0
First Fiscal Year
411
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SOUTHWOOD PARK IMPROVEMENTS
50
PROJECT: PURCHASE PARKLAND - COMMUNITY PROJECT #: 410
PARK SITE IN SOUTHWEST CS
PROJECT
FUND: 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS BUDGET: $1,250,000
PROJECT FUNDING UNFUNDED
MANAGER:SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0
First Fiscal Year Annually
$0 $0
This would fund the future purchase of park land in southwest College Station for a community park. The exact
location is yet to be determined.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
51
PROJECT: LINCOLN CENTER ADDITION PROJECT #: 409
FUND: PROJECT
BUDGET: $3,060,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2004-05 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 60,000 $60,000
2010-11 3,000,000 $3,000,000
TOTAL $60,000 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $3,060,000
Total
Personnel $50,000
Supplies $10,000
Service $40,000
Capital $0
TOTAL $100,000
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
Completion of the approved W.A. Tarrow Park master plan includes additional parking (200 spaces), an
8,000 to 10,000 square foot addition to Lincoln Center, a small pavilion, and a backstop. Also, the
existing buildings that housed the maintenance crew will be converted to other uses. These buildings
were originally part of the former Lincoln High School. Also, purchase of one remaining property is
required.
$0
10,000
40,000
$100,000
UNFUNDED
First Fiscal Year Annually
$50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
52
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET: $1,000,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0
First Fiscal Year
408
FUND
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS REVOLVING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
This fund will be used to purchase neighborhood parks in advance of development. As the land develops, the fund
will be reimbursed through land dedication.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
53
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET: $100,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $1,000
Service
Capital $0
TOTAL $1,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
1,000
This project includes the installation of an improved surface along Iron Bridge Trail.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
AnnuallyFirst Fiscal Year
407
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
LICK CREEK PARK TRAIL COMPLETION
54
PROJECT: PURCHASE PARKLAND PROJECT #: 406
SOUTHWOOD
PROJECT
FUND: 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS BUDGET: $800,000
PROJECT FUNDING UNFUNDED
MANAGER:SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0
This would purchase a seventeen-acre tract adjacent to Southwood Athletic Complex. This would allow
expansion of the park. The southwest portion of College Station needs additional community park space.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
$0 $0
First Fiscal Year Annually
55
PROJECT: CREEKVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROJECT #: 405
FUND: 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PROJECT
BUDGET: $500,000
PROJECT FUNDING UNFUNDED
MANAGER: SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 500,000 $500,000
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000
Total
Personnel $30,000
Supplies $1,340
Service $9,500
Capital $750
TOTAL $41,590
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
CSISD is considering development of an elementary school south of Cypress Grove in Park Zone 10.
Discussions with CSISD about developing a needed neighborhood park at the site have been positive. This
would serve the school and a portion of Zone 10 that is underserved.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
$750
$30,000
$0 $41,590
1,340
9,500
Proposed Zone
10 Park
56
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET: $800,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL 0 $2,450
2,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
450
This project is for the construction of a skate park in College Station. This would include fencing, lights, signage,
etc. Parking is not included because a site has not been selected.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
$0 $2,450
First Fiscal Year
302
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SKATE PARK
57
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET:
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $5,000
Service $5,000
Capital $0
TOTAL 0 $10,000
First Fiscal Year
403
IMPROVEMENTS
$860,000
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
$0
5,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
5,000
This project would address Neighborhood Park improvements, bringing older parks up to current standards.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
58
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET:
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 90,000 900,000 $990,000
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $90,000 $900,000 $0 $990,000
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL 0$0
First Fiscal Year
402
REPLACEMENT
$990,000
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
EAST DISTRICT MAINTENANCE SHOP
$0 $0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
This project would move the current Central Park East District Maintenance Shop to an alternate location to
improve use of Central Park and eliminate the eyesore that the rear of the shop will present to City Center. This
would also allow traffic circulation through the City Center site through Central Park to Dartmouth Street.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
59
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET:
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $5,000
Service $10,000
Capital $0
TOTAL 0 $15,000
10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
5,000
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
AnnuallyFirst Fiscal Year
$0 $15,000
401
$800,000
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
UNFUNDED
CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS
The Central Park Softball fields will be converted to girls' softball in 2008. The concession/restroom building
was constructed in 1981 and is in poor condition. The entire facility needs complete renovation or
replacement. Replacement is the best option because of the limitations of the current two-story structure.
Extensive renovation would require ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) improvements that would be very
expensive and difficult with a two-story structure.
60
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET:
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 500,000 5,500,000 $6,000,000
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $500,000 $5,500,000 $0 $6,000,000
Total
Personnel $428,905
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0 0 $463,585
34,680
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
This project is for the expansion of the Larry J. Ringer College Station Library on Harvey Mitchell Parkway
(FM 2818) by 15,256 square feet, with 16,185 square feet of additional parking. The estimated costs to
complete this project are based on 2007 construction estimates (from 2003 - 2006 construction costs have
increased approximately 35.2%).
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
$428,905
$463,585
First Fiscal Year
303
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
LARRY J. RINGER LIBRARY EXPANSION
$6,000,000
Larry J. Ringer Library
61
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET:
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $249,000
Supplies $27,000
Service $124,000
Capital $15,000
TOTAL 0 $415,000
First Fiscal Year
302
$7,619,000
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
COMMUNITY CENTER
$0
15,000
$415,000
124,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
27,000
This project, under consideration for over eight years, includes the construction of a Community Center for use by all citizens. The recommended location
is on City owned property off Krenek Tap Road. If the existing city Conference Center is closed and those operations transferred to the new Community
Center, the net operating costs will be reduced by the amount of the current costs of the Conference Center.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
$249,000
PROPOSED COMMUNITY
CENTER SITE
62
PROJECT: Fire Station #6 PROJECT #: 200
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET: $6,000,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $1,300,000
Supplies $30,000
Service $50,000
Capital $0
TOTAL $1,380,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
650000
25000
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
650000
New fire station identified for the 2008 bond election during a facilities planning session in early 2004. The proposed location
is at the corner of University Drive and Tarrow Street. The station will provide coverage and improve response time to the
University Drive corridor.
TBD
15000
25000
TBD
15000
63
PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Completion
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT 122
BUDGET: $1,000,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
This project provides funds for the implementation of projects identified by the Hike & Bike Task Force and
adopted by Council on November 23, 2004.
TBD TBD
64
PROJECT: Traffic Signals PROJECT #: 121
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET: $3,000,000 5-yr
PROJECT $4,200,000 7-yr
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $30,000 $560,000 $10,000 $600,000
2009-10 $30,000 $560,000 $10,000 $600,000
2010-11 $30,000 $560,000 $10,000 $600,000
2011-12 $30,000 $560,000 $10,000 $600,000
2012-13 $30,000 $560,000 $10,000 $600,000
TOTAL $0 $150,000 $2,800,000 $50,000 $3,000,000
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $15,000
Service $85,000
Capital $0
TOTAL $100,000TBD
15000
85000
TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
These funds will provide resources necessary to construct traffic signals at locations throughout the City as conditions warrant
them. Staff considers all arterial - arterial, arterial - collector and collector - collector intersections as potential signal locations.
Traffic volumes and conditions are monitored at these locations. When conditions warrant, a traffic study is done to determine
if a signal is appropriate. Staff then prioritizes and schedules signal construction based on traffic conditions and available
funding. The proposed funding will construct approximately 2 signals per year over a five year period.
65
PROJECT: Oversize Participation
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT 119
BUDGET: $1,000,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL TBDTBD TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
These funds provide the City's share of planned thoroughfares constructed through the development process.
66
PROJECT:Future Right-of way Acquisition PROJECT #:118
FUND:2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET:$2,000,000
PROJECT FUNDING
MANAGER:SOURCES:Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
The objective of this project is to speed up the delivery of transportation projects.
These funds would provide resources for the purchase of right of way for future projects. This activity would
allow quicker delivery when project funding does become available.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG.CONSTR.MISC.PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
2013-14 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0
67
PROJECT: Sidewalk Improvements PROJECT #: 117
FUND: 139 - Streets CIP Fund PROJECT
BUDGET: $300,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT: Public Works
Sidewalk funding will provide resources to install sidewalks as needed throughout the city. In many cases
the funds will bring older parts of town up to curent standards or to improve pedestrian access to schools.
balance of proj - FY07
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. OVERHEAD PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $512 $13,600 $0 $14,112
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
TOTAL
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
$0 $0
68
PROJECT: Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT 116
BUDGET: $3,866,555
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $3,000
Capital $0
TOTAL TBDTBD
3000
TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
The Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail project will construct about 3 miles of Hike and Bike Trails along Lick Creek
between Westfield Park and Lick Creek Park connecting residential neighborhoods and CSISD property. This
project is on the City's Bikeway Master Plan and was ranked as a High priority project by the Bike and Hike
Task Force.
69
PROJECT:Victoria Avenue PROJECT #: 110
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET: $2,200,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $176,000 $176,000 $1,760,000 $88,000 $2,200,000
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $176,000 $176,000 $1,760,000 $88,000 $2,200,000
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $7,000
Capital $0
TOTAL TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
This project will extend Victoria Avenue from Southern Plantation Drive and make the connection with State
Highway 40, aligning with Victoria on the south side. Victoria will be constructed as a major collector,
consisting of either two lanes with a center turn lane or four lanes. This project requires 70' of ROW and will
include sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, street lighting, and storm drainage facilities. Victoria is on the
City's Thoroughfare Plan and is ranked as a Medium priority project.
TBD
7000
TBD
70
PROJECT: University Drive Pedestrian PROJECT #: 106
Improvements Phases 2-5
FUND: 139 - Streets CIP Fund PROJECT
BUDGET: $5,848,485
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT: Public Works
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. OVERHEAD PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 0 $0 $0
2006-07 0$0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 0$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL $0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
First Fiscal Year Annually
This project consists of implementing the remaining phases (2 through 5) of the Pedestrian Improvements on
University Drive. The project developed a plan to improve pedestrian travel in the Northgate area of College Station,
especially to facilitate pedestrian movement across and along University Drive between Boyett Street and South
College Avenue. This project was ranked as a High priority project by City staff.
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
$0 $0
71
PROJECT:Jones Butler Phase 1 PROJECT #:105
FUND:2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET:$2,650,000
PROJECT FUNDING
MANAGER:SOURCES:Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
The project makes an important connection between high density student housing and the A&M campus.
Currently the apartment developmnet is connected via Marion Pugh Drive. This connection will be limited by a
railroad grade separation proposed by TxDOT. Jones Butler Road would be extended from Luther Street across
A&M property to George Bush Drive at the Penberthy Boulevard intersection. The Jones Butler Road extension
will be a minor collector with a width of 38 feet, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The project will require an equestrian
crossing to accomodate University operations. A traffic signal will need to be installed at the George Bush Drive
and Penberthy Boulevard intersection. The project requires 70-foot of right-of-way and is considered a high
priority.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG.CONSTR.MISC.PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
2013-14 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service 5,500 $5,500
Capital $0
TOTAL $0 $5,500 $5,500
72
PROJECT:Barron Road East/Lakeway PROJECT #:104/111
FUND:2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT
BUDGET:$11,550,000
PROJECT FUNDING
MANAGER:SOURCES:Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
The project is the extension of Barron Road from SH 6 east at the existing Barron Road to a future intersection
with the extension of Lakeway. We combine the Barron extension with the Lakeway extension. The portion of
Lakeway included extends from its intersection with Barron southward to connect to Lakeway that will be built by
private development. This project is part of a recent thoroughfare plan amendment that was recommended by
the East College Station Transportation Study. According to the transportation consultant's study, this new
corridor will reduce congestion at the Rock Prairie SH6 intersection.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG.CONSTR.MISC.PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
2013-14 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service 37,000 $37,000
Capital $0
TOTAL $0 $37,000 $37,000
73
PROJECT: Barron Road Widening Phase 2
FUND(S):2008 General Obligation Bond PROJECT #103
Streets: $9,800,000
Water: $150,000
Wastewater: $150,000
Total Project Budget: $10,100,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:
FUNDING
PROJECT SOURCES:Unfunded
CLIENT:
Project Total
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. OVERHEAD PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0 0 0 0
2008-09 0 0 0 0 0
2009-10 0 100,000 9,976,374 4,000 19,626
2010-11 0 0 0 0 0
2011-12 0 0 0 0 0
2012-13 0 0 0 0 0
This project includes the upgrade of Barron Road from a two lane rural highway to a four lane road with sidewalks, curb and gutter
and a raised center median. In 2003, voters approved funds for the design of this section of roadway as well as to purchase
necessary right of way. The design is 90% complete. Right of way acquisition is on hold pending resolution of utilty conflicts with
BTU. The project would widen Barron from Decatur Drive to William D Fitch Parkway. The project includes water lines and meters
as well as wastewater lines and manholes will be relocated, as required. This is a high priority project and is key to improvements
in the Barron corridor.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
$19,626PROJECT TOTAL $10,100,000$0 $100,000 $9,976,374 $4,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,100,000
$0
$0
$0
74
PROJECT: Rock Prairie/SH 6 Interchange Upgrade RPR widening West
FUND: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT 102 - 101
BUDGET: $14,500,000
PROJECT
MANAGER: FUNDING
SOURCES: Unfunded
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
2012-13 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $0
Supplies $0
Service $0
Capital $0
TOTAL TBDTBD TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
First Fiscal Year Annually
The Rock Prairie Road Interchange improvements is identified as a high priority in the East College Station
Transportation Study. The project improves TxDOT facilities adding capacity of the State Highway 6 and Rock
Prairie Road interchange. The project will add through and turn-around lanes to the existing bridge. TxDOT
has indicated that funding is not available from the State to make these improvements at this time. Local
funding will be required to make the project happen. Being a TxDOT project it will take several years to get
the project constructed as it will require preliminary designs, as well as environmental studies. This project is
considered a high priority. In addition, we combine this project with the widening of Rock Prairie Road from
State Highway 6 to Normand Drive from four lanes to six with a raised median. Construction costs include
sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, storm drainage facilities, and a traffic signal. This project was ranked
as a High priority project and is on the City's Thoroughfare Plan.
75
PROJECT: PROJECT #:
PROJECT
FUND: BUDGET: $1,500,000
PROJECT
MANAGER:FUNDING UNFUNDED
SOURCES:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
FISCAL YEAR LAND ENG. CONSTR. MISC. PROJECT TOTAL
Prior Years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2005-06 $0
2006-07 $0
2007-08 $0
2008-09 $0
2009-10 $0
2010-11 $0
2011-12 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total
Personnel $200,000
Supplies $50,000
Service $50,000
Capital $0
TOTAL 0 $300,000
First Fiscal Year
414
NET INCREASE IN OPERATING COSTS
2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Lick Creek Nature Center
$0
0
$300,000
50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/STATUS
50,000
The project proposes an Environmental Education Center located in Lick Creek Park
The facility would include a 10,000 square foot building that would include meeting/classroom space, interpretive
exhibit space and office space.
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Annually
$200,000
76
Considered Projects
PrjNo Project Title Scope Current Estimate
100 Rock Prairie Road East (rev) From SH 6 to Birdpond 6,000,000
101 Rock Prairie West Widening Widen from SH 6 to
Normand
3,500,000
102 Rock Prairie/SH 6 Interchange
Upgrade
SH 6 & Rock Prairie 11,000,000
103 Barron Road Widening Phase
2
Widen Decatur to SH 40 10,100,000
104 Barron Road East (rev) SH 6 to Lakeway 4,250,000
105 Jones-Butler Phase 1 George Bush to Luther 2,650,000
106 University Dr Pedestrian
Improvements Phase 2 - 5
College Main to S
College
5,848,485
107 Holleman Drive West N Dowling Rd to FM
2818
2,000,000
109 Pebble Creek Parkway North SH 40 to SH 6 7,850,000
110 Victoria Avenue Southern Plantation to
SH 40
2,200,000
111 Lakeway Drive Spring Creek to Barron
Rd.
7,300,000
113 Dartmouth Drive Extension FM 2818 to Texas
Avenue
1,756,000
114 F&B Road Turkey Creek to FM
2818
1,700,000
115 Switch Station Rd SH 6 to Appomattox 1,000,000
116 Lick Creek Hike and Bike
Trail
Westfield Park to Lick
Creek Park
3,866,555
117 Sidewalks Various Locations 300,000
118 Future Right of Way
Acquisition
Various Project
Locations
2,000,000
119 Oversize Participation Various private funded
projects
1,000,000
120 Future Street Design Various Projects 500,000
121 Traffic Signals (rev) Various locations 3,000,000
122 Hike Bike Trail Completion Connectivity existing
Hike and Bike Trail
System
1,000,000
123 Pebble Creek Parkway South Current Terminus to
Nantucket extnsion
3,000,000
124 Med Center Walking Trail 300,000
125 I&GN Hike/Bike Trail 1,300,000
126 Gulf States Utility Hike/Bike
Trail
4,100,000
77
Considered Projects
127 Grade Separations for
Hike/Bike @ Wolf Pen & Bee
Creek
1,000,000
200 Fire Station #6 University Dr and
Tarrow
6,000,000
201 Future Fire Station Design TBD 450,000
202 Future Fire Station Sites Land acquisition 500,000
203 Fire Station #7 TBD 3,500,000
302 Community/Senior Center Construct New Facility 7,619,000
303 Library Expansion Expand Larry Ringer
Library
6,000,000
304 Social Recreation Center 6,000,000
401 Central Park Improvements Renovation Concessions
and rest rooms
800,000
402 East Dist Maintenance Shop
Replacement
Replace Central Park
Maintenance Shop
990,000
403 Neighborhood Park
Improvements
Improve various
Neighborhood Parks
860,000
404 Skate Park Construct skate board
park
550,000
405 Clearview Neighborhood Park Joint Project CSISD 500,000
406 Purchase Parkland 17 ac tract Southwood
and USC
800,000
407 Lick Creek Park Trail
Completion
Complete Iron Bridge
Trail
100,000
408 Neighborhood Parks
Revolving Fund
Purchase Neighborhood
Parks in advance of
development
1,000,000
409 Lincoln Center Addition 3,060,000
410 Purchase Community Parkland
SW CS
1,250,000
411 Southwood Park
Improvements
550,000
412 Wolf Pen Creek Trails Phase
III
2,000,000
413 Public Swimming Pool/Splash
Park
Scope is unknown at this
time
5,000,000
414 Lick Creek Park Nature Center 1,500,000
TOTAL $137,550,040
78
2008 Capital Improvements Program Citizen Advisory Committee members
appointed by City Council on December 13, 2007.
Lindsey Bacon,
Mike Ball,
Jere Blackwelder,
Brian Bochner,
Jerry Cooper,
Derek Dictson,
George Dresser,
David Hart,
Anne Hazen,
Don Hellriegel,
Laura Holmes,
Kathleen Ireland,
George Jessup,
Edsel Jones,
Ronald Kaiser,
Jean Linhart,
Dennis Maloney,
William Mather,
Robert Meyer,
Steven O’Neal,
Raymond Reed,
Larry Ringer,
Julie Schultz,
Scott Shafer,
Ron Silvia,
Douglas Slack,
Gary Thomas,
Parviz Vessali,
Henry Wittner,
Tom Woodfin,
79
June 12, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 6
Status Update on the Northgate Restrooms
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of
siting study and design of the Northgate Restrooms.
Recommendation(s): N/A
Summary: Staff received direction from the Council to proceed on the design of a city-
owned and operated restroom in the Northgate area. Staff has retained the services of an
architectural design firm to conduct a siting study and design the facility. The siting study is
near completion, and some of the preliminary design concepts have been developed.
Staff is bringing this project back to Council to get input and feedback on the recommended
site, floor plan and design features.
Budget & Financial Summary: Budget for this project is $300,000.
Attachments: N/A
80
12 June 2008
Workshop Agenda Item No. 7
Annexation Discussion
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update
on annexation, including a proposed timeline and approach to the three-year
annexation plan.
Recommendation: Provide feedback and direction to staff concerning the
annexation planning process.
Summary: Staff will provide a brief summary of recent annexation activity and
present a general overview of the proposed timeline and approach regarding the
three-year plan.
Budget & Financial Summary: None at this time. A detailed fiscal impact analysis
will be performed as part of the annexation process.
Attachments:
1. Annexation Plan Process
81
See 43.052 (e) for penalty provisions
-
Annexation Plan Process
Annexation Plan
amendment to identify areas
(43.052) Entities must provide Two public hearings held/
City with inventory service plan presented Annexation must
information (43.0561) be complete during
90 days
Negotiations with
property owners
(43.0562)
Give notice to: City to make 3rd Anniversary
*Landowners inventory available of annexation
*Service Providers* to the public plan amendment
*Railroads
[43.052(f)]
*Must also request info
for inventory of services
90 days
this window Arbitration
(If needed) [43.052(g)1
(43.0564) 1
31 days 60 days
90 days
82