The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About230612 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions Council questions and staff responses for items on June 12, 2023 City Council Meeting 7.4- Lick Creek Hike & Bike Trail Improvement Project Sponsor: Jennifer Cain Ques�ons: Does this scope of work include removal of the blind spots? Response: Yes, the blind spots on both sides of the bridge will be removed. Please see exis�ng and new sidewalk alignments below. Exis�ng Sidewalk New Sidewalk Alignment Ques�on: I no�ce we are paying $13,520 to remove the old sidewalk, are we ge�ng any of this reimbursed from the professionals that designed and installed the sidewalk that now must be removed? Response: No. Ques�on: What is a wayfinding sign? I no�ce that while we can purchase and install a no parking sign for a few hundred dollars, this wayfinding sign is $2000. What makes it so much more expensive than a no parking sign? Response: Wayfinding signage typically is a custom designed direc�onal sign. In this case, we are matching the exis�ng wayfinding signs that were designed for the Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail. The Hike and Bike trail signs are constructed out of steel. The post is galvanized box steel, while the wayfinding sec�on is made from stainless steel. Below are the construc�on plans detailing the wayfinding signage for reference. 8.3 MPO Update Sponsor: Jason Schubert Ques�on s: On page 4 of the document, or page 120/545 of our packet, under #2, it explains that A&M buses do not serve the general public. My understanding was that they DO. For $35 dollars a year, any member of the general public can ride any and all TAMU buses. It is actually cheaper than BTD if a person rides as frequently as once a week and I know some adults unaffiliated with TAMU that currently use this service. Informa�on can be found here htp://www.btd.org/fixed-routes/rates/#passes-�ckets as of June 8th 2023. Is it no longer available or being phased out? Respo nse: A BTD pass allows a rider to get on A&M bus service and that is not being phased out. The MPO document describes the A&M transit service as not serving the general public based on the federal qualifica�ons for a “public transit provider.” Designa�on of that requires all members of the public to use it at any �me and the provider must provide ADA paratransit service. While the general public can ride A&M transit, it does not meet the public transit provider defini�on as the rider must get a BTD pass in advance, instead of being able to show up and pay a fare at a bus stop, and A&M does not provide ADA paratransit service to the general public. 8.4- Northeast Trunkline Sponsor: Jennifer Cain Ques�ons: 1) Will the NE trunk line ul�mately serve both Hensel Park and Century Square Phase II? Response: Yes 2) Will the NE trunk line service anything else other than those two areas and if so, what or where? Response: Yes, sewershed map is below. 3) Has a developer and General Contractor been specified for Hensel Park (TAMU?) and Century Square, Phase II? Response: Hensel Park development is currently in the conceptual master planning phase. Century Square Phase II has various general contractors and developers. 4) have we levied any oversized par�cipa�on fee or other fees rela�ve to wastewater infrastructure on the afore-men�oned projects? Or are we taking on all of the wastewater infrastructure? Response: No, this CSU infrastructure. Any site-specific improvements are the responsibility of the developer. U�lity rates and impact fees contribute to the development of regional infrastructure. 5) Same ques�ons from #4 above rela�ve to other infrastructure, please? (Water, electricity, roadways, drainage, etc.?) Response: The city provides base infrastructure throughout the city funded through tax revenue, utility rates, impact fees and other fees. Developers are responsible for any site-specific improvements. 6) Have we asked Texas A&M and/or their development partners to par�cipate in any infrastructure development as we do on other projects? Response: No, developers including Texas A&M are no t asked to directly contribute to or construct regional infrastructure. By state law, Texas A&M is not required to pay impact fees. 7) To our general knowledge, do we ever ask Texas A&M or their quasi-public private partners to par�cipate in infrastructure development, or do we generally take care of infrastructure to their point of service in the past? Response: Yes, we have had conversations about mutually beneficial development agreements. Generally, it is the city or utilities responsibility to bring infrastructure to the point of service within our jurisdiction or CCN. Recommenda�ons of items to include in presenta�on: I am not sure what this presenta�on entails since there are no details in our packet, but I would really love a slide that has a table lis�ng each of the route op�ons on one axis and the other axis with labels like: Total es�mated cost # of easements required # of boring pits required # of boring pits that would NOT be wholly contained in the roadway and would damage a yard # of trees that would be removed # of homes that would have construc�on on their property # of months, approx., that a singular home would be impacted during construc�on # of linear miles that would be under construc�on Response: There is no presenta�on. This item has been placed on the agenda to allow for general project updates from staff, council discussion and ci�zen comments. A presenta�on regarding project specifics, recommenda�ons, and a request for council direc�on will come at a later date. 9.5, 9.6, & 9.7-Vaca�ng and Abandoning Easements and Right of Way Sponsors: Parker Mathews and Lucas Harper Ques�ons: (Items 9.5 & 9.6) When the city first acquired these easements and ROW, did the city pay for any of these accesses? Response: The easements were dedicated by plat at no cost to the city. Ques�on: Are the applicants covering all the costs to the city of abandoning these accesses? What benefit to the city is there in abandoning easements and ROW? Response: The applicant pays an applica�on fee in order for the city to process the applica�ons for abandonment. There is no addi�onal cost to the city. Ques�on: What benefit to the city is there in abandoning easements and ROW? Response: Easements are designated at the pla�ng stage or with the installa�on of infrastructure in order to allow maintenance by the city. If the easement is not needed once an area is developed or infrastructure is removed, the easement should be abandoned. In many cases, the abandonment could lead to increased taxable value of the subject property due to expansion of a development or having more developable area by the property. Abandonments of ROW provide the same benefit as men�oned above with the added benefit that it also removes a poten�al maintenance responsibility. In this specific example, it allows for the consolida�on of proper�es to provide a large housing development with increased taxable value and addi�onal housing op�ons for ci�zens. Ques�ons: (Item 9.7) Ques�on: When the city first acquired these easements and ROW, did the city pay for any of these accesses? Response: The easement was dedicated by plat at no cost to the city. This abandonment relocates the exis�ng easement, with the new easement being dedicated at no cost to the city. Ques�on: Are the applicants covering all the costs to the city of abandoning these accesses? Response: The City of College Sta�on is paying for the abandonment due to the abandonment being ini�ated by the city. Ques�on: What benefit to the city is there in abandoning easements and ROW? Response: Benefits include reduc�on of maintenance and liability, and in this condi�onal abandonment, the City is obtaining an easement along the frontage of the property where it is needed by CSU, to allow for the provision of u�lity service.