The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/26/2024 - Regular Agenda Packet - City Council(*OF"" CPFY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University® September 26, 2024 College Station, TX Meeting Agenda City Council 1101 Texas Ave, College Station, TX 77840 Internet: www.microsoft.com/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting Meeting ID: 287 987 474 1751 Passcode: gZw5cS Phone: 469-480-7460 1 Phone Conference: 168 564 318# 4:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third - party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting access and participation will be in -person only. 1. Call to Order. 2. Executive Session Agenda. Executive Session is closed to the public and will be held in the 1938 Executive Conference Room. The City Council may according to the Texas Open Meetings Act adjourn the Open Meeting during the Consent, Workshop or Regular Agendas and return into Executive Session to seek legal advice from the City Attorney regarding any item on the Workshop, Consent or Regular Agendas under Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. 2.1. 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. Shana Elliott and Lawrence Kalke v. City of College Station, et al., Cause No. 22-001122-CV- 85, in the 85th District Court, Brazos County, Texas. b. City of College Station v. 47 Oaks, LLC, Cause No. 626-CC, in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Brazos County, Texas. c. The City of College Station v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN-24- 005680 in the 200th District Court, Travis County, Texas. d. Cynthia Hopkins & Geoffry Hopkins v. City of College Station, Cause No. 23-002880-CV-85 in the 85th District Court, Brazos County Texas. 2.2. Real Estate {Gov't Code Section 551.0721; Possible action. The committee 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. Approximately 28 acres of land generally located at Midtown Drive and Corporate Pkwy in the College Station, TX Page 1 Page 1 of 379 City Council Midtown Business Park. b. Approximately 1.5 acres of land located 301 Patricia Street and review of the sealed bids submitted under bid number 24-073. c. Approximately 8 acres of land located at 1508 Harvey Road. 2.3. 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 public officer(s) may be discussed: a. City Attorney b. City Manager c. City Judge d. City Secretary e. City Auditor f. Council Self -Evaluation 3. The Open Meeting will Reconvene No Earlier than 6:00 PM from Executive Session and City Council will take action, if any. 4. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, and Consider Absence Request. Speaker Protocol An individual who desires to address the City Council regarding any agenda item other than those items posted for Executive Session must register with the City Secretary two (2) hours before the meeting being called to order. Individuals shall register to speak or provide written comments at https://forms.cstx.gov/Forms/CSCouncil or provide a name and phone number by calling 979-764- 3500. Upon being called to speak an individual must state their name and city of residence, including the state of residence if the city is located out of state. Speakers are encouraged to identify their College Station neighborhood or geographic location. Please do not carry purses, briefcases, backpacks, liquids, foods or any other object other than papers or personal electronic communication devices to the lectern, nor advance past the lectern unless you are invited to do so. Comments should not personally attack other speakers, Council or staff. Each speaker's remarks are limited to three (3) minutes. Any speaker addressing the Council using a translator may speak for six (6) minutes. The speaker's microphone will mute when the allotted time expires and the speaker must leave the podium. 5. Presentation - Proclamations, Awards, and Recognitions. 5.1. Presentation proclaiming September 30th through October 6th, 2024, as Week Without Driving. Sponsors: Tanya Smith Attachments: 1. 24 Week Without Driving 6. Hear Visitors. During Hear Visitors an individual may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted agenda. The City Council will listen and receive the information presented by the speaker, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda. Topics of operational concern shall be directed to the City Manager. 7. Consent Agenda. Page 2 September 26, 2024 Page 2 of 379 City Council Presentation, discussion, and possible action on consent items which consist of ministerial or "housekeeping" items as allowed by law. A Councilmember may request additional information at this time. Any Councilmember may remove an item from Consent for discussion or a separate vote. 7.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action of minutes for: • September 12, 2024 Council Meeting Sponsors: Tanya Smith Attachments: 1. CCM091224 DRAFT Minutes 7.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a resolution regarding the City's investment policy, reviewing and recording changes to the policy and strategy, and on a collateral policy, and designating investment officers for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, stating that the City Council has reviewed and approved the City's investment policy, broker -dealer list and investment strategy. Sponsors: Michael DeHaven Attachments: 1. Investment Policy Strategy FY 25 Resolution and Exhibits 7.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on Change Order No. 2 for the design contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Jones Butler Extension and Roundabout Project in the amount of $110,000. Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Attachments: 1. Jones Butler Ext and Roundabout CO #2 2. Jones Butler Project Location Map 7.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a contract for electric underground distribution directional bore projects, to Sterling Global Industries, LLC for an amount not to exceed $397,798.44. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Attachments: 1. 24-056 Award Tabulation 2. Contract is available for review in the City Secretary's Office 7.5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution to accept the Federal FY- 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant in the amount of $3,874,618.44. Sponsors: Richard Mann Attachments: 1. SAFER Grant 2024 Resolution 2. EMW-2023-FF-00048 - Award Package 7.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a deductive change order with Mitchell & Morgan, LLP for a credit of $276,215.48 for the design contract for the Corporate Parkway Extension Design Project. Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Attachments: 1. Corporate Pkwy CO #1 signed 7.7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the approval of a deductive change order with Weisinger, Inc., providing a credit of $628,889 to the construction contract for the Water Well No. 5 and Carrizo Well Rehabilitation projects. Sponsors: Gary Mechler Attachments: 1. Deductive Change Order # 2 7.8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection of proposals received and cancelation of an RFP for a natural gas electric generation facility. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Page 3 September 26, 2024 Page 3 of 379 City Council Attachments: None 7.9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection of bids received and cancelation of Bid #24-072 for the purchase of concrete pull boxes for Electric warehouse inventory. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Attachments: None 7.10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection and cancelation of BID #24-062 for substation maintenance because no bids were received. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Attachments: None 7.11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an amendment to the real estate contract with Fera Diagnostics and Biologicals Corporation for the sale of approximately 12 acres of land in the College Station Business Center at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and State Highway 6 and amendment to the restrictive covenants of the College Station Business Center to reflect the release of the shared cross access easement. Sponsors: Michael Ostrowski Attachments: 1. FERA Real Estate Contract - Amendment 1 2. Closing Document - Easement Release 3. Closing Document - Amended Restrictive Covenants 4. Closing Document - BCAB Resolution 5. Plat 7.12. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on contracts for the City's purchase of single and three-phase transformers for Electric warehouse inventory with a total expenditure of $482,081.50, awarded to Texas Electric Cooperatives, KBS Electrical Distributors, and Techline, Inc. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Attachments: 1. 24-081 Bid Tab Transformer Award 8. Workshop Agenda. 8.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the 2023 Incentive Compliance Report by the Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation. Sponsors: Michael Ostrowski Attachments: 1. 2023 Compliance Report 8.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an update from representatives of the Texas A&M University Student Government Association (SGA). Sponsors: Bryan Woods Attachments: None 9. Regular Agenda. 9.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution delegating to the City Manager the authority to make an electric utility Transmission Cost of Service (TCOS) refund payment in the amount of $27,416,135. Sponsors: Bryan Woods Attachments: 1. College Station TCOS Resolution 9-26-24 Page 4 September 26, 2024 Page 4 of 379 City Council 9.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on Budget Amendment 3 amending Ordinance No. 2023-4457 amending the budget for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year in the amount of $39,097,273. Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Attachments: 1. FY24 Budget Amendment #3 Ordinance 9-26-24 9.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the Housing Action Plan as a Master Plan. Sponsors: David Brower Attachments: 1. Housing -Action -Plan 2. Ordinance 9.4. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution authorizing the City of College Station to apply to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing Grant in the amount of $3,600,000. Sponsors: Raney Whitwell Attachments: 1. Resolution - PRO Housing Grant 9.5. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from M-1 Light Industrial to Cl Commercial Industrial on approximately 11 acres located in the University Industrial Center, more generally located at 151 Graham Road. Sponsors: Robin Macias Attachments: 1. Aerial and Small Area Map 2. Background Information 3. Existing Future Land Use Map 4. Rezoning Map 5. Applicant's Supporting Information 6. Rezoning Exhibit 7. Graham Rd. Rezoning Ordinance 9.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an appointment to the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. Board of Directors. Sponsors: Tanya Smith Attachments: 1. Ltr CS BVSWMA BoD 2024 10. Items of Community Interest and Council Calendar. Items of Community Interest and Council Calendar: The Council may discuss upcoming events and receive reports from a Council Member or City Staff about items of community interest for which notice has not been given, including: expressions of thanks, congratulations or condolence; information regarding holiday schedules; honorary or salutary recognitions of a public official, public employee, or other citizen; reminders of upcoming events organized or sponsored by the City of College Station; information about a social, ceremonial or community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the City of College Station that is scheduled to be attended by a Council Member, another city official or staff of the City of College Station; and announcements involving an imminent threat to the public health and safety of people in the City of College Station that has arisen after the posting of the agenda. 11. Future Agenda Items and Review of Standing List of Council Generated Future Agenda Items. Page 5 September 26, 2024 Page 5 of 379 City Council A Council Member may make a request to City Council to place an item for which no notice has been given on a future agenda or may inquire about the status of an item on the standing list of council generated future agenda items. A Council Member's or City Staff's response to the request or inquiry will be limited to a statement of specific factual information related to the request or inquiry or the recitation of existing policy in response to the request or inquiry. Any deliberation of or decision about the subject of a request will be limited to a proposal to place the subject on the agenda for a subsequent meeting. 12. Adjourn. The City council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on September 20, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. City Secret�lry This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary's Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code & 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handqun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codiqo Penal & 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. "Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre." Page 6 September 26, 2024 Page 6 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 2.2. Sponsor: Michael Ostrowski, Chief Development Officer Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Real Estate {Gov't Code Section 551.0721; Possible action. The committee 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. Approximately 28 acres of land generally located at Midtown Drive and Corporate Pkwy in the Midtown Business Park. b. Approximately 1.5 acres of land located 301 Patricia Street and review of the sealed bids submitted under bid number 24-073. c. Approximately 8 acres of land located at 1508 Harvey Road. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Recommendation(s): Summary: Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: None Page 7 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 5.1. Week Without Driving Proclamation Sponsor: Tanya Smith, City Secretary Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation proclaiming September 30th through October 6th, 2024, as Week Without Driving. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Recommendation(s): Receive the proclamation. Summary: Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: 1. 24 Week Without Driving Page 8 of 379 z WHEREAS, access to mobility is a fundamental part of health and community connection, allowing citizens of the Cities of College Station and Bryan, and Brazos County to reach education and employment opportunities, medical services, shopping, recreation, and visit friends and family. Mobility is one of the state's six transportation system policy goals, including investing public dollars to improve the movement of people throughout Cities of College Station and Bryan, and Brazos County; and WHEREAS, as the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the cost of owning a car is approximately 72 cents a mile, with average household spending on transportation reaching $10,961 a year in 2021, many people cannot afford the cost of a car, and many people residing in the United States do not have a driver's license; and WHEREAS, transportation represents the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and in order to meet our state's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, we must reduce emissions in our transportation sector; and WHEREAS, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, cars also create tire dust that can enter watersheds; have necessitated freeway expansions that may be detrimental to neighborhoods historically home to communities of color; and require impervious surfaces for parking, with an estimated 3.4 parking spaces for every car in the United States, all of which have contributed to transportation being an important environmental justice concern; and WHEREAS, going a week without driving is a great way to understand how we can improve our current transportation system to better meet the needs of residents of the Cities of College Station and Bryan, and Brazos County and improve and enhance transportation options such as transit, light rail, biking, and walking pathways as key strategies in our decarbonization efforts. NOW, THEREFORE I, John P. Nichols, Mayor of the City of College Station, and I, Bobby Gutierrez, Mayor of the City of Bryan, and I, Duane Peters, County Judge of Brazos County acting on behalf of our respective councils and commissioners court, do hereby proclaim the week of September 30 through October 6, 2024 as: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ( P, i John Nichols, Mayo' (9 A;; �, 6) va 6 V& -(� 22 � CITY OF BRYAN Body rr ,Mayor CITY OF BRYAN The Good Life, Texas Style:' BRAZOSCOUNTY Duane Peters, County Judge Page 9 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.1. September 12th Council Meeting Sponsor: Tanya Smith, City Secretary Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action of minutes for: • September 12, 2024 Council Meeting Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Good Governance Recommendation(s): Recommends Approval. Summary: N/A Budget & Financial Summary: None Attachments: 1. CCM091224 DRAFT Minutes Page 10 of 379 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN -PERSON WITH TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: John Nichols, Mayor Council: Mark Smith William Wright Linda Harvell Elizabeth Cunha Bob Yancy Dennis Maloney Citv Staff: Bryan Woods, City Manager Jeff Capps, Deputy City Manager Adam Falco, City Attorney Leslie Whitten, Deputy City Attorney Tanya Smith, City Secretary Ian Whittenton, Deputy City Secretary 1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present. With a quorum present, the meeting of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Nichols via In -Person and Teleconference at 3:00 p.m. on September 12, 2024, in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840. 2. Executive Session Agenda. In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.07 1 -Consultation with Attorney, and §551.072- Real Estate, §551.074-Personnel, and the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 3:00 p.m. on September 12, 2024, to continue discussing matters pertaining to: 2.1. Consultation with Attornev to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation, to wit: • Shana Elliott and Lawrence Kalke v. City of College Station, et al., Cause No. 22-001122-CV- 85, in the 85th District Court, Brazos County, Texas; and • City of College Station v. 47 Oaks, LLC, Cause No. 626-CC, in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Brazos County, Texas; and • The City of College Station v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN- 24-005680 in the 200th District Court, Travis County, Texas; and • Cynthia Hopkins & Geoffiy Hopkins v. City of College Station, Cause No. 23-002880-CV-85 in the 85th District Court, Brazos County Texas. CCM 091224 Minutes Page 1 Page 11 of 379 • Legal advice related to an interlocal agreement with the City of Bryan for sewer service. • Legal advice regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Balcones Drive. • Legal advice related to the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and SB 2038. 2.2. Deliberation on the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property; to wit: • Approximately 28 acres of land generally located at Midtown Drive and Corporate Pkwy in the Midtown Business Park. • Property generally located in the area of FM 60, Boyett Street, Church Ave. and College Main Street. 2.3. Deliberation on the appointment, emvlovment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer, to wit: • City Manager • City Attorney • City Judge • City Secretary • City Auditor • Council Self -Evaluation 3. The Open Meeting Will Reconvene No Earlier than 6:00 PM from Executive Session and City Council will take action, if anv. Executive Session recessed at 6:18 p.m. No action was taken. 4. Pledge of Allegiance. Invocation, consider absence reauest. 5. PRESENTATION - PROCLAMATIONS, AWARDS, AND RECOGNITIONS. 5.1. Presentation proclaiming September 12. 2024. as Puvpv Mill Awareness Day. Mayor Nichols presented a proclamation declaring September 12, 2024, as Puppy Mill Awareness Day. 5.2. Presentation proclaiming September 17th through 23rd as Constitution Week. Mayor Nichols presented a proclamation declaring September 17-23, 2024, as Constitution Week. 6. Hear Visitors Comments. Lee Thomas, College Station, came before Council concerning Perry Hills roads, parking, and trash pickup due to the Aggie Shakes and visitors parking. 7. CONSENT ITEMS Presentation, discussion, and possible action on consent items which consist of ministerial, or "housekeeping" items as allowed by law: A Councilmember may request additional information CCM 091224 Minutes Page 2 Page 12 of 379 at this time. Anv Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for a separate vote. Item 7.3 was pulled from Consent for clarification. (7.3) Jeff Kersten, Assistant City Manager, explained that this project is set to be funded by issuing debt but it is possible to fund this project out of the reserve fund. 7.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action of minutes for: • August 22, 2024 Council Meeting 7.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Resolution No. 09-12-24-7.2 authorizing the Citv Manager to approve and execute all insurance policv documents and to approve policv related expenditures provided that such expenditures are appropriated from available funds approved from the annual budget and consistent with state and local laws for Fiscal Year 2025 in an amount not to exceed $1,349,924.04. 7.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a construction contract with Aria Signs and Design for Citv Gatewav Sign 3 (West) for $270,000, plus the Citv's contingencv of $21,600 for a total appropriation of $291,600, and Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from Debt. Approval of this item grants authority for the Citv Manager to authorize proiect expenditures up to the Citv's contingency amount. 7.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Construction Contract with Dudlev Construction, LLC. in the amount of $196,000 for construction services for the American Pavilion Renovation at Veterans Park Proiect, plus the Citv's contingencv in the amount of $34,000 for a total appropriation of $230,000. Approval of this item grants authority for the Citv Manager to authorize proiect expenditures up to the Citv's contingency amount. 7.5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the second reading of a franchise agreement Ordinance No. 2024-4546 with 2906 Holdings, LLC (dba Waste Falcon) for the collection of recvclables from commercial businesses and multi-familv locations. 7.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a contract for marketing and advertising services with The Zimmerman Aaencv, LLC in an amount not to exceed $625,000. 7.7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on Ordinance No. 2024-4547 amending Section 3 of Ordinance 2024-4530 ordering a General Election to be held November 5, 2024 for the purpose of electing Citv Councilmember Place 3, City Councilmember Place 4, City Councilmember Place 5 and Citv Councilmember Place 6, to the voters, by amending a vote center location as prescribed by Brazos Countv. (Presentacion, discusion v posible action sobre una Ordenanza No. 2024-4547 clue enmienda la seccion 3 de la Ordenanza 2024-4530 clue ordena una Elecion General a celebrarse el 5 de noviembre de 2024 con el proposito de elegir un miembro de conseio puesto numero 3, miembro de conseio puesto numero 4, miembro de conseio puesto numero 5, v miembro de conseio puesto numero 6, a los votantes, enmienda la ubicacion de un centro de votacion segun to prescrito por el Condado de Brazos.) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Smith and a second by Councilmember Harvell, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent agenda with the exception of Item 7.3. The motion carried unanimously. CCM 091224 Minutes Page 3 Page 13 of 379 (7.3) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Cunha and a second by Councilmember Maloney, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent 7.3 with the amendment of using the reserve fund for the construction contract with Aria Signs and Design for City Gateway Sign 3 (West) for $270,000, plus the City's contingency of $21,600 for a total appropriation of $291,600. The motion carried unanimously. 8. WORKSHOP ITEMS 8.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a partnership agreement for services from Plug and Play. Michael Ostrowski, Chief Development Officer, introduced Susan Davenport, Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation President and CEO, who will present the presentation regarding a partnership agreement for services from Plug and Play Susan Davenport, BVEDC President and CEO, stated that Plug and Play is an innovation platform, connecting startups, corporations, venture capital firms, universities, and government agencies. Plug and Play helps governments with ecosystem building, job creation, tax revenue, accelerator programs, corporate attraction, and startup support. Mr. Ostrowski provided more information about Plug and Play and the value that we can bring from an economic development perspective, as well as a possible partnership agreement between Texas A&M, the City of College Station, and the City of Bryan. Tactics • New Business Attraction • Business Retention / Expansion • Innovation Ecosystem Life Sciences Animal, Plant, Human - R&D, Advanced Manufacturing Semiconductors R&D, Advanced Manufacturing Energy Transition R&D, Advanced Manufacturing Professional Services HQ- Domestic and Intl. Companies Digital Technology — Al, IT, Product Development Aerospace R&D, Advanced Manufacturing, Test Facilities Innovation Platform We run over65 accelerator programs annually in most major industries and cities CCM 091224 Minutes We supercharge the innovation of over 600 major corporations from every continent We invest in over 250 companies worldwide every year and co- investwith 200VCs Page 4 Page 14 of 379 More than an accelerator program 4 Program Activities Services Executive Network Boards dictates Events Dealflow Sessions Corporate innovation Program Focus Drive best practices Selection Process Focus Weeks Reverse Dealflows seminars Connect Public Sector, Workshops Office Hours Roundtable dinners Academia& Corporations Career Fair Deep Dives Exclusive the med pitch events DEI and community Community- Innovation Days focused elements engagement Selection Day and EXPO Hackathon 8.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action re2ardinii an update on library services. Ross Brady, Chief of Staff, provided an update on the library's operations and programs services. The Library's total programs performed in FY24 was 514 and the breakdown of programs are children programs, teen/tween programs, adult programs and general interest programs. The total visitors at the Larry Ringer in FY24 were 197,436 and the average visitors per month was 15,187. Mr. Brady explained the circulation in College Station is 409,137, that's up $18K and Bryan (Mounce) was 235,716. Based on the FY23 Budget to what the actuals are, in most years the City of Bryan pays us a credit, the is a one-time personnel expenditure of $100,000 and recurring IT expenditures of $200,000. The FY25 payment to the City of Bryan as increased $300,000 totaling the FY25 Budget to $1.7 million. Accreditation Standards A library serving 100,001 - 200,000 persons must: Current population estimate 130,000 ■ Local library expenditures of $10.18 per capita Current collection 86,298 Deficit 43,702 ■ 1 item per capita ■ At least 1% of collection purchased in last 5 years Estimated cost per item $20.00 ■ Be open for service not less than 54 hours per week Cost to eliminate deficit $874,040 • Employ a library director for at least 40 hours per week • Employ 4full-time equivalent professional librarians, with one Current materials budget $110,000 additional FTE librarian for each 50,000 persons above 100,000. Years to eliminate deficit 7.95 Audit Recommendation and Attrition ■ 2014 Audit had 13 recommendations ■ Audit follow-up in 2023 ■ 11 of 13 audit recommendations have been fully or partially implemented ■ Unimplemented Recommendations ■ Adjust staffing levels to increase materials budget ■ Use turnover to implement seasonal staffing for library assistants CCM 091224 Minutes Page 5 Page 15 of 379 8.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a summary of the June Special Event Paid Parking Pilot Program. Jennifer Prochaska, Assistant City Manager, presented a summary of the June Special Event Paid Parking Pilot Program. The Pilot Program included two summer events, which was a soccer game and concert. The total revenue was $24,825 and the total expenses was $11,497 this was from park mobile and neighborhood parking zones without being sited. Fiscal Summary - Includes staff time, signage, mapping and outreach but no enforcement revenue. Planning* $5,157 Soccer $11,025 $3,421 Game Concert $13,800 $2,919 Total $24,825 $11,497 $13,328 Pilot Planning Estimates City Hail 207 $5,175 Wayne Smith 192 $4,800 Lincoln Rec Center 110 $2, 750 Southside 1 - 170 $4,250 Redmond Southside2 - Heart 875 $21,875 Southside3 - Glade 509 $12,725 Total 2,063 $51,575 Revenue Potential City Hall 207 $5,175 $5,175 Wayne Smith 192 $4,800 $4,800 Lincoln Rec Center 110 $2, 750 $2, 750 Southside 1 - Redmond* 170 $4,250 126 $1,100 Southside 2-Heart 875 $21,875 507 $9,200 Southside 3-Glade 509 $12,725 406 $2,575 Total 2,063 $51,575 $25,600 * Area not recommended to be included ** Assumes $25 per vehicle rate - staff recommends increase Direction & Decision Points 1. Implement paid parking program for event and game days? 2. Additional information or outreach? 3. When? 4. Where? • City Parking lots CCM 091224 Minutes $5,175 $4,800 $2, 750 $12,725 Page 6 Page 16 of 379 • Neighborhood Parking zones 5. Exemptions for residents? 6. One-time costs At approximately 8:11 p.m., Mayor Nichols opened for Citizen Comments. Mike Ashfield, College Station, came before Council speaking against paid parking in the Southside Neighborhood. He brought forward the City of College Station quality of life mission statement and asked the council to consider how this program would align with that. He concluded by saying the neighborhood is welcoming to family, friends, and visitors and paid parking for guests is unwelcoming. There being no further comments, the Citizen Comments was closed at 8:14 p.m. A majority of Council directed staff to not move forward with the game day paid parking program. 9. REGULAR ITEMS Regular Item 9.3 was presented before 9.1 and 9.2. 9.1. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Ordinance No. 2024- 4548 amending Appendix A. Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Mad' of the Code of Ordinances of the Citv of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from GS General Suburban or PDD Planned Development District to MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancv Overlav or MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancv Overlav and NAP Natural Areas Protected for approximately 18.66 acres being all of that certain tract or parcel of land lving and being situated in the J.E. Scott league, Abstract No. 50 and Crawford Burnett league, Abstract No. 7, in College Station, Brazos Countv, Texas, including portions of the F.S. Kavchinski Subdivision as described by a plat reconstructed from deed records recorded in volume Y. page 618-A of the Mechanics & Materialman's Lien Records of Brazos Countv, Texas, and subsequent replats of portions of it, generally for the properties located along Park Place and Boardwalk Court. Regular Items 9.1 and 9.2 were opened and presented together. 9.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Ordinance No. 2024- 4549 amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Mad' of the Code of Ordinances of the Citv of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from GS General Suburban or D Duplex to MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancv Overlav for approximately 1.10 acres being all of that certain tract or parcel of land lving and being situated in the Richard Carter league, Abstract No. 8, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas, being a portion of Lot 12 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision as described by plat recorded in volume 49, page 106 of the Deed Records of Brazos Countv, Texas, and the northeast half (approximate) of the adioining right-of-wav of Turner Street, generally for the properties located along Gilbert Street and Turner Street. Jeff Howell, Planning and Development, stated that the intent of the Mixed Residential land use is to accommodate a walkable pattern of small lots, small blocks, and well-connected street pattern that supports surrounding neighborhoods. Developments in this district should prioritize a mix of housing types and scales located near community facilities or adjacent to commercial or neighborhood centers. CCM 091224 Minutes Page 7 Page 17 of 379 The MH Middle Housing zoning district is aligned with that vision. The zoning districts that are generally appropriate within Mixed Residential include: middle housing, duplex, townhouse, and limited -scale single-family zoning. Finally, a portion of the area also contains the floodplain from the adjacent Wolf Pen Creek tributary, which is proposed to be covered by the portion zoned as NAP Natural Areas Protected. For Natural and Open Areas, the Comprehensive Plan provides the following: This land use designation is generally for areas that represent a constraint to development and that should be conserved for their natural function or open space qualities. These areas include floodplains, riparian buffers, common areas, and open space. The boundaries of the Natural & Open Areas land use are illustrative, and the exact location of floodplains and other physical constraints are determined during the development process. Mr. Howell went on to state that the subject property is bordered by commercial and multifamily zoned properties to the north, multifamily development to the south and west, commercial uses to the east closer towards Texas Avenue. Development pressure continues to grow as new generations of students, young professionals, families, and seniors move to College Station; allowing and encouraging redevelopment opportunities helps alleviate some of the pressure in the market. The MH Middle Housing zoning district enables redevelopment of these lots at an appropriate scale, permitting the increase in residential density on these sites. The residential uses permitted in the MH Middle Housing zoning district are appropriate for this area, as it allows for additional residential density to meet market demand, while still fitting into the context of the surrounding areas. Additionally, the HOO High Occupancy Overlay, which allows shared housing uses, was determined to be appropriate for the subject properties due to the proximity to Texas A&M University and a Texas A&M Transportation Services bus route and the development pattern of the properties within the area. Public engagement sessions were held earlier this year in February and March to receive additional feedback prior to moving forward with the survey work necessary. After receiving the completed survey and considering the rezoning criteria, City staff has determined that this area is appropriate for rezoning to MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancy Overlay and are recommending approval. The HOO High Occupancy Overlay would allow the shared housing use as long as the property met the requirements for that use. Both items were heard at the August 15th, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. At approximately 11:11 p.m., Mayor Nichols opened the Public Hearing. Clif Groce, College Station, came before Council stating his concerns of Area K of working-class taxpayers being pushed out with this overlay and the neighborhood next to them are receiving the overlay. Virgia Thomas, College Station, came before Council to state that with an area potentially growing to accommodate a higher population and streets that fire trucks can't get down the rezoning is a safety issue. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 11:20 p.m. (9.1) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember Smith, the City Council voted two (2) for and five (5) opposed, with Mayor Nichols and Councilmembers Smith, Harvell, Cunha and Yancy voting against, to adopt Ordinance No. 2024- 4548, amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section CCM 091224 Minutes Page 8 Page 18 of 379 4.2 "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from GS General Suburban or PDD Planned Development District to MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancy Overlay or MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancy Overlay and NAP Natural Areas Protected for approximately 18.66 acres being all of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the J.E. Scott league, Abstract No. 50 and Crawford Burnett league, Abstract No. 7, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas, including portions of the F.S. Kapchinski Subdivision as described by a plat reconstructed from deed records recorded in volume Y, page 618-A of the Mechanics & Materialman's Lien Records of Brazos County, Texas, and subsequent replats of portions of it, generally for the properties located along Park Place and Boardwalk Court. The motion failed. (9.2) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember Smith, the City Council voted five (5) for and two (2) opposed, with Councilmembers Harvell and Yancy voting against, to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-4549, amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from GS General Suburban or D Duplex to MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancy Overlay for approximately 1.10 acres being all of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the Richard Carter league, Abstract No. 8, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas, being a portion of Lot 12 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision as described by plat recorded in volume 49, page 106 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and the northeast half (approximate) of the adjoining right- of-way of Turner Street, generally for the properties located along Gilbert Street and Turner Street. The motion carried. 9.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Ordinance No. 2024- 4550 amending the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicvcle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Balcones Drive, a Minor Collector, between the Jones Crossing Development and Welsh Avenue including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks. (This item 9.3 was presented before items 9.1 and 9.2) Jason Schubert, Planning and Development, stated that the applicant is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Balcones Drive, a Minor Collector, between the Jones Crossing Development and Welsh Avenue including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks. This section of future Minor Collector is approximately 1,675 feet in length, of which approximately 450 feet is located in existing right-of-way and approximately 1,225 feet is located on property owned by the First Baptist Church of College Station. The existing portion of Balcones Drive from Wellborn Road (FM 2154) into the Jones Cross Development is approximately 1,500 feet in length and was constructed in 2018 with the platting of the property and development of the HEB site. As described in the Review Criteria, removal of the Balcones Drive extension will have a negative impact to the transportation network serving this area of the city. Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Changed or changing conditions in the subject area of the City; 2. Compatibility with the existing uses, development patterns, and character of the immediate area concerned, the general area, and the City as a whole; 3. Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas; 4. Impacts on infrastructure, including water, wastewater, drainage, and the transportation network; and 5. Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. CCM 091224 Minutes Page 9 Page 19 of 379 The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board considered only the request's effect on biking, walking and greenways and recommended approval (3-1-1) at their August 12, 2024 meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial (6-0) at their August 15, 2024 meeting. Staff recommends denial of the request. At approximately 10:19 p.m., Mayor Nichols opened the Public Hearing. Darren R. Hromas, College Station, stated he is a member of First Baptist Church on their Developing Committee. Mr. Hromas came with a plan but hearing the information given this evening, he feels like he doesn't have all the information or the incorrect information. Pastor Steve Rodgers, College Station, came before Council not in support of the proposed removal of the future extension of Balcones Drive, a Minor Collector, between the Jones Crossing Development and Welsh Avenue including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks. In return he offered possible options: Abandon the extension since Owner can never build it; Waive the Owner participation and allow Church to flourish; City builds extension in the future; City buys the "orphaned" land created by the extension; Table the action and enter into discussions with all involved. Patrick Seiber, College Station, came before Council to speaking on the expansion but stated that his comments have been covered. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:26 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Smith and a second by Councilmember Wright, the City Council voted six (6) for and one (1), with Councilmember Yancy voting against, to deny the request to remove the Balcones from the Thoroughfare Plan on Ordinance No. 2024-4550, amending the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Balcones Drive, a Minor Collector, between the Jones Crossing Development and Welsh Avenue including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks. The motion carried. AMENDED MOTION: Upon an amended motion made by Councilmember Yancy and a second by Councilmember Cunha, to table this item to the November 25, 2024 meeting. AMENDED 1ST AMENDED MOTION: Upon an amended the amended motion made by Councilmember Yancy and a second by Councilmember Cunha, the City Council voted three (3) for and four (4) opposed, with Mayor Nichols and Councilmember Smith, Wright, and Maloney voting against, to table this item to October 24, 2024 meeting. The motion failed. Council also gave staff direction to engage stakeholders on the Balcones extension and discuss any concerns or impacts of the project as well as bring back funding options. 9. Council Calendar Council reviewed the calendar. 10. Items of Communitv Interest: The Council may receive reports from a Council Member or Citv Staff about items of communitv interest for which notice has not been given, including: expressions of thanks, congratulations or condolence. information regarding holidav schedules; CCM 091224 Minutes Page 10 Page 20 of 379 honorary or salutary recognitions of a public official, public emplovee, or other citizen; reminders of upcoming events organized or sponsored by the Citv of College Station., information about a social, ceremonial or communitv event organized or sponsored by an entitv other than the Citv of College Station that is scheduled to be attended by a Council Member, another citv official or staff of the Citv of College Station, and announcements involving an imminent threat to the public health and safetv of people in the Citv of College Station that has arisen after the posting of the agenda. Councilmember Harvell recognized Gladys Watson on her 100t" Birthday. Councilmember Maloney recognized Robert Borden on his retirement from The Eagle. 11. Council Reports on Committees, Boards, and Commission: A Council Member may make a report regarding meetings of Citv Council boards and commissions or meetings of boards and committees on which a Council Member serves as a representative that have met since the last council meeting. (Committees listed in Coversheet) Councilmember Maloney reported on Sister Cities. Councilmember Cunha reported on BPG and considering a possible organizational and board name change. 12. Future Agenda Items and Review of Standing List of Council Generated Future Agenda Items: A Council Member may make a request to Citv Council to place an item for which no notice has been given on a future agenda or may inquire about the status of an item on the standing list of council generated future agenda items. A Council Member's or Citv Staffs response to the request or inquiry will be limited to a statement of specific factual information related to the request or inquiry or the recitation of existing volicv in response to the request or inquirv. Anv deliberation of or decision about the subiect of a request will be limited to a proposal to place the subiect on the agenda for a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Wright requested an item considering library boxes at various city facilities. 13. Adiournment. There being no further business, Mayor Nichols adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 11:58 p.m. on Thursday, September 12, 2024. John P. Nichols, Mayor ATTEST: Tanya Smith, City Secretary CCM 091224 Minutes Page 11 Page 21 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.2. FY25 Investment Policy and Strategy Sponsor: Michael DeHaven, Assistant Director of Fiscal Services Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a resolution regarding the City's investment policy, reviewing and recording changes to the policy and strategy, and on a collateral policy, and designating investment officers for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, stating that the City Council has reviewed and approved the City's investment policy, broker -dealer list and investment strategy. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good Governance Financial Sustainability Recommendation(s): Staff recommends review and approval of the resolution. Summary: The Public Funds Investment Act requires an annual review and approval of the City's investment policy and investment strategies. The Act further requires the following: (1) that the governing body adopt a written instrument by rule, order, ordinance, or resolution stating that it has reviewed the investment policy and investment strategies, and (2) that the written instrument so adopted records any changes to either the investment policy or investment strategies. The proposed list of Broker/Dealers/Advisors for the City to do business with are: FHN Financial Hilltop Securities, Inc. Cantor Fitzgerald & Company Truist Securities American Momentum (CD's only) The proposed list of depository banks for the City to do business with are: Truist Bank JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. As part of the City's Investment Policy, the Council is to review, approve and adopt any modifications to the list. Budget & Financial Summary: None Attachments: Investment Policy Strategy FY 25 Resolution and Exhibits Page 22 of 379 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, APPROVING THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY; THE CITY'S INVESTMENT STRATEGY; REVIEWING AND RECORDING CHANGES TO SUCH POLICY AND STRATEGY; APPROVING A COLLATERAL POLICY; AND DESIGNATING INVESTMENT OFFICERS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2025; AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. WHEREAS, it is a paramount goal of the City of College Station, Texas ("City") ensuring the financial integrity of the City and meeting all legal requirements associated with the safekeeping and investing of its funds; and WHEREAS, according to the Public Funds Investment Act, Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code, the City Council must adopt an investment policy and investment strategies; and WHEREAS, Section 2256.005, Texas Government Code requires the City Council to review the investment policies and investment strategies not less than annually and to adopt a resolution or order stating the review has been completed and recording any changes made to either the investment policies or investment strategies; and WHEREAS, the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025 designates the Assistant City Manager or his designee(s) as the Investment Officer of the City and authorizes the Investment Officer to carry out the responsibilities of investing the City's funds; and WHEREAS, the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025 contains the City's Collateral Policy which is required pursuant to Chapter 2257, Texas Government Code; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the facts and recitations set forth in the preamble of this Resolution are declared true and correct. PART 2: That the City Council approves the City's Investment Policy, the City's Collateral Policy, the City's Broker/Dealer List and the City's Investment Strategy for Fiscal year 2025 as attached in Exhibit "A". PART 3: That the City Council of the City has completed its review of the investment policy and investment strategies, and any changes made to either the investment policy or investment strategy are recorded in Exhibit `B". Page 23 of 379 Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 PART 4: That the City Council hereby approves designating the Assistant City Manager or his designee(s) as the City's Investment Officer and authorizes the Investment Officer to carry out the responsibilities of investing the City's funds consistent with the City's Investment Policy. PART 5: That this Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this 26tb day of September, 2024. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor Page 24 of 379 Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 Exhibit "A" CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY, THE CITY'S COLLATERAL POLICY, THE CITY'S BROKER/DEALER LIST AND THE CITY'S INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 Page 25 of 379 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas AeTM University® Investment Strategy and Policy 2025 Approved by Council September 26, 2024 Page 26 of 379 Table of Contents INVESTMENT STRATEGY 3 1. POLICY 4 It. SCOPE 4 Ill. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES 4 Safety 4 Liquidity 5 Yield 5 IV. RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL 5 Delegation of Authority 5 Cash Flow Analysis 5 Training Requirement 5 Internal Controls 6 Prudence 6 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest 6 V. SUITABLE AND AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS 7 Portfolio Management 7 Investments 7 Exemption for Existing Investments 8 Loss of Required Rating 8 Vl. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS 9 Maximum Maturities 9 Diversification 9 Vll. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEALERS 9 Depository 9 Authorized Brokers/Dealers 10 Competitive Bids 11 Delivery vs. Payment 11 Vlll. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES 11 Safekeeping Agreement 11 Safekeeping and Custody 11 Collateralization 11 IXX, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 12 Performance Standards 12 Performance Benchmark 12 X. REPORTING 12 Methods 12 Marking to Market 12 Xl. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION 13 QUALIFIED BROKERS/DEALERS 14 GLOSSARY OF COMMON TREASURY TERMINOLOGY 15 EXHIBIT A OPEB TRUST INVESTMENT GUIDELINE 22 EXHIBIT B OPEB FUNDING POLICY 23 2 Page 27 of 379 INVESTMENT STRATEGY The City of College Station will pursue a passive investment strategy. Investments will be purchased with the intent of holding to maturity and will only be sold early under exceptional circumstances. In purchasing investments, the investment officer will attempt to follow a ladder strategy to ensure that the portfolio will have at least one investment maturing every month. Investment priorities are as follows: 1. Suitability - Any investment allowed under the Investment Policy is suitable. 2. Preservation and Safety of Principal - Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to insure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. 3. Liquidity - The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operational requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. 4. Marketability - Investments should have an active and efficient secondary market to enable the City to liquidate investments prior to the maturity if the need should arise. 5. Diversification - The Investment Officer will attempt to maintain a diversified portfolio with regard to security type, financial institution providing the security, and maturity. 6. Yield - The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining the maximum rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. The City of College Station also has an irrevocable trust relating to its Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) obligations. The investment strategy for this trust will be dictated by the City's Investment Committee. This trust does not fall under the Texas Public Funds Investment Act. The current investment guideline is attached to this policy as Exhibit A. The future funding of the OPEB liability and trust are attached to this policy as Exhibit B. Page 28 of 379 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION INVESTMENT POLICY The Public Funds Investment Act, Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code, as Amended ("PFIA" herein), requires each city to adopt rules governing its investment practices and to define the authority of the investment officer. The following Investment Policy addresses the methods, procedures, and practices that must be exercised to ensure effective and judicious fiscal management of the City of College Station funds. I. POLICY It is the policy of the City of College Station, Texas ("City") to invest public funds in a manner, which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all federal, state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. II. SCOPE This investment policy applies to all the financial assets held by the City. These funds are defined in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and include: General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Any new funds created by the City will be subject to this policy unless specifically exempted by the City Council. To maximize the effective investment of assets, all funds mentioned above will pool their cash balances for investment purposes. The income derived from investing activities will be distributed to the various funds based on calculation of their average balances. III. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The City of College Station shall manage and invest its cash with three primary objectives, listed in order of priority: safety, liquidity and yield. The safety of the principal invested always remains the primary objective. Safety Safety of Principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to insure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. Page 29 of 379 Liquiditv The City's investment portfolio will remain liquid to enable the City to meet all operational requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. Yield The City shall invest funds in investments that earn a competitive market yield consistent with stated objectives. For bond proceeds to which arbitrage restrictions apply, the primary objectives shall be to obtain a fair market yield and to minimize the costs associated with the investment of such funds within the constraints of the investment policy and applicable bond covenants. IV. RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL Delegation of Authoritv The Assistant City Manager or his Designee is designated the City's Investment Officer. The Investment Officer shall be responsible for the investment of funds consistent with this Policy, and shall have the authority necessary to carry out such responsibilities. An investment committee consisting of the Investment Officer and at least two other staff members designated by the City Manager will also be formed. This committee will be responsible for selecting eligible broker/dealers, reviewing, updating the investment policy annually, and be responsible for fixing any variable rate indebtedness when they deem appropriate. All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. The Investment Officer shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Investment Officer. The Investment Officer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. Cash Flow Analvsis Supplemental to the financial and budgetary systems, the Investment Officer will maintain a cash flow forecasting process designed to monitor and forecast cash positions for investment purposes. Cash flow analysis will include the historical researching and monitoring of specific cash flow items, payables and receivables as well as overall cash position and patterns. Training Requirement In order to ensure the quality and capability of investment management, the Assistant City Manager and the Investment Officer shall: Page 30 of 379 attend at least one training session within 12 months of assuming duties and containing not less than 10 hours of instruction from an independent source approved by the governing board or a designated investment committee; receive training which includes education in investment controls, security risks, strategy risks, market risks, diversification of the investment portfolio, and compliance with the PFIA; and attend a training session not less than once each state fiscal biennium (beginning on the first day of the fiscal year and consisting of two consecutive fiscal years after that date) and receive not less than 8 hours of training from an independent source approved by the governing board or a designated investment committee. Internal Controls The Investment Officer shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. Annually, the City's independent auditors will review quarterly reports for the fiscal year. Prudence Investments shall be made with the judgment and care which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. Investment officers shall avoid any transactions that might impair public confidence in the City's ability to govern effectively. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interest in financial institutions that conduct business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City, particularly with regard to the time of purchases and sales. Investment officials will disclose if the Official is related Page 31 of 379 with the second degree by affinity or consanguinity, as determined under Chapter 573 of the Texas Government Code. Employees and investment officials shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with which business is conducted on behalf of the City. On an annual basis, the Investment officials shall sign a statement acknowledging that they are in compliance with Section 2256.005 (i) of the Public Funds Investment Act. V. SUITABLE AND AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Portfolio Manaqement The City currently has a "buy and hold" portfolio strategy. Maturity dates are matched with cash flow requirements and investments are purchased with the intent to be held until maturity. Investments Acceptable investments under this policy shall be limited to certain instruments as described by the Government Code; Chapter 2256, Sections 2256.009 through 2256.011 and Sections 2256.013 through 2256.016 of the Public Funds Investment Act. Investment of funds in any instrument or security not authorized for investment under the Act is prohibited. • Authorized 1. Interest bearing bank deposits insured by the FDIC or the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. 2. Direct obligations of the United States government: U.S. Treasury Bills, U.S. Treasury Notes, and U.S. Treasury Bonds as well as Bonds or other interest bearing obligations for which the principal and interest are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and rated not less than A or its equivalent by at least one nationally recognized investment rating firm. 3. Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities including but not limited to, discount notes, callables and debentures of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), the Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). 4. Time Certificates of Deposit, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or its successor, or the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund or its successor, in state or national banks. Any deposits exceeding FDIC insurance limits shall be collateralized at 102% of the face amount of the Certificate of Deposit by securities listed in 1 - 2 above and held by the City's custodial bank or the custodial bank of the institution the CD's are held. Bids for Certificates of Deposit may be solicited orally, in writing, electronically or using any combination of these methods. Page 32 of 379 5. Repurchase Agreements with a defined termination date of 90 days or less collateralized by a combination of cash and securities listed in 1 - 2 above. Collateral must have a minimum market value of 102% of the repurchase agreement, and must be held by the custodian bank or other independent third -party custodian contracted by the City. Bond proceeds may be invested in flexible repurchase agreements with maturity dates not exceeding the expected final project expenditure if a formal bidding process is followed and properly documented for IRS purposes. 6. AAA -rated No -Load Money Market Mutual Funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and comply with SEC Rule 2a-7 . 7. AAA -rated Investment Pools organized under the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act that follow the requirements in the Public Funds Investment Act and which have been specifically approved by the City. • Not Authorized The following security types are not permitted: 1. Obligations whose payment represents the coupon payments of the underlying mortgage - backed security collateral and pays no principal (1O's); 2. Obligations whose payment represents the principal stream from the underlying mortgage - backed security collateral and bears no interest (PO's); 3. Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO's) that have a stated final maturity date of greater than 10 years; and 4. Any security, the interest rate of which is determined by an index that adjusts opposite to the changes in the Market index (inverse floaters). Exemption for Existinq Investments Any investment, which was authorized at the time of purchase, shall not be required to be liquidated. Loss of Required Ratinq If any security that requires a minimum investment rating is downgraded below that minimum rating subsequent to purchase, it will no longer be considered an authorized investment. As a result, the City shall take all prudent measures to liquidate the security in effort to preclude or reduce principal loss. The City will select a different approved broker/dealer each quarter to verify the ratings of securities held. Local Government Pools ratings will be verified quarterly by checking their websites. Page 33 of 379 VI. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS Maximum Maturities To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase. Additionally, the City will maintain a dollar -weighted average maturity of two years or less. Diversification It is the intent of the City to diversify the investment instruments within the portfolio to avoid incurring unreasonable risks inherent in over -investing in specific instruments, individual financial institutions or maturities. The asset allocation in the portfolio should be flexible depending upon the outlook for the economy and the securities markets. If conditions warrant, the guidelines below may be exceeded by approval of the Investment Committee. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities, authorized pools, and the City's depository accounts, the City may not invest more than 30% of the City's investment portfolio with a single financial institution. In addition, the following maximum limits, by instrument, are established for the City's total portfolio: 1. U.S. Treasury Securities 100% 2. Agencies and Instrumentalities 70% 3. Certificates of Deposits 40% 4. Money Market Mutual Funds 30% 5. Repurchase Agreements 20% 7. Authorized Pools 70% VII. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEALERS Depository At least every three to five years a Depository shall be selected through the City's banking services procurement process, which shall include a formal request for application (RFA). The selection of a depository will be determined by competitive bid and evaluation of bids will be based on the following selection criteria: The ability to qualify as a depository for public funds in accordance with state and local laws. The ability to provide requested information or financial statements for the period specified. The ability to meet all requirements in the banking RFA. Page 34 of 379 Complete response to all required items on the bid form. Lowest net banking service cost, consistent with the ability to provide an appropriate level of service. The credit worthiness and financial stability of the bank. The bank depository contract is subject to Council approval. During the term of the contract, additional accounts may be established. The City may open a cash money market account with its approved depository bank. Accounts held by the approved bank are to be collateralized at no less than 105%. Two authorized signers on the City's accounts must approve the establishment of new accounts. Authorized Brokers/Dealers The Investment Officer shall maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of Texas. These may include "primary" or regional dealers that qualify under SEC rule 15C3-1. No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by state laws. All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the Investment Officer with a completed Broker/Dealer Questionnaire and Certification, which shall include the following: • An audited financial statement for the most recent period. . Proof of certification by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). • Proof of current registration with the State Securities Commission. Financial institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City shall be presented a written copy of this Investment Policy. Additionally, the qualified representative of the business organization seeking to transact investment business shall execute a written instrument substantially to the effect that the qualified representative has received and reviewed this Investment Policy, and acknowledged that the organization has implemented reasonable procedures and controls in an effort to preclude imprudent investment activities with the City. The City will not enter into an investment transaction with a Broker/Dealer prior to receiving the written agreement described above and current audited financial statements. Annually, the Investment Committee shall review and revise the list as needed. The Committee will consider any new firms that have submitted the required documentation and review the performance of the previously approved firms. Any modifications to the list will be submitted to Council for their review, approval and adoption. H Page 35 of 379 Competitive Bids Securities will be purchased or sold after three (3) offers/bids are taken to verify that the City is receiving fair market value/price for the investment. Security transactions that may be purchased without competitive offers include: a) transactions with money market mutual funds b) local government investment pools and c) new securities still in syndicate and priced at par. Delivery vs. Payment All securities transaction, including collateral for repurchased agreements, shall be purchased using the delivery vs., payment method with the exception of investment pools and mutual funds. Funds will be released after notification that the purchased security has been received. VIII. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES Safekeepinq Aqreement The City shall contract with a bank or banks for the safekeeping of securities either owned by the City as part of its investment portfolio or held as collateral to secure demand or time deposits. Safekeepinq and Custodv Safekeeping and custody of securities and collateral shall be in accordance with state law. Securities and collateral will be held by a third party custodian designated by the Investment Officer and held in the City's name as evidenced by safekeeping receipts of the institution with which the securities are deposited. Original safekeeping receipts shall be obtained. Collateralization Consistent with the requirements of the Public Funds Collateral Act, it is the policy of the City to require full collateral ization of all investments and uninsured balances plus accrued interest on deposit with a depository bank, other than investments, which are obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and government sponsored enterprises. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateral ization level will be 102% of market value of principal and accrued interest on deposits or investments less than an amount insured by the FDIC. The collateral ization level of the City's depository accounts will be no less than 105%. Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the City has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the City and retained. The right of collateral substitution is granted and the City's Investment Officers reserve the right to accept or reject any form of collateral or enhancement at their sole discretion. 11 Page 36 of 379 IX. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance Standards The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. Performance Benchmark Given the passive investment strategy of the City, the benchmark to be used by the Investment Officer to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be the average closing yield during the reporting period comparable to the portfolios dollar -weighted average maturity in days. X. REPORTING Methods Not less than quarterly and within a reasonable time after the end of the period reported, the Investment Officer should prepare and submit to the City Council a written report of the investment transactions for all funds of the City for the preceding reporting period. The report must: • describe in detail the investment position of the City on the date of the report, • be prepared jointly by all the Investment Officers if the City appoints more than one, • be signed by all Investment Officials, • contain a summary statement of each pooled fund group that states the beginning market value for the reporting period, • state the book value and the market value of each separately invested asset at the end of the reporting period by the type of asset and fund type invested, • state the maturity date of each separately invested asset that has a maturity date, • state the fund for which each individual investment was acquired, • state all accrued interest payable; and • state the compliance of the investment portfolio as it relates to this Policy and Investment Act. Marking to Market The market values of the City's investments shall be obtained from a reliable outside source, which has access to investment market values. Marking to Market will be done at least quarterly. 12 Page 37 of 379 XI. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION The City's investment policy and investment strategies must be adopted annually by resolution of the City Council even if there are no changes. The City Council shall review the policy annually and they must approve any changes or modifications made thereto. 13 Page 38 of 379 QUALIFIED BROKERS/DEALERS/ADVISORS FHN Financial Buddy Saragusa, Shay Hisle 920 Memorial City Way, 1 ph Floor Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 435-4351 Hilltop Securities, Inc. Gilbert Ramon 700 Milam St., #1200 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (512) 340-1841 American Momentum Bank Frank Varisco Five Momentum Blvd. College Station, TX 77845 Phone: (979) 599-9349 TexPool / TexPool Prime 1001 Texas Ave., Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (866)839-7665 (CD's only) Cantor Fitzgerald & Company 1700 Post Oak Boulevard 2 BLVD Place, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 599-5192 Truist Securities 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 649-3976 INVESTMENT POOLS Texas CLASS / Texas CLASS Govt. 6907 Shavelson St. Houston, TX 77055 Phone: (800)707-6242 TexSTAR 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3500 Dallas, TX 75270 Phone: (800)839-7827 LOGIC 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3500 Dallas, TX 75270 Phone: (800)895-6442 DEPOSITORY BANKS Truist Bank JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. 2717 Texas Avenue South One Chase Manhattan Plaza College Station, Texas 77840 New York, New York 10005-1401 (979)260-1482 14 Page 39 of 379 GLOSSARY OF COMMON TREASURY TERMINOLOGY Accrued Interest - The accumulated interest due on a bond as of the last interest payment made by the issuer. Agency - A debt security issued by a federal or federally sponsored agency. Federal agencies are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Federally sponsored agencies (FSAs) are backed by each particular agency with a market perception that there is an implicit government guarantee. An example of federal agency is the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA). An example of a FSA is the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). Amortization - The systematic reduction of the amount owed on a debt issue through periodic payments of principal. Asked - The price at which securities are offered. Average Life - The average length of time that an issue of serial bonds and/or term bonds with a mandatory sinking fund feature is expected to be outstanding. Basis Point - A unit of measurement used in the valuation of fixed -income securities equal to 1/100 of 1 percent of yield, e.g., "1/4" of 1 percent is equal to 25 basis points. Bid - The indicated price at which a buyer is willing to purchase a security or commodity. Book Value - The value at which a security is carried on the inventory lists or other financial records of an investor. The book value may differ significantly from the security's current value in the market. Broker - A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission paid by the initiator of the transaction or by both sides; he does not position. In the money market, brokers are active in markets in which banks buy and sell money and in interdealer markets. Callable Bond - A bond issue in which all or part of its outstanding principal amount may be redeemed before maturity by the issuer under specified conditions. Call Price - The price at which an issuer may redeem a bond prior to maturity. The price is usually at a slight premium to the bond's original issue price to compensate the holder for loss of income and ownership. Call Risk - The risk to a bondholder that a bond may be redeemed prior to maturity. Cash Sale/Purchase - A transaction that calls for delivery and payment of securities on the same day that the transaction is initiated. Certificate of Deposit (CD) — A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large -denomination CD's are typically negotiable. 15 Page 40 of 379 Collateral ization - Process by which a borrower pledges securities, property, or other deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment of a loan and/or security. Commercial Paper - An unsecured short-term promissory note issued by corporations, with maturities ranging from 2 to 270 days. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) — The official annual report for the City of College Station. It includes combined statements and basic financial statements for each individual fund and account group prepared in conformity with GAAP. It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal and contractual provision, extensive introductory material, and a detailed statistical section. Coupon Rate - The annual rate of interest received by an investor from the issuer of certain types of fixed -income securities. It is also known as the interest rate. Credit Quality - The measurement of the financial strength of a bond issuer. This measurement helps an investor to understand an issuer's ability to make timely interest payments and repay the loan principal upon maturity. Generally, the higher the credit quality of a bond issuer, the lower the interest rate paid by the issuer because the risk of default is lower. Credit quality ratings are provided by nationally recognized rating agencies. Credit Risk - The risk to an investor that an issuer will default in the payment of interest and/or principal on a security. Current Yield (Current Return) - A yield calculation determined by dividing the annual interest received on a security by the current market price of that security. Dealer — A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account. Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) - A type of securities transaction in which the purchaser pays for the securities when they are delivered either to the purchaser or his/her custodian. Discount - The amount by which the par value of a security exceeds the price paid for the security. Discount Security — Non -interest bearing money market instruments that are issued at a discount and redeemed at maturity for full face value, e.g. U.S. Treasury Bills. Diversification - A process of investing assets among a range of security types by sector, maturity, and quality rating. Duration - A measure of the timing of the cash flows, such as the interest payments and the principal repayment, to be received from a given fixed -income security. This calculation is based on three variables: term to maturity, coupon rate, and yield to maturity. The duration of a security is a useful indicator of its price volatility for given changes in interest rates. Fair Value - The amount at which an investment could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. 16 Page 41 of 379 Federal Funds (Fed Funds) - Funds placed in Federal Reserve banks by depository institutions in excess of current reserve requirements. These depository institutions may lend fed funds to each other overnight or on a longer basis. They may also transfer funds among each other on a same -day basis through the Federal Reserve banking system. Fed funds are considered immediately available funds. Federal Funds Rate - Interest rate charged by one institution lending federal funds to the other Federal Credit Agencies — Agencies of the Federal Government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g. S&L's small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per depository account through December 31, 2013. On January 1, 2014, the standard insurance amount will return to $100,000. Federal Home Loan banks (FHLB) — The institutions that regulate and lend to savings and loan associations. The Federal Home Loan Banks play a role similar to that played by the Federal Reserve Bank versus member commercial banks. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) — A government —sponsored enterprise (GSE) that was created in 1938 to expand the low of mortgage money by creating a secondary mortgage market. Fannie Mae is a publicly traded company which operates under a congressional charter that directs Fannie Mae to channel its efforts into increasing the availability and affordability of homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle -income Americans. Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) — Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money. Federal Reserve System — The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) - A self -regulatory organization (SRO) of brokers and dealers in the over-the-counter securities business. Its regulatory mandate includes authority over firms that distribute mutual fund shares as well as other securities. Government Securities - An obligation of the U.S. government, backed by the full faith and credit of the government. These securities are regarded as the highest quality of investment securities available in the U.S. securities market. See "Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds." Interest Rate - See "Coupon Rate." Interest Rate Risk - The risk associated with declines or rises in interest rates which cause an investment in a fixed -income security to increase or decrease in value. 17 Page 42 of 379 Internal Controls - An internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that 1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and 2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Internal controls should address the following points: Control of collusion - Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are working in conjunction to defraud their employer. Separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping - By separating the person who authorizes or performs the transaction from the people who record or otherwise account for the transaction, a separation of duties is achieved. Custodial safekeeping - Securities purchased from any bank or dealer including appropriate collateral (as defined by state law) shall be placed with an independent third party for custodial safekeeping. Inverted Yield Curve - A chart formation that illustrates long-term securities having lower yields than short-term securities. This configuration usually occurs during periods of high inflation coupled with low levels of confidence in the economy and a restrictive monetary policy. Investment Policy - A concise and clear statement of the objectives and parameters formulated by an investor or investment manager for a portfolio of investment securities. Liquidity - An asset that can be converted easily and quickly into cash. Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) - An investment by local governments in which their money is pooled as a method for managing local funds. Mark -to -market - The process whereby the book value or collateral value of a security is adjusted to reflect its current market value. Market Risk - The risk that the value of a security will rise or decline as a result of changes in market conditions. Market Value - Current market price of a security. Maturity - The date on which payment of a financial obligation is due. The final stated maturity is the date on which the issuer must retire a bond and pay the face value to the bondholder. See "Weighted Average Maturity." Money Market — The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded. Money Market Mutual Fund - Mutual funds that invest solely in money market instruments (short-term debt instruments, such as Treasury bills, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, repos and federal funds). 18 Page 43 of 379 Mutual Fund - An investment company that pools money and can invest in a variety of securities, including fixed -income securities and money market instruments. Mutual funds are regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940. Net Asset Value - The market value of one share of an investment company, such as a mutual fund. This figure is calculated by totaling a fund's assets that includes securities, cash, and any accrued earnings, subtracting this from the fund's liabilities and dividing this total by the number of shares outstanding. This is calculated once a day based on the closing price for each security in the fund's portfolio. (See below.) [(Total assets) - (Liabilities)] / (Number of shares outstanding) Nominal Yield - The stated rate of interest that a bond pays its current owner, based on par value of the security. It is also known as the "coupon," "coupon rate," or "interest rate." Offer - An indicated price at which market participants are willing to sell a security or commodity. Also referred to as the "Ask price." Par - Face value or principal value of a bond, typically $1,000 per bond. Portfolio — Collection of securities held by an investor. Positive Yield Curve - A chart formation that illustrates short-term securities having lower yields than long-term securities. Premium - The amount by which the price paid for a security exceeds the security's par value. Prime Rate - A preferred interest rate charged by commercial banks to their most creditworthy customers. Many interest rates are keyed to this rate. Principal - The face value or par value of a debt instrument. Also may refer to the amount of capital invested in a given security. Prospectus - A legal document that must be provided to any prospective purchaser of a new securities offering registered with the SEC. This can include information on the issuer, the issuer's business, the proposed use of proceeds, the experience of the issuer's management, and certain certified financial statements. Prudent Person Rule - An investment standard outlining the fiduciary responsibilities of public funds investors relating to investment practices. Rate of Return — The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchases price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond or the current income return. Reinvestment Risk - The risk that a fixed -income investor will be unable to reinvest income proceeds from a security holding at the same rate of return currently generated by that holding. Repurchase Agreement (repo or RP) - An agreement of one party to sell securities at a specified price to a second party and a simultaneous agreement of the first party to repurchase the securities at a specified price or at a specified later date. 19 Page 44 of 379 Reverse Repurchase Agreement (Reverse Repo) - An agreement of one party to purchase securities at a specified price from a second party and a simultaneous agreement by the first party to resell the securities at a specified price to the second party on demand or at a specified date. Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act - Applies to all money market mutual funds and mandates such funds to maintain certain standards, including a 13- month maturity limit and a 90-day average maturity on investments, to help maintain a constant net asset value of one dollar ($1.00). Safekeeping - Holding of assets (e.g., securities) by a financial institution. Secondary Market — A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution. Securities & Exchange Commission — Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation. Serial Bond - A bond issue, usually of a municipality, with various maturity dates scheduled at regular intervals until the entire issue is retired. Sinking Fund - Money accumulated on a regular basis in a separate custodial account that is used to redeem debt securities or preferred stock issues. Swap - Trading one asset for another. Term Bond - Bonds comprising a large part or all of a particular issue which come due in a single maturity. The issuer usually agrees to make periodic payments into a sinking fund for mandatory redemption of term bonds before maturity. Total Return - The sum of all investment income plus changes in the capital value of the portfolio. For mutual funds, return on an investment is composed of share price appreciation plus any realized dividends or capital gains. This is calculated by taking the following components during a certain time period. (Price Appreciation) + (Dividends paid) + (Capital gains) = Total Return Treasury Bills - Short-term U.S. government non -interest bearing debt securities with maturities of no longer than one year and issued in minimum denominations of $10,000. Auctions of three- and six-month bills are weekly, while auctions of one-year bills are monthly. The yields on these bills are monitored closely in the money markets for signs of interest rate trends. Treasury Bonds — Marketable, fixed -interest U.S. government debt securities with maturities of more than ten years and issued in minimum denominations of $1,000. Treasury bonds make interest payments semi-annually and the income that holders received is only taxed at the federal level. Treasury Notes - Marketable U.S. government debt securities with fixed interest rates and maturities between 1 to 10 years. Treasury notes can be bought either directly from the U.S. government or through banks. 20 Page 45 of 379 Uniform Net Capital Rule - SEC Rule 15C3-1 — Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker -dealers in securities maintain a maximum ration of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1: also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. Indebtedness covers all money owned to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities. This is one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. Volatility - A degree of fluctuation in the price and valuation of securities. Volatility Risk Rating - A rating system to clearly indicate the level of volatility and other non- credit risks associated with securities and certain bond funds. The ratings for bond funds range from those that have extremely low sensitivity to changing market conditions and offer the greatest stability of the returns ("aaa" by S&P; W-1" by Fitch) to those that are highly sensitive with currently identifiable market volatility risk ("ccc-" by S&P, W-10" by Fitch). Weighted Average Maturity (WAM) - The average maturity of all the securities that comprise a portfolio. According to SEC rule 2a-7, the WAM for SEC registered money market mutual funds may not exceed 90 days and no one security may have a maturity that exceeds 397 days. Yield - The current rate of return on an investment security generally expressed as a percentage of the security's current price. Yield -to -call (YTC) - The rate of return an investor earns from a bond assuming the bond is redeemed (called) prior to its nominal maturity date. Yield Curve - A graphic representation that depicts the relationship at a given point in time between yields and maturity for bonds that are identical in every way except maturity. A normal yield curve may be alternatively referred to as a positive yield curve. Yield -to -maturity - The rate of return yielded by a debt security held to maturity when both interest payments and the investor's potential capital gain or loss are included in the calculation of return. Zero -coupon Securities - Security that is issued at a discount and makes no periodic interest payments. The rate of return consists of a gradual accretion of the principal of the security and is payable at par upon maturity. 21 Page 46 of 379 EXHIBIT A PARS OBEB TRUST INVESTMENT GUIDELINE 22 Page 47 of 379 HIGHMARK@ CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Investment Guidelines Document City of College Station, Texas 115 Irrevocable Exclusive Benefit Trust August 2017 Page 48 of 379 Investment Guidelines Document Scope and Purpose The purpose of this Investment Guidelines Document is to: • Facilitate the process of ongoing communication between the Plan Sponsor and its plan fiduciaries; • Confirm the Plan's investment goals and objectives and management policies applicable to the investment portfolio identified below and obtained from the Plan Sponsor; • Provide a framework to construct a well -diversified asset mix that can potentially be expected to meet the account's short- and long-term needs that is consistent with the account's investment objectives, liquidity considerations and risk tolerance; • Identify any unique considerations that may restrict or limit the investment discretion of its designated investment managers; • Help maintain a long-term perspective when market volatility is caused by short-term market movements. Key Plan Sponsor Account Information as of August 2017 Plan Sponsor: City of College Station Governance: City Council for the City of College Station Plan Name ("Plan") City of College Station Other Post -Employment Benefits Plan Trustee: US Bank Contact: Susan Hughes, 949-224-7209 susan.hughes@usbank.com Type of Account: GASB 45/Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust ERISA Status: Not subject to ERISA Market Value of Account: est. $1,000,000 Investment Manager: US Bank, as discretionary trustee, has delegated investment management responsibilities to HighMark Capital Management, Inc. ("Investment Manager"), an SEC -registered investment adviser Contact: Andrew Brown, CFA, 415-705-7605 Andrew.brown@highmarkcapital.com City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) 2 Page 49 of 379 Investment Authority: Except as otherwise noted, the Trustee, US Bank, has delegated investment authority to HighMark Capital Management, an SEC -registered investment adviser. Investment Manager has full investment discretion over the managed assets in the account. Investment Manager is authorized to purchase, sell, exchange, invest, reinvest and manage the designated assets held in the account, all in accordance with account's investment objectives, without prior approval or subsequent approval of any other party(ies). Investment Objectives and Constraints The goal of the Plan's investment program is to generate adequate long-term returns that, when combined with contributions, will result in sufficient assets to pay the present and future obligations of the Plan. The following objectives are intended to assist in achieving this goal: • The Plan should earn, on a long-term average basis, a rate of return equal to or in excess of the targeted rate of return in the actuarial valuation. • The Plan should seek to earn a return in excess of its policy benchmark over the long- term. • The Plan's assets will be managed on a total return basis which takes into consideration both investment income and capital appreciation. While the Plan Sponsor recognizes the importance of preservation of capital, it also adheres to the principle that varying degrees of investment risk are generally rewarded with compensating returns. To achieve these objectives, the Plan Sponsor allocates its assets (asset allocation) with a strategic, long- term perspective of the capital markets. Investment Time Horizon: Long-term Anticipated Cash Flows: Distributions are expected to be low in the early years of the Plan. Investment Objective: The primary objective is to maximize total Plan return, subject to the risk and quality constraints set forth herein. The investment objective the Plan Sponsor has selected is the Balanced Objective, which has a dual goal to seek growth of income and principal. Risk Tolerance: Balanced The account's risk tolerance has been rated balanced, which demonstrates that the account can accept price fluctuations to pursue its investment objectives. City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) 3 Page 50 of 379 Strategic Asset Allocation: The asset allocation ranges for this objective are listed below: Strategic Asset Allocation Ranges Cash Fixed Income Equity 0-20% 30%-50% 50%-70% Policy: 5% Policy: 35% Policy: 60% Market conditions may cause the account's asset allocation to vary from the stated range from time to time. The Investment Manager will rebalance the portfolio no less than quarterly and/or when the actual weighting differs substantially from the strategic range, if appropriate and consistent with your objectives. Security Guidelines: Equities With the exception of limitations and constraints described above, Investment Manager may allocate assets of the equity portion of the account among various market capitalizations (large, mid, small) and investment styles (value, growth). Further, Investment Manager may allocate assets among domestic, international developed and emerging market equity securities. Total Equities 50%-70% Equity Style Range Domestic Large Cap Equity 20%-50% Domestic Mid Cap Equity 0%-15% Domestic Small Cap Equity I 0%-20% International Equity (incl. Emerging Markets) 0%-20% Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) 0%-10% Fixed Income In the fixed income portion of the account, Investment Manager may allocate assets among various sectors and industries, as well as varying maturities and credit quality that are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the portfolio. Total Fixed Income Fixed Income Style Long-term bonds (maturities >7 years) Intermediate -term bonds (maturities 3-7 years) Short -Term bonds (maturities <3 years) High Yield bonds City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) 30%-50% Range 0%-20% 15%-50% 0%-15% 0%-8% 4 Page 51 of 379 Performance Benchmarks: The performance of the total Plan shall be measured over a three and five-year periods. These periods are considered sufficient to accommodate the market cycles experienced with investments. The performance shall be compared to the return of the total portfolio blended benchmark shown below. Total Portfolio Blended Benchmark 32.00% S&P500Index 6.00% Russell Mid Cap Index 9.00% Russell 2000 Index 4.00% MSCI Emerging Market Index 7.00% MSCI EAFE Index 2.00% Wilshire REIT Index 27.00% Bloomberg Barclays Capital Aggregate Index 6.75%ML 1-3 Year US Corp/Gov't 1.25% US High Yield Master II 5.00% Citi 1 Mth T-Bill Asset Class/Stvle Benchmarks Over a market cycle, the long-term objective for each investment strategy is to add value to a market benchmark. The following are the benchmarks used to monitor each investment strategy Large Cap Equity S&P 500 Index Growth S&P 500 Growth Index Value S&P 500 Value Index Mid Cap Equity Russell Mid Cap Index Growth Russell Mid Cap Growth Index Value Russell Mid Cap Value Index Small Cap Equity Russell 2000 Index Growth Russell 2000 Growth Index Value Russell 2000 Value Index REITs Wilshire REIT International Equity MSCI EAFE Index Investment Grade Bonds Bloomberg Barclays Capital Aggregate Index High Yield US High Yield Master II Security Selection Investment Manager may utilize a full range of investment vehicles when constructing the investment portfolio, including but not limited to individual securities, mutual funds, and exchange - traded funds. In addition, to the extent permissible, Investment Manager is authorized to invest in shares of mutual funds in which the Investment Manager serves as advisor or subadviser. City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) 5 Page 52 of 379 investment Limitations: The following investment transactions are prohibited: • Direct investments in precious metals (precious metals mutual funds and exchange -traded funds are permissible). • Venture Capital • Short sales* • Purchases of Letter Stock, Private Placements, or direct payments • Leveraged Transactions* • Commodities Transactions Puts, calls, straddles, or other option strategies* • Purchases of real estate, with the exception of REITs • Derivatives, with exception of ETFs* *Permissible in diversified mutual funds and exchange -traded funds Duties and Responsibilities Responsibilities of Plan Sponsor The Investment Committee of the City of College Station is responsible for: ■ Confirming the accuracy of this Investment Guidelines Document, in writing. • Advising Trustee and Investment Manager of any change in the plan/account's financial situation, funding status, or cash flows, which could possibly necessitate a change to the account's overall risk tolerance, time horizon or liquidity requirements; and thus would dictate a change to the overall investment objective and goals for the account. ■ Monitoring and supervising all service vendors and investment options, including investment managers. • Avoiding prohibited transactions and conflicts of interest. Responsibilities of Trustee The plan Trustee is responsible for: ■ Valuing the holdings. ■ Collecting all income and dividends owed to the Plan. ■ Settling all transactions (buy -sell orders). Responsibilities of investment Manager The Investment Manager is responsible for: ■ Assisting the Investment Committee with the development and maintenance of this Investment Policy Guideline document annually. • Meeting with Investment Committee annually to review portfolio structure, holdings, and performance. ■ Designing, recommending and implementing an appropriate asset allocation consistent with the investment objectives, time horizon, risk profile, guidelines and constraints outlined in this statement. • Researching and monitoring investment advisers and investment vehicles. ■ Purchasing, selling, and reinvesting in securities held in the account. ■ Monitoring the performance of all selected assets. • Voting proxies, if applicable. ■ Recommending changes to any of the above. City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) Page 53 of 379 ■ Periodically reviewing the suitability of the investments, being available to meet with the committee at least once each year, and being available at such other times within reason at your request. ■ Preparing and presenting appropriate reports. ■ Informing the committee if changes occur in personnel that are responsible for portfolio management or research. Acknowledgement and Acceptance I/We being the Plan Sponsor with responsibility for the account(s) held on behalf of the Plan Sponsor specified below, designate Investment Manager as having the investment discretion and management responsibility indicated in relation to all assets of the Plan or specified Account. If such designation is set forth in the Plan/trust, I/We hereby confirm such designation as Investment Manager. I have read the Investment Guidelines Document, and confirm the accuracy of it, including the terms and conditions under which the assets in this account are to be held, managed, and disposed of by Investment Manager. This Investment Guidelines Document supersedes all previous versions of an Investment Guidelines Document or investment objective instructions that may have been executed for this account. i Date: / Plan S ns Ar ity of College Station Date: Investment Manager: Andrew Brown, CFA, Senior Portfolio Manager, (415) 705-7605 City of College Station —115 Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 8/25/2017 - ARB) Page 54 of 379 EXHIBIT B OPEB Funding Policy 23 Page 55 of 379 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL CrrY OF COLLEGE STATION AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS PROGRAM Home of Texas AcW Univmisy' FUNDING POLICY EFFECTIVE FOR FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING ON AND AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2021 Adopted: 20 Page 56 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A: Purpose of Funding Policy .... Section B: Primary Funding Objective .......... Section C: Funding Priorities and Guidelines Pate No. ........ I Section D: City's Funding Policy..................................................................................................2 Glossary: Glossary of Actuarial Terms....................................................................................... 6 Appendix: Published Guidance on Key Elements of a Funding Policy ...................................... 8 FundingPolicy-COLSTA RMDB_LEGAL_PLANDOC.docx CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 57 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM A. Purpose of Funding Policy Adoption of a formal policy defining priorities and guidelines for the funding of pension benefits and Other Post -Employment Benefits (OPEB) has become a best practice for public retirement systems. Governing boards and plan sponsors can use a formal funding policy to communicate funding goals and to provide a plan actuary with guidance in determining the requisite contribution rates to meet those goals. For the City of College Station (the City), the adoption of this policy is intended to: • Define the goals and objectives of funding the City of College Station Postretirement Medical, Dental and Life Insurance Program (the OPEB Plan), • Ensure the funding objectives consider the current recommendations of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the Conference of Consulting Actuaries Public Plans Community (CCA PPC)1, • Review those objectives against the Texas Pension Review Board (the PRB) funding requirements and Texas Government Code §802.2011, even though such requirements only apply to Public Retirement (Pension) Systems2, • Enhance communications to plan members and retirees regarding the City's funding strategy, and • Provide funding policy guidance to current and future City managers. B. Primary Funding Objective The primary objective of the funding policy is to fully fund the long-term cost of benefits provided under the terms of the OPEB Plan through disciplined and timely accumulation of contributions and prudent investment of assets, where such investments are governed by the guidelines of a separate Investment Policy Statement. C. Funding Priorities and Guidelines The following priorities and guidelines seek to achieve the Primary Funding Objective: • 100% Payment of Benefits — Contributions and current plan assets must be sufficient to pay for all benefits expected to be paid to members and their beneficiaries when due. ' The GFOA recommendations are written for both Public Pension Plans and Public OPEB Plans. The CCA PPC recommendations are written for Public Pension Plans, but the CCA PPC white paper states that the general policy objectives presented are applicable to funding OPEB plans with consideration given to distinctive features applicable to OPEB Plans. Accordingly, these GFOA and CCA PPC recommendations are useful guidelines for funding OPEB Plans. 2 Although the PRB requirements do not apply to OPEB plans, they are useful in comparing to the GFOA and CCA recommendations. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 58 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM • Target a Funded Ratio of 100% —The funded ratio shall be determined based on the ratio of: ➢ the Plan Assets (which may be determined using a smoothing methodology discussed below) to ➢ the Actuarial Accrued Liability (determined using the selected actuarial Cost Method as discussed below and all other funding valuation assumptions). • Contribution Stability and Sound Financing of Benefits — The financing of benefits should be based on sound actuarial principles. The City desires to minimize year-to-year employer contribution volatility to the extent reasonably possible while understanding that a sound funding policy may require employer contribution fluctuations from year-to-year in order to achieve and maintain the sound actuarial financing of benefits. • Intergenerational Equity — Whenever possible, the costs of benefits are managed such that future taxpayers are not burdened with costs associated with a previous generation of City employees' service, and such costs are managed in a manner consistent with the principle to pay all benefits when due and without reduction. • Benefit Enhancements — Amendments to the OPEB Plan that improve plan benefits shall not be permitted unless the plan remains above 90% funded following the amendment. However, if the employer funds the full amount of the benefit enhancement at the time the enhancement is adopted, then the 90% funding threshold requirement shall be waived. D. City's OPEB Funding Policy The Funding Policy determines the manner in which plan liabilities and assets are measured for purposes of determining the annual contributions to the OPEB Plan. Typically, funding policies require the annual Normal Cost (i.e., the present value of the current year benefit accruals) plus a portion of the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) (i.e., the excess of Actuarial Accrued Liability over Plan Assets) to be funded via an amortization payment. In establishing this Funding Policy, the City considered published guidance from the Texas Pension Review Board, the Conference of Consulting Actuaries Public Plans Community and the Government Finance Officers Association. A detailed summary of this guidance, including many of the terms and concepts utilized in the Funding Policy below, is located in the Appendix of this document. Effective with the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021, the City may use the following Funding Policy based on the results of the preceding GASB No 74 valuation (e.g., the January 1, 2021 valuation for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021): CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2 APRIL 2021 Page 59 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM 1. Methods — The City shall use the following methods. a. Recommended Contribution — The City shall determine the annual contribution using the Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) Method. i. Funded Ratio Less Than 95% — If the ratio of Plan Assets to the Actuarial Accrued Liability is less than 95%, the ADC shall be determined as the sum of the Normal Cost plus an amortization of the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) as further discussed below. In addition, OPEB benefit payments will be paid directly by the City, and the City will not receive reimbursement from the OPEB Prefunding Trust. ii. Funded Ratio Between 95% and 100% — If the ratio of Plan Assets to the Actuarial Accrued Liability is at least 95% and less than 100%, then: 1. if there is any portion of the amortization period of the UAL from the prior valuation (i.e., one or two years remaining), then the ADC shall be determined as the sum of the Normal Cost plus an amortization of the UAL; or 2. if there is no amortization of the UAL remaining from the prior valuation (i.e., there are zero years remaining), then the ADC shall be equal to sum of the Normal Cost plus interest on the UAL at the valuation interest rate. In addition, OPEB benefit payments will be paid directly by the City, but the City will receive reimbursement from the OPEB Prefunding Trust. iii. Funded Ratio 100% or Greater — If the ratio of Plan Assets to the Actuarial Accrued Liability is at least 100%, the ADC shall be equal to the Normal Cost and there shall not be an adjustment for the amortization of the UAL. Furthermore, the amount of the Normal Cost shall be offset by Plan Assets in excess of the Actuarial Accrued Liability, but such offset shall not result in an ADC of less than $0. In addition, OPEB benefit payments will be paid directly by the City, but the City will receive reimbursement from the OPEB Pref ending Trust. Each fiscal year, the City budgets a contribution for the OPEB Prefunding Trust (e.g., at the date of adoption of this Funding Policy, the City has budgeted approximately $1,332,000 for FY22). To the extent that the budgeted OPEB contribution exceeds the ADC described under any of the above scenarios, then CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 3 APRIL 2021 Page 60 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM the contribution to the OPEB Prefunding Trust shall exceed the ADC but not in excess of the amount required to achieve a Funded Ratio of 100% plus the amount of the Normal Cost. In this event, any remaining portion of the budgeted contribution or excess available funding shall be contributed to the Texas Municipal Retirement System to fund the City's pension benefits. b. Cost Method — The actuarial cost method shall continue to be the Entry Age Normal Level Percent of Pay method. c. Asset Method — The City shall use the Market Value of Assets rather than a smoothed value of assets. Market Value of Assets as of the valuation date equals Fair Value plus any receivable contributions made or to be made for a prior plan year. The Plan Assets shall be set equal to the Market Value of Assets. d. Amortization Method — The amortization method shall be determined as follows: Amortization Method md1 City's Method Closed Period vs. Open Period Closed Period Level Dollar vs. Level Percent Level Dollar Single vs. Layered Single Amortization Period 3 years 2. Other Considerations a. Actuarial Experience Studies - The City participates in to the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) which already performs actuarial experience studies at least once every five (5) years. Such experience studies examine the Retirement System's actual experience relative to the expected experience based on the actuarial assumptions in effect. The OPEB plan will incorporate any new demographic assumptions and economic assumptions applicable to the OPEB Plan that are adopted by TMRS as a result of an experience study. The OPEB Plan's investment return assumption (i.e., the discount rate) shall be reevaluated at the same time as each TMRS experience study, and the City shall adopt a new investment return assumption, if warranted at such time. b. Risk -Sharing — If the ADC exceeds the amount of the budgeted OPEB contribution or if the ADC becomes otherwise untenable, then the City reserves the right to examine any combination of the following approaches to adjust the ADC or otherwise restore the ADC to a sustainable level: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 4 APRIL 2021 Page 61 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM i. adjusting the funding policy (e.g., use longer amortization periods that remain within the recommended ranges) while still meeting the Primary Funding Objectives, ii. increasing the retirees' cost -sharing contributions to the OPEB Plan for medical and dental coverage to restore the ADC to a sustainable level, iii. reducing future benefits to restore the ADC to a sustainable level, and/or iv. limiting the contribution to the amount of the budgeted OPEB contribution. The City reserves the right to amend, modify or replace this Funding Policy. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 62 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM Glossary of Actuarial Terms Actuarial Accrued Liability This is computed differently under different actuarial cost or Accrued Liability (AAL) methods. Generally, the Actuarial Accrued Liability or Accrued Liability represents the portion of the Present Value of Future Benefits attributed to periods of service preceding the valuation date. Actuarial Gain (Loss) A measure of the difference between actual experience and that expected based on the actuarial assumptions during the period between two actuarial valuation dates, as determined in accordance with the particular actuarial cost method used. Actuarial Value of Assets The value of assets used by an actuary for an actuarial valuation. (AVA) The AVA can be set equal to the Market Value of Assets, or the AVA can be set equal to a smoothed value of assets that is designed to smooth volatility in the Market Value of Assets over a period of years (e.g., a three to ten year period). Entry Age Normal An actuarial cost method under which the Present Value of Future Actuarial Cost Method Benefits of each individual included in an actuarial valuation is allocated on a level basis over the earnings or service of the individual between entry age and assumed exit ages. The portion of this actuarial present value allocated to the year of service during the valuation year is called the Normal Cost. The portion of this present value not provided for at a valuation date by the Present Value of Future Normal Costs is called the Accrued Liability. Market Value of Assets Market Value of Assets as of a valuation date equals Fair Value plus any receivable contributions made or to be made for a prior plan year. Normal Cost Computed differently under different actuarial cost methods, the Normal Cost generally represents the portion of the actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits attributed to the current year of service for active employees. OPEB Plan An OPEB Plan or Other Post -Employment Benefit Plan is a plan that provides post -retirement benefits other than pension benefits. Such plans typically provide post -retirement medical coverage, including prescription drug coverage, dental coverage and life insurance benefits. Plan Assets Used interchangeably with Actuarial Value of Assets. See definition of Actuarial Value of Assets above. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 63 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM Present Value of Future Future benefits include all benefits estimated to be payable to plan Benefits members (retirees and beneficiaries, terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them, and current active members) as a result of their service through the valuation date and their expected future service. The actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits as of the valuation date is the present value of the cost to finance benefits payable in the future, discounted to reflect the expected effects of the time value (present value) of money and the probabilities of payment. Present Value of Future The difference between the Present Value of Future Benefits and Normal Costs the Actuarial Accrued Liability under a given actuarial cost method. Unfunded Accrued The excess, if any, of the Actuarial Accrued Liability over the Liability (UAL) Actuarial Value of Assets. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION % APRIL 2021 Page 64 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM Appendix Published Guidance on Key Elements of a Funding Policy The Funding Policy determines the manner in which plan liabilities and assets are measured for purposes of determining the annual contributions to the OPEB Plan. Typically, funding policies require the annual Normal Cost (i.e., the present value of the current year benefit accruals) plus a portion of the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) (i.e., the excess of Actuarial Accrued Liability over Plan Assets) to be funded via an amortization payment. Published guidance by the following entities has been considered in developing the Funding Policy: Texas PRB's "Guidance for Developing a Funding Policy" adopted on October 17, 2019 — This guidance is intended to assist public entities in Texas in developing a policy that meets the requirements of Texas Government Code §802.2011 which does not apply to OPEB plans, but is useful to consider when establishing a funding policy for a OPEB plan; 2. Conference of Consulting Actuaries Public Plans Community (CCA PPC) "Actuarial Funding Policies and Practices for Public Pension Plans" published in October 2014 — This publication is a "white paper" that develops principal elements and parameters of actuarial funding policy for U.S. public pension plans. The white paper states, "While this white paper develops guidance primarily for pension plans, we believe the general policy objectives presented here are applicable to the funding of OPEB plans as well." The guidance offered in the white paper "is not intended to supplant or replace the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs)" and is "nonbinding and advisory only", but is intended as advice to actuaries and retirement boards in setting funding policy. The white paper develops a Level Cost Allocation Model that recommends actuarial funding methods for measuring both plan liabilities and plan assets, as well as recommends amortization periods for funding the UAL. These recommendations are discussed further below; and 3. Government Finance Officers Association's Best Practice "Sustainable Funding Practices for Defined Benefit Pensions and Other Postemployment Benefits" approved by the GFOA's Executive Board in January 2016 — This paper includes recommendations for best practices for adopting a funding policy for Pension and OPEB plans and incorporates by reference the GFOAs' Best Practice "Core Elements of Funding Policy" published in 2013 which also recommends parameters for a funding policy. All three sources of published guidance discuss the following key elements of a funding policy. • Recommended Contribution — There are two methods used to determine recommended employer contributions to retirement plans: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 65 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM ➢ Fixed Rate Method — The Fixed Rate method determines the annual employer contribution as a constant percentage (i.e., a fixed rate) of payroll. This method is used to minimize volatility in the contribution amount and does not vary from year- to-year unless certain conditions are met. ➢ Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) Method — The ADC is determined as the sum of the Normal Cost plus an amortization of the UAL. The ADC changes each year as the Normal Cost and UAL fluctuate. This volatility permits the plan funding to be adjusted as needed in order to continue funding towards 100% over a set period of time. As discussed below, the Normal Cost and Actuarial Accrued Liability are determined based upon the actuarial Cost Method that is selected, and the Plan Assets can either be determined using Market Value or a smoothed Actuarial Value of Assets. Lastly, the period(s) over which the UAL is amortized as well as the methods of setting the period(s) (open period vs. closed period and level dollar amortization vs. level percent of pay amortization) are also key components in the determination of the ADC. The Texas PRB and GFOA recommend using the ADC method. The CCA PPC white paper is written solely in the context of the ADC method; however, the white paper indicates that plans that use the Fixed Rate method should also develop an ADC rate for comparison. Similarly, the Texas PRB recommends that if a Fixed Rate method is used, then an ADC rate should be used as a benchmark for determining if the Fixed Rate is reasonable, as well as to identify conditions in which the Fixed Rate should be changed to move towards the ADC rate either via changes to the rate or benefit reductions. • Cost Method — The actuarial cost method is used to allocate the Present Value of Future Benefits to past, current and future service periods. ➢ Actuarial Accrued Liability — This is the portion of the Present Value of Future Benefits assigned to past service (i.e., service before the actuarial valuation date). ➢ Normal Cost — This is the portion of the Present Value of Future Benefits that is assigned to the current year of service (i.e., it is the present value of the current year's accruals). ➢ Present Value of Future Normal Costs — This is the portion the Present Value of Future Benefits that is assigned to future service after the valuation year (i.e., it represents the present value of future years' accruals). The PRB, the CCA PPC and the GFOA all recommend that plan liabilities be determined using the Entry Age Normal Level Percent actuarial cost method for plans with pay -related benefits. Although the City's OPEB Plan benefits are not pay - related, GASB Nos. 74/75 require the use of the Entry Age Normal Level Percent actuarial CITY OF COLLEGE STATION APRIL 2021 Page 66 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM cost method. This method funds each individual's benefits over their career as a level percent of pay. • Asset Method — Rather than use the Market Value of Assets in each annual valuation as the measure of Plan Assets, an Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) can be used to smooth investment gains and losses and thus reduce year-to-year volatility in developing a funding policy contribution. Some AVA methods also place a corridor around the Market Value of Assets to limit the maximum amount of the smoothing during periods in which the market has been very volatile. The PRB, the CCA PPC and the GFOA have various recommended ranges for the length of the period over which assets can be smoothed, but all three entities indicate that a 5-year smoothing period is reasonable, with the GFOA stating that a period of 5 years or less is "ideal". Furthermore, the CCA PPC and GFOA neither recommend nor discourage a corridor for a 5-year smoothing period (but they do recommend corridors for smoothing periods in excess of 5 years), while the PRB does not state a position on this matter. • Amortization Method — The amortization method determines the manner and period over which the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is amortized. ➢ Level Dollar vs. Level Percent — The UAL can be amortized as a: ■ Level Dollar amount, where the amortization installment is fixed each year, or ■ Level Percent amount, where the amortization installment increases each year as payroll increases, but this can sometimes result in negative amortization. ➢ Open Period vs. Closed Period — The UAL can be amortized over an: ■ Open Period, whereby the amortization period is the same each year (e.g., a 5-year Open Period amortization would use a 5-year amortization for the January 1, 2021 valuation, followed by another 5-year open period on January 1, 2022 and so on without the 5-year period ever changing), or ■ Closed Period, whereby the amortization period reduces each successive period (e.g., a 5-year Closed Period amortization would use a 5-year amortization for the January 1, 2021 valuation, followed by a 4-year Closed Period on January 1, 2022 and so on until the final year of the amortization is reached in the 5th year). ➢ Single Amortization vs. Layered Amortization — The UAL can be amortized using: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 10 APRIL 2021 Page 67 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM ■ Single Amortization — Under the Single Amortization method, the full amount of the UAL is amortized over a single period each year. ■ Layered Amortization — Under the Layered Amortization method, different amortization layers of the UAL are established at each actuarial valuation, and the sum of the layers is equal to the full UAL. In addition, within a single valuation, multiple layers of UAL can be established for different sources of changes in the UAL. The Layered Amortization method requires that a new amortization base (or layer) be created each year for Actuarial Experience Gains/Losses that occur during the year. In addition, new amortization layers are created in years in which actuarial assumptions or methods are changed and in years in which plan amendments are enacted. Creating a new amortization layer for each year reduces the volatility of the amortization of the UAL relative to the Single Amortization method, particularly as the Closed Period becomes shorter if a Closed Period amortization method is used. In addition, different amortization periods can be used for different types of layers created in years in which actuarial assumptions or methods are changed and in years in which plan amendments are enacted. This allows the funding of each layer to be better aligned with an appropriate amortization period. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 11 APRIL 2021 Page 68 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM As shown in the tables below, the Texas PRB, CCA PPC and GFOA all recommend a Layered Amortization approach with Closed Periods but with different amortization periods and different recommendations for Level Dollar versus Level Percent. Amortization Methodology Texas PRB CCA PPC GFOA Closed Period vs. Open Period Closed Period Closed Period Closed Period Level Dollar vs. Level Percent Level Dollar' Level Percent Either Single vs. Layered Layered Layered Layered Source of Amortization Layers Amortization Period Texas PRB' CCA PPC2 GFOA Actuarial Experience Gain/Loss 10 to 25 years 15 to 20 years 15 to 25 years5 Assumption and Method Changes 10 to 25 years 15 to 25 years 15 to 25 years5 Plan Amendments 10 to 25 years 10 to 15 years3 15 to 25 years5 Transition to New Policy Not discussed Up to 30 years4 Not discussed ' The Texas PRB indicates that "level dollar amounts are preferable unless payroll is expected to decrease in the future". The Texas PRB also states that 10 to 25 years is the preferable range, and while it indicates that a layered approach is acceptable, it does not provide separate preferred ranges for each of the layers. 2 The white paper indicates that "level dollar could be appropriate for sponsors and plans that are particularly averse to future cost increases, e.g., utilities setting rates for current rate payers." Furthermore, the white paper states "level dollar is generally faster amortization than level percent of pay so longer periods may be reasonable." 3 The white paper recommends that Plan Amendments be amortized over the actual remaining active future service for amendments affecting active members (where 15 years can be used as an approximation) or over actual remaining retiree life expectancy for amendments affecting inactive members (where 10 years can be used as an approximation). 4 The white paper indicates that transition policies would allow current fixed period amortization layers with periods not to exceed 30 years to continue with new amortization layers subject to recommended guidelines. 5 GFOA states that amortization periods should "ideally fall in the 15-20 year range" but "never exceed 25 years". • Other Considerations — The Texas PRB, CCA PPC and GFOA each recommend other considerations to manage growth in plan liabilities and mitigate other risks. ➢ Actuarial Experience Studies - An actuarial experience study examines a Retirement Plan's actual demographic and economic experience relative to the expected experience based on the actuarial assumptions used in an actuarial valuation. Adjustments should be made to the actuarial assumptions whenever actual plan experience deviates materially from the assumptions in order to produce the best long-term estimate and to better align the contributions with the long-term expected cost of the plan. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 12 APRIL 2021 Page 69 of 379 FUNDING POLICY FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POSTRETIREMENT MEDICAL, DENTAL AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM The GFOA recommends an actuarial experience study be conducted at least once every five years; the Texas PRB indicates that the frequency of actuarial experience studies can be included in the funding policy; and the CCA PPC does not address assumption selection in its white paper. ➢ Risk Mitigation Strategies — Other strategies can be implemented to mitigate risks, such as the risk of large contribution increases year-to-year, sharing risks with employees via increased employee contributions or benefit reductions in certain scenarios. Managing growth in plan liabilities via restrictions on plan amendments should also be considered. The Texas PRB, CCA PPC and GFOA all suggest various strategies for mitigating risks and managing growth in plan liabilities, and the referenced publications for each of these bodies suggest incorporating some risk mitigation strategies into a plan's funding policy. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 13 APRIL 2021 Page 70 of 379 Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT `B" RECORDED CHANGES TO INVESTMENT POLICY OR INVESTMENT STRATEGIES The following changes to the Investment Policy or Investment Strategies are as set forth below: 1. "be responsible for fixing any variable rate indebtedness when they deem market appropriate" was added to the Delegation of Authority. — Investment Policy on page 5. 2. "may" replaced "will" in Exhibit B — OPEB Funding Policy on page 2. 3. "or excess available funding" was added in Exhibit B — OPEB Funding Policy on page 4. Page 71 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.3. Jones Butler Extension and Roundabout Project Design Contract Change Order No 2 Sponsor: Jennifer Cain, Director Capital Projects Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on Change Order No. 2 for the design contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Jones Butler Extension and Roundabout Project in the amount of $110,000. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval. Summary: The change order is based on additional work needed internal to the Pump Station site, increased costs of materials testing services, and an extended project schedule required by the need to construct the project in multiple phases to account for the large diameter water pipes connecting to the Dowling Road Pump Station. Budget & Financial Summary: A combined budget of $14,175,000 is included in the Streets, Water, and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Funds. A combined total of $1,396,764 has been spent or committed to date, leaving a combined balance of $12,778,236 for this change order and future costs. Attachments: 1. Jones Butler Ext and Roundabout CO #2 2. Jones Butler Project Location Map Page 72 of 379 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: August 28, 2024 Contract No. 20300729 P.O.#: 20205897 PROJECT: Jones Butler Extension and Roundabou Project No. ST2006 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: City of College Station Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc P.O. Box 9960 2800 S. Texas Ave, Ste 201 Ph: 979-775-9595 College Station, Texas 77842 Bryan, Texas 77802 Fax: PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: This change order is for additional design services required due to the expanded project schedule as detailed in the attached scope of services amendment. 1 EA Scope Amendment No. 2 Design Fees $ 1.00 1364500 1474500 $ 110,000.00 TOTAL $ 110,000.00 THE NET AFFECT OF THIS CHANGE ORDER IS A 14.8% INCREASE. LINE 1 STREET (41399971-6560) $34,000.00 LINE 2 WATER (WTWOC-6581) $76,000.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER $110,000.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $1,284,400.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $80,100.00 6.2% CHANGE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $110,000.00 8.6% CHANGE REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $1,474,500.00 14.8% TOTAL CHANGE APPROVED „��,_ 9/3/2024 ��I�n Q I�uSLt>< 9/6/2024 A/E CONTRACT Date CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Date �(ASAL ftb"Ld 9/3/2024 (9/6/2024 tlTLY PROJECT MANAGER Date AS MGR - CFO Date fIn 9/6/2024 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Date CITY MANAGER Date Page 73 of 379 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. This is Amendment number 2 dated August 12, 2024 to the agreement between City of College Station ("Client") and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ("Consultant") dated September 24, 2020 ("the Agreement") concerning Jones Butler Extension and Roundabout Design Contract (the "Project"). The Consultant has entered into the Agreement with Client for the furnishing of professional services, and the parties now desire to amend the Agreement. The Agreement is amended to include services to be performed by Consultant for compensation as set forth below in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, which are incorporated by reference. Consultant performed the following services out of original scope Task 1: Project Management • Additional invoicing, administration, coordination tasks due to schedule being extended. The contract duration for final design is expected to extend to end of 2025, two and a half years beyond the original schedule. Task 2: Additional Pump Station Meter Improvement Final Design • Redevelop hydraulics for each water line based on updated flows and direction from Water Services after 60% submittal • Resize the venturi meters and update each vault design based on updated flows • Perform additional structural vault design • Attend additional meetings with Water Services to coordinate design • Obtain additional geotechnical bores and analysis for vault meters • Update chlorine injection design and memo based on updated flow information obtained from City after 60% submittal. • Design water line interconnect and incorporate additional information into plans and details as directed by Water Services Task 3: Additional Construction Phase Services • Assist City with review of pay applications. Twenty four (24) assumed. • Attend site visit monthly during pay application review. Twenty four (24) assumed. Task 4: Additional Construction Materials Testing • Earthwork Observation and Testing for Utilities • Testing for construction duration of an additional 18 months The following tasks will be removed from the original scope of services with this amendment: Task 17: Landscape and Irrigation Design Prepare irrigation plan sheets, details and specifications for the roundabout landscape Rev. 7/18 Page 74 of 379 For the services set forth above, Client shall pay Consultant the following compensation on a labor fee plus expense basis with the maximum labor fee shown below: Task 1: Additional Project Management $19,000 Task 2: Additional Pump Station Meter Improvements $51,000 Task 3: Additional Construction Phase Services $15,000 Task 4: Additional Construction Materials Testing $35,000 Task 17: Landscape and Irrigation Desian ($10.000) Total $110,000 Labor fee will be billed on an hourly basis according to our then -current rates. Direct reimbursable expenses such as express delivery services, fees, air travel, and other direct expenses will be billed at 1.15 times cost. A percentage of labor fee will be added to each invoice to cover certain other expenses such as telecommunications, in-house reproduction, postage, supplies, project related computer time, and local mileage. Administrative time related to the project will be billed hourly. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be paid directly by the Client. Should the Client request Kimley-Horn to advance any such project fees on the Client's behalf, an invoice for such fees, with a fifteen percent (15%) markup, will be immediately issued to and paid by the Client. CLIENT: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION By: Title: City Manager Date: CONSULTANT: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. DV,67L oe-,,/ By. Douglas Arnold Title: Contract Specialist Date: 08/12/2024 Rcv. 7/ 18 Page 75 of 379 0 r T or 'p4w it *,Wpr 0 p 41P . dmdL.A Page 76 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.4. Bid Award for Electric Directional Bore Projects Sponsor: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a contract for electric underground distribution directional bore projects, to Sterling Global Industries, LLC for an amount not to exceed $397,798.44. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends awarding a contract for electric distribution direction bore projects to Sterling Global Industries, LLC for a not -to -exceed amount of $397,798.44. Summary: CSU Electric solicited bids for a predetermined selection of electric underground distribution directional bore projects. Five (5) competitive sealed proposals were received on July 30, 2024, in response to RFP 24-056. The proposals were evaluated and ranked by members of the Electric staff. Sterling Global Industries, LLC was selected as the highest-ranking proposal based on qualifications and best value for the City. CSU will provide the designs and materials for these projects. The contractor will provide labor and equipment to complete the required directional bores. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds for this electric directional bore contract are budgeted in the Electric Capital Improvements Fund. Attachments: 1. 24-056 Award Tabulation 2. Contract is available for review in the City Secretary's Office Page 77 of 379 BID #24-056 TABULATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION DIRECTIONAL BORING PROJECTS Line # Description 1 East Holleman URD Feeder 2 Edelweiss Area West Location 3 3 Penberthy Tie 4 Tarrow 600 A 5 Miscellaneous Total by Vendor TCH Sterling Primoris T&D The Fishel 5 Star Electric Directional Global Services, LLC Company LLC Drilling (Alcott Industries LLC Inc.) Total Total Total Total Total $ 56,864.08 $ 61,987.94 $ 88,393.93 $ 64,145.83 $ 118,418.00 $ 9,634.46 $ 14,787.50 $ 10,439.13 $ 11,816.21 $ 43,940.00 $ 14,219.59 $ 28,694.50 $ 28,581.12 $ 18,852.96 $ 38,986.00 $ 158,380.69 $ 205,428.50 $ 255,704.64 $ 192,581.21 $ 356,221.00 $ 126,478.61 $ 86,900.00 $ 48,613.29 $ 144,990.51 $ 95,000.00 $365,577.43 $397,798.44 $431,732.11 $432,386.72 $652,565.00 24-056 Tabulation 8/3Q/2024 Page 78 of 379 Contract is available for review in the City Secretary's office. Page 79 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.5. Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Sponsor: Richard Mann, Chief of Fire and Emergency Services Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution to accept the Federal FY-2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant in the amount of $3,874,618.44. Relationship to Strategic Goals: 1. Good Governance 2. Core Services Recommendation(s): Staff recommends acceptance of the resolution. Summary: The Department of Homeland Security has provided notification of a grant award. The application submitted for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant funding opportunity has been approved in the amount of $3,874,618.44 in Federal funding. This grant will fully fund salaries and fringe benefits for twelve (12) additional firefighters for a three-year period beginning with the hiring of new FTE's, but no later than 180 days following grant award (March 2, 2025). Budget & Financial Summary: The city budget will be impacted by absorbing the salaries and benefits for these twelve (12) FTE's in the FY28 budget. Attachments: 1. SAFER Grant 2024 Resolution 2. EMW-2023-FF-00048 - Award Package Page 80 of 379 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT FUNDING WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR FUNDING FROM THE STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER) GRANT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security has authorized and established the application process for the SAFER Grant to improve firefighter staffing; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station was awarded grant funding in the amount of $3,874,618.44 in federal funding for hiring firefighters under the SAFER Grant guidelines to fund salaries and fringe benefits for three years; now, therefore: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the City Council accepts and approves the SAFER Grant application and accepts the funding in the amount of $3,874,618.44. PART 2: That the City Council hereby authorizes and designates the City Manager or his designee execute the SAFER Grant acceptance and any other documents related to the SAFER Grant. PART 3: That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this day of , 2024. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor Page 81 of 379 Award Letter Effective date: 09/03/2024 Michael Clements CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842 EMW-2023-FF-00048 Dear Michael Clements, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20472 FPS\FA FEMA qNn SE Congratulations on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. Your application submitted for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (FF) Grant funding opportunity has been approved in the amount of $3,874,618.44 in Federal funding. FEMA has waived, in part or in full, one or more requirements for this grant award. See the Summary Award Memo for additional information about Economic Hardship Waivers. Before you request and receive any of the Federal funds awarded to you, you must establish acceptance of the award through the FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) system. By accepting this award, you acknowledge that the terms of the following documents are incorporated into the terms of your award: • Summary Award Memo - included in this document • Agreement Articles - included in this document • Obligating Document - included in this document • 2023 FF Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) - incorporated by reference Please make sure you read, understand, and maintain a copy of these documents in your officialfi le for this award. Sincerely, PAMELA WILLIAMS Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Summary Award Memo Program: Fiscal Year 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Page 82 of 379 Recipient: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UEI-EFT: FYUCEXMLCQH7 DUNS number: 040330300 Award number: EMW-2023-FF-00048 Summary description of award The purpose of the SAFER Grant Program is to provide funding directly tofi re departments and volunteer firefighter interest organizations to assist in increasing the number offi refighters to help communities meet industry minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire -related hazards, and to fulfill traditional missions offi re departments. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the recipient's project or projects submitted as part of the recipient's application and detailed in the project narrative as well as the request details section of the application — including budget information — was consistent with the SAFER Grant Programb purpose and was worthy of award. Except as otherwise approved as noted in this award, the information you provided in your application for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant funding is incorporated into the terms and conditions of this award. This includes any documents submitted as part of the application. Approved Economic Hardship Waivers Position cost limit waiver FEMA has waived the position cost limit requirement for this grant award. Costs are limited to the approved budget per position. Cost share waiver FEMA has waived the cost share requirement for this grant award. You are not required to contribute non -Federal funds for this grant award. The recipient is responsible for any costs that exceed the Federal funding provided for this grant award. Minimum budget waiver FEMA has waived the minimum budget requirement for this award. Non -supplanting waiver FEMA has waived the non -supplanting requirement for this award. SAFER grant funds may be used to replace funds that would be available from State or local sources or from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Amount awarded The amount of the award is detailed in the attached Obligating Document for Award. The cost share amounts described in this award letter are based on the approved total project cost; however, the Page 83 of 379 Federal funding available is limited based on the applicable position cost limit and the applicable cost share as applied to actual costs. The following are the total approved budgeted estimates for object classes for all fundedfi refighter positions for this award (including Federal share plus your cost share, if applicable, as applied to the estimated costs): Object Class Personnel Fringe benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual Construction Other Indirect charges Federal Non-federal Total Program Income First Year $753,396.00 $487,947.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,241,343.36 $0.00 $1,241,343.36 Approved scope of work Second Year $783,531.84 $507,465.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,290,997.08 $0.00 $1,290,997.08 Third Year $814,873.08 $527,404.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,342,278.00 $0.00 $1,342,278.00 Total $2,351,800.92 $1,522,817.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,874,618.44 $0.00 $3,874,618.44 $0.00 After review of your application, FEMA has approved the below scope of work. Justifications are provided for any differences between the scope of work in the original application and the approved scope of work under this award. You must submit scope or budget revision requests for FEMA's prior approval, via an amendment request, as appropriate per 2 C.F.R. § 200.308 and the FY2023 FF NOFO. Approved request details: Hiring of Firefighters Page 84 of 379 New, Additional Firefighter(s) BENEFITS FUNDED The City of College Station has completed a salary survey and we believe these numbers are accurate and consistent with the local market. Compensation: Base Salary $Yeary 1- 59,783 Year 2-$65,294.32 and Year 3- $65,294.32; Certification Pay- $3,000; Retirement obligation: $1,586.00 FICA- $4,573; Workers Compensation- $841; TMRS- $9,775.00; Total Health Insurance- $15,236; Accidental Death and Dismemberment- $43.04; Life Insurance- $172. Paid Leave: Vacation Leave- $2,463.60; Sick Leave- $2,956.32; Holiday Leave- $2,956.32. For year 2 and 3, we estimated a 4% increase per year. NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS 12 ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTALPER SALARY PRICE BENEFITS FIREFIGHTER Year 1 $62,783.00 $40,662.28 $103,445.28 Year 2 $65,294.32 $42,288.77 $107,583.09 Year 3 $67,906.09 $43,950.41 $111,856.50 3 Year Total $3,874,618.44 Agreement Articles Program: Fiscal Year 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Recipient: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UEI-EFT: FYUCEXMLCQH7 DUNS number: 040330300 Award number: EMW-2023-FF-00048 Table of contents Page 85 of 379 Article Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations, and 1 Certifications Article General Acknowledgements and Assurances 2 Article Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS 3 Article Activities Conducted Abroad 4 Article Age Discrimination Act of 1975 5 Article Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 6 Article Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information 7 Article Civil Rights Act of 1964 — Title VI 8 Article Civil Rights Act of 1968 9 Article Copyright 10 Article Debarment and Suspension 11 Article Drug -Free Workplace Regulations 12 Article Duplicative Costs 13 Article Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) — Title IX 14 Article E.O. 14074 — Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice 15 Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety Article Energy Policy and Conservation Act 16 Article False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies 17 Article Federal Debt Status 18 Article Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving 19 Article Fly America Act of 1974 20 Article Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 21 Article John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 22 Article Limited English Proficiency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) 23 Article Lobbying Prohibitions 24 Article National Environmental Policy Act 25 Article Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith -Based Organizations 26 Page 86 of 379 Article Non -Supplanting Requirement 27 Article Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements 28 Article Patents and Intellectual Property Rights 29 Article Procurement of Recovered Materials 30 Article Rehabilitation Act of 1973 31 Article Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance 32 Article Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation 33 Article Required Use of American Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction 34 Materials Article SAFECOM 35 Article Terrorist Financing 36 Article Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) 37 Article Universal Identifier and System of Award Management 38 Article USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 39 Article Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags 40 Article Whistleblower Protection Act 41 Article Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review 42 Article Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes 43 Article Acceptance of Post Award Changes 44 Article Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award 45 Article Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget 46 Article Indirect Cost Rate 47 Article Award Performance Goals 48 Page 87 of 379 Article 1 Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations, and Certifications I. Recipients must complete either the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 424B Assurances - Non- Construction Programs, or OMB Standard Form 424D Assurances - Construction Programs, as applicable. Certain assurances in these documents may not be applicable to your program and the DHS financial assistance office (DHS FAO) may require applicants to certify additional assurances. Applicants are required tofi II out the assurances as instructed by the federal awarding agency. Article 2 General Acknowledgements and Assurances Recipients are required to follow the applicable provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in effect as of the federal award date and located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 and adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R. § 3002.10. All recipients and subrecipients must acknowledge and agree to provide DHS access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.337. I. Recipients must cooperate with any DHS compliance reviews or compliance investigations. 11. Recipients must give DHS access to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federalfi nancial assistance award and permit access to facilities and personnel. 111. Recipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports. IV. Recipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements required by law, federal regulation, Notice of Funding Opportunity, federal award specific terms and conditions, and/or federal awarding agency program guidance. V. Recipients must complete the DHS Civil Rights Evaluation Tool within thirty (30) days of receiving the Notice of Award for thefi rst award under which this term applies. Recipients of multiple federal awards from DHS should only submit one completed tool for their organization, not per federal award. After the initial submission, recipients are required to complete the tool once every two (2) years if they have an active federal award, not every time a federal award is made. Recipients must submit the completed tool, including supporting materials, to Civil RightsEvaluation@hq.dhs.gov. This tool clarifies the civil rights obligations and related reporting requirements contained in these DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. Subrecipients are not required to complete and submit this tool to DHS. The evaluation tool can be found at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs- civil- rights -evaluation -tool. DHS Civil Rights Evaluation Tool I Homeland Security. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will consider, in its discretion, granting an extension to the 30-day deadline if the recipient identifies steps and a timeline for completing the tool. Recipients must request extensions by emailing the request to CivilRightsEvaluation@hq.dhs.gov prior to expiration of the 30-day deadline. Article 3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS Recipients must acknowledge their use of federal award funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposal, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal award funds. Page 88 of 379 Article 4 Activities Conducted Abroad Recipients must coordinate with appropriate government authorities when performing project activities outside the United States obtain all appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals. Article 5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-135 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Article 6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Recipients must comply with the requirements of Titles I, 11, and II I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pub. L. No. 101-336 (1990) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213), which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities. Article 7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information Recipients who collect personally identifiable information (PII) as part of carrying out the scope of work under a federal award are required to have a publicly available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of the PH they collect. DHS defines PH as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual. Recipients may alsofi nd the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy Template as useful resources respectively. Article 8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VI Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. DHS implementing regulations for the Act are found at 6 C.F.R. Part 21. Recipients of an award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must also comply with FEMAt implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. Part 7. Page 89 of 379 Article 9 Civil Rights Act of 1968 Recipients must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-284 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) which prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale, rental,fi nancing, and advertising of dwellings, or in the provision of services in connection. therewith, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, familial status, and sex, as implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units— i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground -floor units in buildings without elevators) —be designed and constructed with certain accessible features. (See 24 C.F.R. Part 100, Subpart D.) Article 10 Copyright Recipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 to any work first produced under federal awards and also include an acknowledgement that the work was produced under a federal award (including the federal award number and federal awarding agency). As detailed in 2 C.F.R. § 200.315, a federal awarding agency reserves a royalty -free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for federal purposes and to authorize others to do so. Article 11 Debarment and Suspension Recipients must comply with the non -procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders (E.O.) 12549 and 12689 set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 180 as implemented by DHS at 2 C.F.R. Part 3000. These regulations prohibit recipients from entering into covered transactions (such as subawards and contracts) with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities. Article 12 Drug -Free Workplace Regulations Recipients must comply with drug -free workplace requirements in Subpart B (or Subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of 2 C.F.R. Part 3001, which adopts the Government- wide implementation (2 C.F.R. Part 182) of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8106). Article 13 Duplicative Costs Recipients are prohibited from charging any cost to this federal award that will be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federal award in either the current or a prior budget period. (See 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(f)). However, recipients may shift costs that are allowable under two or more federal awards where otherwise permitted by federal statutes, regulations, or the federal financial assistance award terms and conditions. Page 90 of 379 Article 14 Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) — Title IX Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-318 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), which provide that no person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federalfi nancial assistance. DHS implementing regulations are codified at 6 C.F.R. Part 17. Recipients of an award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must also comply with FEMA's implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. Part 19. Article 15 E.O. 14074 — Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety Recipient State, Tribal, local, or territorial law enforcement agencies must comply with the requirements of section 12(c) of E.O. 14074. Recipient State, Tribal, local, or territorial law enforcement agencies are also encouraged to adopt and enforce policies consistent with E.O. 14074 to support safe and effective policing. Article 16 Energy Policy and Conservation Act Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 94-163 (1975) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6201 et seq.), which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act. Article 17 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Recipients must comply with the requirements of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729- 3733, which prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Federal Government. (See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3812, which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made.) Article 18 Federal Debt Status All recipients are required to be non -delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. (See OMB Circular A-129.) Article 19 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Recipients are encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving recipient -owned, recipient -rented, or privately owned vehicles when on official government business or when performing any work for or on behalf of the Federal Government. Recipients are also encouraged to conduct the initiatives of the type described in Section 3(a) of E.O. 13513. Page 91 of 379 Article 20 Fly America Act of 1974 Recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers (a list of certified air carriers can be found at: Certificated Air Carriers List I US Department of Transportation, https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/certificated- air-carriers-list)for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974, 49 U.S.C. § 40118, and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942. Article 21 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 Recipients must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded entirely or in part by federal award funds complies with thefi re prevention and control guidelines of Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a. Article 22 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 Recipients, subrecipients, and their contractors and subcontractors are subject to the prohibitions described in section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232 (2018) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.216, 200.327, 200.471, and Appendix II to 2 C.F.R. Part 200. The statute - as it applies to DHS recipients, subrecipients, and their contractors and subcontractors - prohibits obligating or expending federal award funds on certain telecommunications and video surveillance products and contracting with certain entities for national security reasons. Article 23 Limited English Proficiency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) Recipients must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services. For additional assistance and information regarding language access obligations, please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance: https://www.dhs.gov/guidance-published-help- department -supported - organizations -provide -meaningful -access -people -limited and additional resources on http://www.lep.gov. Article 24 Lobbying Prohibitions Recipients must comply with 31 U.S.C. § 1352 and 6 C.F.R. Part 9, which provide that none of the funds provided under a federal award may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to influence, or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any federal action related to a federal award or contract, including any extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification. Per 6 C.F.R. Part 9, recipients mustfi le a lobbying certification form as described in Appendix A to 6 C.F.R. Part 9 or available on Grants.gov as the Grants.gov Lobbying Form andfi le a lobbying disclosure form as described in Appendix B to 6 C.F.R. Part 9 or available on Grants.gov as the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL). Page 92 of 379 Article 25 National Environmental Policy Act Recipients must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, which require recipients to use all practicable means within their authority, and consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans. Article 26 Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith -Based Organizations It is DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith -based organizations in social service programs administered or supported by DHS or its component agencies, enabling those organizations to participate in providing important social services to beneficiaries. Recipients must comply with the equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19 and other applicable statues, regulations, and guidance governing the participations of faith- based organizations in individual DHS programs. Article 27 Non -Supplanting Requirement Recipients of federal awards under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds supplement but do not supplant non-federal funds that, in the absence of such federal funds, would otherwise have been made available for the same purpose. Article 28 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements All the instructions, guidance, limitations, scope of work, and other conditions set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for this federal award are incorporated by reference. All recipients must comply with any such requirements set forth in the NOFO. If a condition of the NOFO is inconsistent with these terms and conditions and any such terms of the Award, the condition in the NOFO shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The remainder of that condition and all other conditions set forth in the NOFO shall remain in effect. Article 29 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights Recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. and applicable regulations governing inventions and patents, including the regulations issued by the Department of Commerce at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 (Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms under Government Awards, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements) and the standard patent rights clause set forth at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14. Page 93 of 379 Article 30 Procurement of Recovered Materials States, political subdivisions of states, and their contractors must comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Pub. L. No. 89-272 (1965) (codified as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at 42 U.S.C. § 6962) and 2 C.F.R. § 200.323. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition. Article 31 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Recipients must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794), which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individuals in the United States will, solely by reason of the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Article 32 Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance If the total value of any currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of the federal award, then the recipient must comply with the requirements set forth in the government -wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Article 33 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation For federal awards that equal or exceed $30,000, recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government -wide award term on Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 170, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Page 94 of 379 Article 34 Required Use of American Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction Materials Recipients of an award of Federal financial assistance from a program for infrastructure are hereby notified that none of the funds provided under this award may be used for a project for infrastructure unless: (1) all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States —this means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States; (2) all manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States —this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation; and (3) all construction materials are manufactured in the United States —this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States. The Buy America preference only applies to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a Buy America preference apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project. Waivers When necessary, recipients may apply for, and the agency may grant, a waiver from these requirements. The agency should notify the recipient for information on the process for requesting a waiver from these requirements. (a) When the Federal agency has determined that one of the following exceptions applies, the awarding official may waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference in any case in which the agency determines that: (1) applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) the types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. A request to waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference must be in writing. The agency will provide instructions on the format, contents, and supporting materials required for any waiver request. Waiver requests are subject to public comment periods of no less than 15 days and must be reviewed by the Made in America Office. There may be instances where an award qualifies, in whole or in part, for an existing waiver described at "Buy America" Preference in FEMA Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure I FEMA.gov. Definitions The definitions applicable to this term are set forth at 2 C.F.R. § 184.3, the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Page 95 of 379 Article 35 SAFECOM Recipients receiving federal financial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications. The SAFECOM Guidance is updated annually and can be found at Funding and Sustainment I CISA. Article 36 Terrorist Financing Recipients must comply with E.O. 13224 and applicable statutory prohibitions on transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. Recipients are legally responsible for ensuring compliance with the E.O. and laws. Article 37 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) Recipients must comply with the requirements of the government-widefi nancial assistance award term which implements Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 106 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 7104). The award term is located at 2 C.F.R. § 175.15, the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Article 38 Universal Identifier and System of Award Management Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government -wide financial assistance award term regarding the System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements located at 2 C.F.R. Part 25, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated reference. Article 39 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 Recipients must comply with requirements of Section 817 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175-175c. Article 40 Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags Recipients must obtain written permission from DHS prior to using the DHS seals, logos, crests, or reproductions of flags, or likenesses of DHS agency officials. This includes use of DHS component (e.g., FEMA, CISA, etc.) seals, logos, crests, or reproductions of flags, or likenesses of component officials. Article 41 Whistleblower Protection Act Recipients must comply with the statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.0 § 470141 U.S.C. § 4712. Page 96 of 379 Article 42 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review DHS/FEMA funded activities that may require an Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) review are subject to the FEMA EHP review process. This review does not address all federal, state, and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires the recipient to comply with all federal, state and local laws. DHS/FEMA is required to consider the potential impacts to natural and cultural resources of all projects funded by DHS/FEMA grant funds, through its EHP review process, as mandated by: the National Environmental Policy Act; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; National Flood Insurance Program regulations; and any other applicable laws and executive orders. General guidance for FEMA's EHP process is available on the DHS/FEMA Website at: https://www.fema.gov/grants/guidance-tools/environmental-historic. Specific applicant guidance on how to submit information for EHP review depends on the individual grant program and applicants should contact their grant Program Officer to be put into contact with EHP staff responsible for assisting their specific grant program. The EHP review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed project; otherwise, DHS/FEMA may not be able to fund the project due to noncompliance with EHP laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance, and if any potential archaeological resources are discovered the applicant will immediately cease work in that area and notify the pass -through entity, if applicable, and DHS/FEMA. Article 43 Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are a restatement of general requirements imposed upon recipients andfl ow down to sub -recipients as a matter of law, regulation, or executive order. If the requirement does not apply to Indian tribes or there is a federal law or regulation exempting its application to Indian tribes, then the acceptance by Tribes of, or acquiescence to, DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to an Indian tribe. The execution of grant documents is not intended to change, alter, amend, or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribe where it does not already exist. Article 44 Acceptance of Post Award Changes In the event FEMA determines that an error in the award package has been made, or if an administrative change must be made to the award package, recipients will be notified of the change in writing. Once the notification has been made, any subsequent requests for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. Please call FEMA Grant Management Operations at (866) 927-5646 or via e-mail to: ASK-GMD@fema.dhs.gov if you have any questions. Article 45 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award For purposes of original or replacement equipment acquired under this award by a non -state recipient or non -state sub -recipients, when that equipment is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a federal awarding agency, you must request instructions from FEMA to make proper disposition of the equipment pursuant to 2 C.F.R. section 200.313. State recipients and state sub -recipients must follow the disposition requirements in accordance with state laws and procedures. Page 97 of 379 Article 46 Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget Before making any change to the FEMA approved budget for this award, you must request prior written approval from FEMA where required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.308. For purposes of non -construction projects, FEMA is utilizing its discretion to impose an additional restriction under 2 C.F.R. section 200.308(f) regarding the transfer of funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities. Therefore, for awards with an approved budget where the federal share is greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), you may not transfer funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities without prior written approval from FEMA where the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total budget FEMA last approved. For purposes of awards that support both construction and non - construction work, FEMA is utilizing its discretion under 2 C.F.R. section 200.308(h)(5) to require the recipient to obtain prior written approval from FEMA before making any fund or budget transfers between the two types of work. You must report any deviations from your FEMA approved budget in thefi rst Federal Financial Report (SF-425) you submit following any budget deviation, regardless of whether the budget deviation requires prior written approval. Article 47 Indirect Cost Rate 2 C.F.R. section 200.211(b)(15) requires the terms of the award to include the indirect cost rate for the federal award. If applicable, the indirect cost rate for this award is stated in the budget documents or other materials approved by FEMA and included in the award file. Article 48 Award Performance Goals FEMA will measure the recipient's performance of the grant by comparing the firefighter hiring activities of new, additionalfi refighters, rehire laid offfi refighters, or retain firefighters facing layoff OR recruitment and retention activities of volunteer firefighters who are involved with or trained in the operations offi refighting and emergency response as requested in its application. In order to measure performance, FEMA may request information throughout the period of performance. In its final performance report submitted at closeout, the recipient is required to report on the recipients increased compliance with the National standards described in the NOFO. Obligating document 1. Agreement No. 2. Amendment 3. Recipient 4. Type of 5. Control No. EMW-2023-FF- No. No. Action WX03511 N2024T 00048 N/A 746000534 AWARD 6. Recipient Name and Address CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 1101 TEXAS AVE S COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 7. Issuing FEMA Office and Address Grant Programs Directorate 500 C Street, S.W. Washington DC, 20528-7000 1-866-927-5646 8. Payment Office and Address FEMA, Financial Services Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 723 Washington DC, 20742 Page 98 of 379 9. Name of 9a. Phone 10. Name of FEMA Project 10a. Recipient Project No. Coordinator Phone Officer 9797643710 Staffing for Adequate Fire and No. Michael Clements Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant 1-866- Program 274-0960 11. Effective Date of 12. Method of 13. Assistance 14. Performance This Action Payment Arrangement Period 03/02/2025 to 09/03/2024 OTHER-FEMA COST SHARING 03/01/2028 GO Budget Period 03/02/2025 to 03/01 /2028 15. Description of Action a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes) Program Assistance Accounting Prior Amount Cumulative Name Listings Data(ACCS Total Awarded Current Total Non -Federal Abbreviation No. Code) Award oThisAction + Award Commitment 2024-F3- FF 97.083 GF01 - $0.00 $3,874,618.44 $3,874,618.44 $0.00 P410-xxxx- 4101-D Totals $0.00 $3,874,618.44 $3,874,618.44 $0.00 b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here: N/A 16 FOR NON DISASTER PROGRAMS! RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF TEAR Il/1P`11MENT TO FEMA (See Block 7 for address) This field is not applicable for digitally signed grant agreements 17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) DATE 18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) DATE PAMELA WILLIAMS, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 09/03/2024 Page 99 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.6. Corporate Parkway Extension Design Contract Change Order No. 1 Sponsor: Jennifer Cain, Director Capital Projects Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a deductive change order with Mitchell & Morgan, LLP for a credit of $276,215.48 for the design contract for the Corporate Parkway Extension Design Project. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval. Summary: This item is for a deductive change order to close out the design contract with Mitchell & Morgan, LLP for the Corporate Parkway Extension Design Project due to the design of this project being put on hold. Budget & Financial Summary: A budget of $570,500 is included in the Streets Capital Improvement Projects Fund. A total of $303,921.48 has been expended to date. The proposed deductive change order will reduce the committed encumbered amount by $276,215.48. After this deductive change order there are no further committed or encumbered balances on this project. Attachments: 1. Corporate Pkwy CO #1 signed Page 100 of 379 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE: August 22, 2024 Contract No. 20300196 P.O.#: 20201285 I PROJECT: Corporate Parkway Extension Design Project No. ST1903 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: City of College Station MITCHELL & MORGAN L L P P.O. Box 9960 3204 EARL RUDDER FWY S Ph: (979) 260-6963 College Station, Texas 77842 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 Fax: PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE ORDE Closeout Change Order to stop project design at this point. ITEM UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT ORIGINAL REVISED NO PRICE QUANTITY QUANTITY 1 EA $1 633067.84 356852.36 $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ THE NET AFFECT OF THIS CHANGE ORDER IS A -44% DECREASE. ALL ITEMS (Project Number / Account Number) TOTAL CHANGE ORDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT APPROVED Ut Vbin l(Gl �lbV9�AI�t, 9/4/2024 A/E CONTRACTOR Date �( SAI,, fvLbin,AAP 9/9/2024 PROJECT MANAGER Date 6-wftr I 'aiv, 9/9/2024 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Date ($276,215.48) ($276,215.48) $633,067.84 ($276,215.48) $356,852.36 -44% CHANGE -44% TOTAL CHANGE STgC(ILTY 9/9/2024 A MGR - CFO Date J9/9/2024 CITY ANAGER Date ADDED COST (276,215.48) 1 (276,215.48) 1 1 1 Page 101 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.7. Water Well 5 and Carrizo Well Rehab Deductive Change Order Sponsor: Gary Mechler, Director of Water Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the approval of a deductive change order with Weisinger, Inc., providing a credit of $628,889 to the construction contract for the Water Well No. 5 and Carrizo Well Rehabilitation projects. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core services and infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval. Summary: This deductive change order reconciles final quantities and will close out the construction contract. Budget & Financial Summary: This project is funded through the Water Capital Improvement Projects Fund. The proposed deductive change order will reduce the committed encumbered amount by $628,889. Attachments: 1. Deductive Change Order # 2 Page 102 of 379 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: 08/9/2024 Contract No. 24300289 PO No. 24201861 PROJECT Water Well No. 5 and Carrizo Rehab ITB 24-010 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: City of College Station Weisinger Incorporated P.O. Box 9960 PO BOX 2848 Ph:936-756-7721 Colle(;a Station, Texas 77842 Conroe, TX 77305 PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: A. Deductive change order to close out the project. ITEM UNIT ORIGINAL REVISED ADDED NO UNIT DESCRIPTION PRICE QUANTITY DUANTIT) COST B-3 EA Bail oil from the well and dispose of properly. Perform a 1 $3,100.00 3 1 J$6,200.00) B-5 HR Perform mechanical cleaning (wire brushing) oft9-5/8 $680.00 40 0 ( 27,200.00) B-6 HR Jet out and remove the fill material andsediment from thi $865.00 30 0 ($25,950.00) B-8 LS Perform acid treatment of 9-5/8 inch wellscreens using it $25,000.00 1 0 ($25,000.00) B-9 HR Perform airlift pumping, agitation with doubledisk surge t $800.00 30 0 ($24,000.00) B-10 LS Perform sonar jetting of 9-5/8 inch screeninterval 2,364 t $10,000.00 1 0 ($10,000.00) B-12 EA Furnish 20-foot section of new 12-inch diameter( 0.375-ii $5,900.00 30 33 $17,700.00 B-13 EA Furnish 10-foot section of new 12-inch diameter(0.375-ir $3,245.00 1 0 ($3,245.00) B-16 EA Furnish new rubber tube stabilizer for 12-inchdiameter ci $40.00 31 33 $80.00 B-17 FT Furnish 1/4-inch stainless steel PVC-wrappedairline and $5.00 620 670 $250.00 B-18 FT Furnish 1-1/4-inch PVC water -level measuringpipe, Com $3.00 620 670 $150.00 C-3 EA Bail oil from the well and dispose of properly. Perform a �A $3,100.00 3 2 ($3,100.00) C-5 HR Perform mechanical cleaning (wire brushing) ofthe 10-ini $680.00 30 0 ($20,400.00) C-6 HR Jet out and remove the fill material andsediment from thi $865.00 30 0 ($25,950.00) C-8 LS Perform acid treatment of 10-inch well screensusing inje $20,000.00 1 0 ($20,000.00) C-9 HR Perform airlift pumping, agitation with doubledisk surge It $800.00 25 0 ($20,000.00) C-10 LS Perform sonar jetting of 10-inch screen intervalest. 1,12( $15,000.00 1 0 ($15,000.00) C-16 EA Furnish new rubber tube stabilizer for 8-inchdiameter col $24.00 25 24 ($24.00) 11-A LS Furnish and install new coated fabricated steeldischarge $17,000.00 1 0 J$17,000.00) 12-A LS Furnish and install new 500 Hp, WP-I, 1,770 rpm,460 vo $109,000.00 1 0 ( 109,000.00) 15-A LS If directed by the Owner based on theinformation in Bid 1 $81,000.00 1 0 ($81,000.00) 16-A WK Rental of the Contractor's temporary electricwell motor it $6,000.00 8 0 ($48,000.00) 21-A LS Furnish and install new fabricated steel welldischarge he $12,000.00 1 0 ($12,000.00) 22-A LS Furnish and install new 150 Hp, WP-I, 1,770 rpm,460 vo $60,000.00 1 0 ($60,000.00) 24-A LS If directed by the Owner, furnish, install andremove Cont $62,000.00 1 0 ($62,000.00) 25-A WK Rental of the Contractor's temporary pump bowland teml $4,000.00 8 0 ($32,000.00) THE NET AFFECT OF THIS CHANGE ORDER IS A 40% DECREASE. ALL LINE ITEMS (WPWOC - 6580) TOTAL CHANGE ORDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME Revised Contract Time APPROVED wl y 9/5/2024 CONSTRUCTION Date ?�awtrb AVrIIAt/'i 9/5/2024 PROJECT MANAGER Date .%U" _WVA keA, 9/5/2024 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Date ($628,889.00) ($628,889.00) $1,457, 830.00 $45,592.00 ($628,889.00) $874,533.00 n/a Days n/a Days n/a Days TOTAL ($628,889.00) -43.14% CHANGE -40.01 % TOTAL CHANGE v ASST CITY MGR - CFO i'/V'UA,& 1 pp ,. Ubh CITY !`TANAGER 9/5/2024 Date 9/5/2024 Date Page 103 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.8. Rejection of RFP #24-038 — Natural Gas Electric Generation Facility Sponsor: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection of proposals received and cancelation of an RFP for a natural gas electric generation facility. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the rejection of the seven proposals received, and the recommendation of no award for RFP#24-038. Summary: RFP 24-038 was formally bid and opened on April 18, 2024. Seven proposals were received and reviewed by a committee represented by staff from Electric and Finance as well as an engineering consultant. Due to site location and infrastructure connectivity issues, this project cannot move forward at this time. Electric staff recommends the rejection of this RFP. Budget & Financial Summary: The rejection of RFP #24-038 will have no impact on the Electric budget. Attachments: None Page 104 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.9. Rejection of Bids for Concrete Pull Boxes: Purchase and Cancelation of BID #24-072 Sponsor: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection of bids received and cancelation of Bid #24-072 for the purchase of concrete pull boxes for Electric warehouse inventory. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the rejection of the two bids received, and the recommendation of no award for Bid #24-072. Summary: Bid #24-072 was formally bid and opened on August 13, 2024. Two bids were received and reviewed by Electric staff. It was discovered that additional specifications should be included for traffic -rated lids, identified as a critical element for placement of pull boxes in certain locations. Updated specifications have been included in the new bid for concrete pull boxes, to include traffic - rated lids. Budget & Financial Summary: The rejection of Bid #24-072 will have no impact on the Electrical budget. Attachments: None Page 105 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.10. Rejection of BID #24-062 — Substation Maintenance Sponsor: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the rejection and cancelation of BID #24-062 for substation maintenance because no bids were received. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the rejection and cancelation of BID #24-062 for substation maintenance. Summary: BID 24-062 was formally bid and opened on July 23, 2024. However, no proposals were received. Electric staff reached out to multiple vendors previously contracted for similar activities and learned that contractors had been preoccupied with storm restoration in other parts of the state and did not have the opportunity to meet the submittal deadline. This project has been re -posted for bids. Budget & Financial Summary: The rejection and cancelation of RFP #24-062 will have no impact on the Electrical budget. Attachments: None Page 106 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.11. FERA Real Estate Amendment Sponsor: Michael Ostrowski, Chief Development Officer Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an amendment to the real estate contract with Fera Diagnostics and Biologicals Corporation for the sale of approximately 12 acres of land in the College Station Business Center at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and State Highway 6 and amendment to the restrictive covenants of the College Station Business Center to reflect the release of the shared cross access easement. Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Diverse & Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of both items. Summary: In April, City Council approved a real estate contract with FERA for Lots 1 & 2 in the College Station Business Center. For the lots fronting on the frontage road, there is a 40-foot Cross Access Easement ("easement") that is required along the frontage road to allow a single point of access to the frontage road for multiple lots. FERA has requested that this easement be removed as it encumbers the property and is not needed, as access to the property will occur on other streets. This amendment requires the City to secure a release of the easement from the other property owners. The City has been in contact with the other owners, and they have agreed that the easement is no longer needed. In addition, the restrictive covenants of the College Station Business Center will need to be amended to reflect the release of the easement. Per the amendment with FERA, the easement will not be released until FERA officially closes on the property, which is anticipated to occur in October. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. FERA Real Estate Contract - Amendment 1 2. Closing Document - Easement Release 3. Closing Document - Amended Restrictive Covenants 4. Closing Document - BCAB Resolution 5. Plat Page 107 of 379 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS REAL ESTATE CONTRACT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the REAL ESTATE CONTRACT is by and between CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, situated in Brazos County, Texas ("SELLER") and FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("BUYER"). WHEREAS, SELLER and BUYER entered into a Real Estate Contract dated April 25, 2024 with Contract No. 24300467 ("Agreement") in which BUYER agreed to purchase from SELLER a fee simple interest in and to all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in Brazos County, Texas and being Lot One "R" (1R) and Lot Two (2), Block Six (6), THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION, PHASE TWO, an addition to the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas, according to the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, ("Property"); and WHEREAS, an unimproved 40' wide cross access easement exists along the Property's northwestern and southwestern property lines; and WHEREAS, SELLER and BUYER desire to secure releases of the 40' wide Cross Access Easement generally along the northwestern and southwestern property line of Lot One "R" (I R), Block Six (6), and generally along the southwestern property line of Lot Two (2), Lot Three (3), Lot Four (4), and Lot Five (5), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Cross Access Easement"); and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, SELLER and BUYER agree as follows: 1. Before the Property's closing date, SELLER shall secure a release of the Cross Access Easement from the other property owners. If SELLER fails to secure the release before the closing date, then SELLER and BUYER shall extend the closing date, or shall close and the SELLER will use reasonable efforts to secure the release at a later date. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, SELLER is not securing a release of the separate 40' wide shared cross access easement at the north and northeast corner of Lot Four (4), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. 3. SELLER and BUYER agree the Agreement is amended as stated above. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. College Station and Fera Diagnostics and Biologicals Corporation First Amendment Page 1 of 2 Contract No. 24300467 Page 108 of 379 4. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. EXECUTED on this the day of SELLER: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation By: City Manager Date: APPROVED: Assistant City Manager/CFO Date: City Attorney Date: , 2024. BUYER: FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation rigo Bic lho CEO ate: f''/ College Station and Fera Diagnostics and Biologicals Corporation First Amendment Contract No. 24300467 Page 2 of 2 Page 109 of 379 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM ANY INSTRUMENT THAT TRANSFERS AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. DATE: MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT , 2024 EASEMENT: 40' wide Shared Cross Access Easement generally along the northwestern and southwestern property line of Lot One "R" (1R), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, and generally along the southwestern property line of Lot Two (2), Lot Three (3), Lot Four (4), and Lot Five (5), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. EASEMENT HOLDERS: FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation GRAND JR. LLC, an Idaho limited liability corporation MAILING ADDRESS: FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation 5900 Matrix Dr. Brazos County College Station, Texas 77845 HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation 10555 Westpark Dr. Harris County Houston, Texas 77042 Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 Page 1 Page 110 of 379 GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company 1616 Addison Avenue E. Twin Falls County Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT: Lots 1R, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 6, of The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots I & 2-5, a subdivision in Brazos County, Texas according to the map or plat recorded under Document Number 2019-1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas. At the time of execution of this Mutual Release of Easement, the Easement Holders are the current owners of all lots within the Property Subject to the Easement. The Easement Holders hereby release the Property Subject to the Easement from the Easement. Further, the Easement Holders, being the current Owners of the Property Subject to the Easement, hereby acknowledge the termination of the Easement and release the other Easement Holders and their members, managers, shareholders, officers, agents, successors, and assigns from any past, present, or further obligations for maintenance, repair, insurance, or any other obligations which the Easement Holders may have had related to the Easement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Easement is separate from and does not include the separate 40' wide shared cross access easement at the north and northeast corner of Lot Four (4), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. The Easement Holders agree to execute such other and further documents as shall be deemed reasonably necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this Mutual Release of Easement. When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural. [Signatures Follow on Next Page] Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 Page 2 Page 111 of 379 FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation Rodrigo Bicalho, President THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this day of , 2024, by Rodrigo Bicalho, President of FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas Page 3 Page 112 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, being Lots 1R & 2 of the Property Subject to the Easement, consents to this Mutual Release of Easement, including the terms and conditions of such Mutual Release of Easement. By: Printed Name: Title: THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 12024, by , of on behalf of said Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas Page 4 Page 113 of 379 THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § HFLPI-COLi�FPE ST�AT19N, LLC, a Texas limited liabilit 01 I BY: fiatd O. Hun"on�J ., Manager ACKNOWLEDGMENT //yy', '� This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this day of (/�U`�Y , 2024, by Richard O. Hunton, Jr., Manager of HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, on behalf of said company. ,r VALERIE C L A I R E H U T C H I N y ?; c S (Votary Public, state of Texas - NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State(of Texas y Comm. Expires 08-17-2027 Notary ID 11477017 Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 Page S 4854-1179-7971 V.2 Page 114 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, being Lots 3 & 4 of the Property Subject to the Easement, consents to the this Mutual Release of Easement, including the terms and conditions of such Mutual Release of Easement. FROST BANK, a Texas State Bank By: �.. Printed Marne: Title: G.9e.LVVt-.. Vie-- THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF 4t.YA€1� This instrument was acknowledged before me on this �— day of il"IA.a S+ , 2024, by �" n Q�l e,�N , P Y . UJ � h-4of Fr9st Bank, a Texas State Bank, on behalf of said bank. WE1yD:MNM0--S1M33S:6 Sl��x'� Fi blic, te of Texas 03 Z3-Z026 NOTAR PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 07&7 Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 Page 6 Page 115 of 379 GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company A Gregg Olsen, THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this day of , 2024, by Gregg Olsen, Manager of GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho Iimited liability company, on behalf of said company. Alulual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas Page 7 Page 116 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, being Lot 5 of the Property Subject to the Easement, consents to this Mutual Release of Easement, including the terms and conditions of such Mutual Release of Easement. By: Printed Name: Title: THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 92024, by , of on behalf of said Mutual Release of Easement 07-03-2024 4854-1179-7971 v.2 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas Page 8 Page 117 of 379 AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OF THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION,, PHASE TWO, BLOCK 6, LOTS 1R & 2-5 SUBDIVISION This Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of the Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5 Subdivision ("Declaration") is made by CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, situated in Brazos County, Texas ("Declarant") and the owners of the lots at the time of the amendment being FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("Fera"); HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation ("HFLPI"); and GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability corporation ("Grand Jr.") (collectively; the "Owners"), and is as follows: RECITALS: WHEREAS, Declarant previously executed and recorded that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of the Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5 Subdivision, recorded in Volume 15667, Page 195, of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Original Declaration") and the Covenants and Restrictions for the Business Center at College Station recorded in Volume 15667, Page 143 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas as attached in Exhibit A and incorporated herein for reference ("Business Center Restrictions"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section G.3. of the Original Declaration, the Original Declaration may be amended unilaterally by the Declarant or with the consent of 100% of the Owners at the time of the amendment; and WHEREAS, Declarant and all Owners desire to amend and restate the Original Declaration in its entirety; and WHEREAS, this Declaration is filed with respect to that certain real property located in Brazos County, Texas; the property being Lots 1R, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 6 of The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5, a subdivision in Brazos County, Texas according to the map or plat recorded under Document Number 2019-1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Property"); and WHEREAS, within the Property there is a 40' wide Shared Cross Access Easement generally along the northwestern and southwestern property line of Lot One "R" (1R), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, and generally along the southwestern property line of Lot Two (2), Lot Three (3), Lot Four (4), and Lot Five (5), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 118 of 379 Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Cross Access Easement"); and WHEREAS, the Owners agreed to release the Property from the Cross Access Easement pursuant to the Mutual Release of Easement recorded in Volume , Page of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas; and WHEREAS, Declarant and Owners desire to restate and amend the Original Declaration by removing in its entirety Section B.3. of the Original Declaration which describes the Cross Access Easement and maintenance cost sharing among Owners for the Cross Access Easement; and WHEREAS, by the filing of this Declaration, Declarant serves notice that the Property will be subject to the terms and provisions of this Declaration; and NOW, THEREFORE, it its hereby declared: (i) that the Property (or any portion thereof) will be held sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which will run with such portions of the Property and will be binding upon all parties having right, title, or interest in or to such portions of the Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns and will inure to the benefit of each owner thereof, and (ii) that each contract or deed conveying the Property (or any portion thereof) will conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, regardless of whether or not the same are set out in full or by reference in said contract or deed. 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 119 of 379 Basic Information Declarant: The City of College Station, Texas Declarant's Address: City of College Station Attn.: City Manager 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 Property: Lots 1R, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 6 of The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots I & 2-5, a subdivision in Brazos County, Texas according to the map or plat recorded under Document Number 2019- 1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas. Definitions "Building" means a detached building designed and used for a Permitted Use and constructed on one or more Lots as permitted herein. "Business Center Advisory Board" or "BLAB" means the Business Center Advisory Board established under the Covenants and Restrictions for the Business Center at College Station, as the same may be hereafter amended from time to time by the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas. The Business Center Advisory Board has the authority provided in the Business Center Restrictions, including authority as an architectural control committee as provided therein. "Business Center Restrictions" means the Covenants and Restrictions for the Business Center at College Station recorded in Volume 15667, Page 143 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas as the same may be hereafter amended from time to time. "Declarant" means the City of College Station, Texas, a municipal corporation and any successor that acquires all unimproved Lots owned by Declarant for the purpose of development and is named as successor in a recorded document. "Owner" means every record Owner of a fee interest in a Lot. "Permitted Use" means any of uses permitted under the Business Center Restrictions. "Plat" means the Plat of the Property recorded under Document Number 2019-1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, and any replat of or amendment to the Plat made by the Declarant. "Restrictions" means the provisions in this Declaration. "Structure" means any improvement on a Lot (other than a Building), including a sidewalk, driveway, fence, wall, tennis court, swimming pool, outbuilding, or recreational equipment. 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 120 of 379 "Vehicle" means any automobile, truck, motorcycle, boat, trailer, or other wheeled conveyance, whether self-propelled or towed. Clauses and Restrictions A. Imposition of Restrictions 1. Declarant, as the sole owner of the Property imposes these Restrictions on the Property as of the date hereof. All subsequent Owners and other occupants of the Lots by their acceptance of their deeds, leases, or occupancy of any Lot agree that the Property is subject to the Restrictions and to the Business Center Restrictions. 2. The Restrictions are necessary and desirable to establish a uniform plan for the development and use of the Property for the benefit of all Owners. The Restrictions run with the Property and each Lot, and bind all Owners, occupants, and any other person holding an interest in a Lot. 3. Each Owner and occupant of a Lot agrees to comply with these Restrictions and the Business Center Restrictions. These Restrictions may be enforced by any Owner. The Business Center Restrictions are enforceable only by the BCAB as therein provided, or any successor entity with such authority. B. Easements 1. There is a variable width private drainage easement created by the Plat for the use and benefit of the Owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 ("Drainage Easement"). Each of these Lot Owners will have the right to use the Drainage Easement to the extent reasonably necessary to provide detention and drainage to make the Owner's Lot usable for a Permitted Use. In the event a detention pond is built to serve all three Lots, the Owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 shall be responsible for the upkeep, repairs and maintenance (collectively, "Maintenance") of the detention pond and any related facilities that benefit the three Lots, and the Owner(s) of Lot 3, the Owner(s) of Lot 4 and the Owner(s) of Lot 5 shall each be responsible for paying for one-third of the cost of such Maintenance. The Owners of the three Lots shall mutually agree on the Maintenance activities and the timing of the activities that are necessary to keep the Detention Pond in reasonably good condition and operational for the purposes intended. If any of the Lot Owners cannot agree on Maintenance activities or the timing of such activities, the Lot Owners shall, at the request of any of them, submit the matter to mediation or binding arbitration. When Maintenance activities are performed, the costs shall be divided equally between the Owners of each Lot, and shall be payable as the activities are performed. Each person having an ownership interest in Lot 3, Lot 4 and/or Lot 5 has the right to enter upon any portion of the Drainage Easement, and to permit engineers, agents, consultants and contractors to do so, for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or performing Maintenance on the detention pond or the installation of any other drainage facilities or improvements. Any Owner of Lot 3, 4 or 5 may perform any required Maintenance. If any Owner of Lot 3, 4 or 5 who is responsible for payment fails to timely pay his proportionate share of the cost of Maintenance within 30 days after demand is made, then other Owner or Owners of the Lots may bring suit to enforce the payment obligation. The prevailing party shall be entitled to 2 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 121 of 379 reasonable attorney's fees. Each Owner of Lots 3, 4 or 5 are responsible for mowing grass and clearing debris from the portion of the Drainage Easement located on his Lot. 2. There is a 40 foot wide shared cross access easement on Lot 4 created by the Plat for the use and benefit of Lots 4 and 5. The Owners of Lots 4 and 5 must agree on the dimensions, materials and other features for the accessway to be constructed on Lot 4 before construction may take place on Lot 4. The Owners of Lots 4 and 5 are responsible for reaching an agreement on Maintenance activities and the allocation of costs for such Maintenance. 3. Intentionally Deleted 4. Any provision in these Restrictions to the contrary notwithstanding, only an Owner whose Lot is directly benefitted by the easements described in paragraphs 1 or 2 above has the right to enforce an obligation to perform or pay for Maintenance as described in this Section B. C. Use and Activities 1. Permitted Use. A Lot may be used only for a Permitted Use. 2. Prohibited Activities. Prohibited activities include: a. any activity that is prohibited by these Restrictions or the Business Center Restrictions; C. any nuisance, noxious, or offensive activity; d. any dumping of rubbish; e. any storage of building materials except during the construction or renovation of a Building or a Structure; ii. vehicles, except vehicles in a garage or Structure or operable vehicles on the Owner's Lot; or iii. unsightly objects unless completely shielded by a Structure; f. any exploration for or extraction of minerals; g. any keeping or raising of animals, livestock, or poultry, except for common domesticated household pets, such as dogs and cats, not to exceed 2 dogs and/or 2 cats confined to a fenced yard or within the Building or other appropriate Structure; h. interfering with a drainage pattern without BCAB approval; i. hunting and shooting; and 5 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 122 of 379 j. residential use of a Building or Structure. D. Construction and Maintenance Standards 1. Lots a. Consolidation of Lots. An Owner of adjoining Lots, with BCAB approval, and after receiving any approval or authorization required by applicable law, may consolidate those Lots into one site for the construction of a Building, in a manner consistent with applicable law. b. Subdivision Prohibited. No Lot may be further subdivided. C. Easements. No easement in a Lot may be granted by an Owner, other than Declarant, without BCAB approval. d. Maintenance. Each Owner must keep the Lot, all landscaping, the Building, and all Structures in a neat, well -maintained, and attractive condition. 2. Buildings and Structures a. Damaged or Destroyed Buildings and Structures. Any Building or Structure that is damaged must be repaired as expeditiously as possible within 30 days after the damage was sustained (or within a period approved by the BCAB) and the Lot restored to a clean, orderly, and attractive condition. Any Building or Structure that is damaged to the extent that repairs are not practicable or the Owner does not wish to restore or repair, must be demolished and removed within 30 days after the damage was sustained, and the Lot restored to a clean and attractive condition. b. Traffic Sight Lines. No landscaping, Structures or vegetation that obstructs traffic sight lines may be placed on any Lot. C. Sidewalks. When a Building is constructed, the Lot must be improved with sidewalks meeting the requirements of applicable law that connect with the sidewalks (or with the public easement in which sidewalks may be installed) on adjacent Lots. E. BCAB Plan Review Plan Review. The BCAB's approval of all plans and specifications must be obtained prior to the initial site improvement or construction, and thereafter prior to all remodels, alterations or changes to any Lot. The review and approval process is set out in the Business Center Restrictions. 0 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 123 of 379 F. Remedial Rights Except as otherwise provided in Section B. paragraph 4, an Owner may bring an action against another Owner, and/or against a tenant or other occupant of a Lot to enforce or enjoin a violation of these Restrictions. Owners are liable for remedying any breach caused by a tenant of the Owner, or by any other person occupying a Lot with the Owner's knowledge and consent. An Owner who brings an action to enforce these Restrictions has all of the rights and remedies available at law or equity, and any Owner who is successful in a proceeding to enforce these restrictions shall be entitled to reimbursement for his reasonable attorneys' fees by the unsuccessful party or parties. G. General Provisions 1. Term. This Declaration runs with the land and is binding in perpetuity. 2. No Waiver. Failure by an Owner to enforce these Restrictions is not a waiver. 3. Amendment. The Declarant will have the right to amend or add to these Restrictions in connection with the sale or development of any of the Lots owned by Declarant, to address the rights and obligations of the Owners of those Lots being sold or developed, without the consent of any other Owner. Any such modification must be made in writing and recorded in the Real Property Records of Brazos County, Texas. Except for the right of the Declarant to make modifications as provided herein, these Restrictions may only be amended by the consent of 100% of the Owners of the Lots at the time of the amendment. 6. Severability. If a provision of this Declaration is unenforceable for any reason, this Declaration is to be construed as if the unenforceable provision is not a part of the Declaration. 7. Notices. All notices given in connection with these Restrictions, including notice of a breach of the Restrictions, must be in writing. Notice may be delivered in any commercially reasonable manner. Notice will be deemed sufficiently delivered if deposited in the U.S. mail addressed to the record Owner(s) of the Lot(s) as shown in the Real Property Records at the time notice is given, at the address for tax notices as shown in the records of the Brazos County Appraisal District or Tax Office at the time notice is given. Notice sent by certified mail, return receipt requested will be deemed delivered (whether or not actually received and whether or not signed for by the recipient) three business days after being deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, and addressed as provided herein. Executed to be effective on the date this instrument is recorded. 7 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 124 of 379 DECLARANT: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS JOHN P. NICHOLS, Mayor THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2024, by JOHN P. NICHOLS, as Mayor of the City of College Station, a Texas municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public, State of Texas 9 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 125 of 379 OWNER: FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation Rodrigo Bicalho, President THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this day of , 2024, by Rodrigo Bicalho, President of FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 9 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 126 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by FERA DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOLOGICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, being Lots I & 2 of the Property, consents to this Declaration, including the terms and conditions of such Declaration. By: Printed Name: Title: THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2024, by , , of on behalf of said NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 10 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 127 of 379 HFLPI-COLLE F S TION, LLC, a Texas limited liability, qHu BY: ichard O. , Manager THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS § This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this day of 2024, by Richard O. Hunton, Jr., Manager of HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a, 17exas limited liability company, on behalf of said company. VALERiE CLA!REHUTCHiNS `�- Notary Public, slate of Texas ' NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat4 Texas ',�'• ,,,:+P Comm. Expires 08•17.2027 Notary ID 11477617 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 128 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by HFLPI-COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, being Lots 3 & 4 of the Property, consents to this Declaration, including the terms and conditions of such Declaration. FROST BANK, a Texas State Bank By Printed Name: a cL.- Title: C--te.Lt-\-,vt QiL, �r-jt THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT �"��l��t� This instrument was acknowledged before me on thX-66�,�Ar of lqt4OQ5� , 2024, by 3U� ,�{ OOA �, G-Y. U(C--e- of Frost Bank, a Texas State Bank, on behaWof said bank. 6666 z ULYLISSIA EASTER k Notary Public, State of %s My Comm. Up. 03-23-2026 10 No.13366Q7&7 4864-1843-0931v.2 NOT Y PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 12 Page 129 of 379 OWNER: GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company Alsen,Manager THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, on this _ day of , 2024, by Gregg Olsen, Manager of GRAND JR,, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, on behalf of said company. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 13 4864-1843-0931v.2 Page 130 of 379 CONSENT BY LIENHOLDER The undersigned lienholder, as the holder of liens(s) on the fee simple title to the property owned by GRAND JR., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, being Lot 5 of the Property, consents to this Declaration, including the terms and conditions of such Declaration. By: Printed Name: Title: THE STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 12024, by , of on behalf of said NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 14 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 131 of 379 Exhibit A Business Center Restrictions 15 4864-1843-0931 v.2 Page 132 of 379 THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION is recorded on this t day of npW, bEf 2019 by the City of College Station, Texas, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation thereinafter "Declarant"), represented herein by Karl Mooney, Mayor of the City of College Station. WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of all of the real property described as follows: Lot 1R, and Lots 2-5, Block 6 of The Business Center at College Station Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1 R & 2-5, a subdivision in Brazos County, Texas according to the map or plat thereof recorded under Document Number 2019-1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas. WHEREAS, Declarant desires to provide for the preservation of the value and amenities in the above subdivision and for the maintenance of any open spaces and common facilities, and to this end, Declarant desires to subject the real property described above, together with such additions as may hereafter be made thereto, to the "Covenants and Restrictions" attached hereto, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of the subdivision and each owner thereof. NOW THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the real property described above, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be made, is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges, and liens set forth in the "Covenants and Restrictions" attached hereto. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS oizoasao;a Page 133 of 379 STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of CX)a e . 2019, by KARL MOONEY as Mayor of the City of College Station, a Texas Home Rules Municipal Corporation, on behalf of said corporation. JAY DON WATSON ^ I�/ :,tiPPY P�'f" / It Notary Public, State of of Texas Comm. Expires 06-06-2021 .'(�� ,°,;,,1� Notary ID 337930 1 Notary lic, State of Texas r / 0120aa40;1 Page 134 of 379 1 1 COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION Page 135 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION 1 COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS 1 BUSINESS CENTER at COLLEGE STATION 1 AzCJ ruxrubE ' Section 1.10: The purpose of the Business Center at College Station is to provide opportunities for development of a variety of business and trade uses. The occupants permitted within the Business Center include a wide spectrum of uses and activities that will benefit from the proximity to other business and trades within the business center. These include manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, research development and high ' technology, low technology and offices. Section 1.20: The business and trades sites developed within the business park are characterized as 1 having relatively low traffic generation, minimum building coverage, generous build- ing and parking lot setbacks, abundant and theme open space and landscaping, park ' ing lot screening, and high quality site and building design. Section 1.30: The Business Center at College Station is designed to implement community eco- nomic development goals and policies, improve community appearance, and provide a superior environment for employees and visitors to the business park. The proper- ties in the Business Center shall be developed with improvements that provide an 1 economical and environmentally sensitive setting for agriculture, engineering, chemi- cal, aerospace, telecommunications, medical, computers, veterinary science, petro- leum, oceanographic science, and other compatible businesses and trades. Uses shall 1 not create noise, vibration, solar glare, fine and explosive hazards, hazardous materi- als, contamination, or any other blight that impacts the community's environment or the employees and visitors to the Business Center. 1 All business and trade activities shall be conducted totally within an enclosed building(s). Outside storage of materials and products shall be by special permission of the board, reviewed on an annual basis and shall be screened from all street views. All screening shall be approved by the board as to type and size. 1 ARTICLEM CITY (J UULLhUh 6IATION ' APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES 1 Section 2.10: The requirements, regulations, development standards and other information contained herein are a supplement to the codes and ordinances adopted by the City of College Station. Thus, all development within the Business Center shall conform to the fol- lowing codes and ordinances: zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, building codes, and other codes and ordinance adopted by the City of College Station as well = 1 COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - I Page 136 of 379 ' BusiNESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION ' as administrative policies and procedures as may be established by the City Manager ' and/or City staff. CL1 ' BUSINESS UEA t EX A.0 v iNuRY BOARD Section 3.10: Function: The function of the Business Center Advisory Board (The Board) is to exercise control over the development of the Business Center in terms of its aesthetic and economic qualities and to maintain its conceptual integrity. Its purpose is to re- ' view all site layout and architectural presentations and approve or disapprove same. Section 3.20: Board Membership. The Board shall consist of three members: The Director of Eco- nomic and Development Services and two other members appointed by the City Man- ager. ' Section 3.30: Board Liability. Neither the City of College Station City Council, nor any member of the Board thereof shall be liable to any owner or tenant or to anyone submitting plans ' for approval, or to any other party by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence, or non-feasance, arising out of or in connection with the approval, disapproval or failure to approve any such plans or for any other action in connection with its or their duties ' hereunder. Likewise, anyone so submitting plans to the Board for approval, by sub- mitting such plans, and any person when he becomes an owner or tenant, agrees that he will not bring any action or suit to recover any damages against the Board, or any ' member, employee or agent of said Board. ARTICLE-1Y ' REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCESS ' Section 4.10: Required Plans. All plans, specifications and requests for authority to remodel or al- ter, or otherwise change the leasehold/ ownership must be submitted to the Board for review and approval. No site improvement, building, sign, landscaping, lighting or ' other exterior improvements shall be placed, erected, or altered on any site without such prior approval from the Board. r Section 4.20: Access: The Director of Economic Development or his designated agent(s) shall have ■ full access to all buildings and sites during all phases of construction. ' Section 4.30: Approval Process. Approval shall be based upon conformity and harmony of external design with neighboring structures, effect of location and use of improvements on neighboring sites, orientation of building elevations with respect to nearby streets, ' and conformity of plans and specifications to the intent of these covenants. The Board shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its action or decision on such plans and ' specifications. Improvements or alterations of any site shall not be commenced prior to compliance with the following two-part review process. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 2 Page 137 of 379 ® BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION Section 4.40: Concept Design Review. The objective of this section is to ensure careful site planing with regard to location and size of building, parking, open space and access. The concept design must be approved by the Board in writing prior to beginning the final design. Concept design shall include the following: 1. Site plan information such as utility locations and connections, drainage, service areas, outdoor storage, trash receptacle and mechanical and electrical equipment. 2. Building elevations, floor plans, and sections. 3. Building materials, parking, lot surfacing, and open space. 4. Landscaping, signage, and lighting. 5. Construction staging. Section 4.50: Final Design Review. Submission to include, but not limited to, the following: 1. A topographical and boundary map showing contour grades (with 1 foot inter- vals), the species, location and caliper (measured 12 inches above ground) of all existing trees greater than 4 inch caliper and the location of all improvements, such as signs, structures, walks, patios, driveways, fences and walls. Existing and finished grades shall be shown at parcel comers and for proposed improvements. Lot drainage provisions shall be included (special emphasis should be paid to drainage from adjoining non -improved lots), as well as cut and fill details, if any appreciable change in contours is contemplated. 2. Exterior elevations, including screening. 3. Exterior materials, colors, textures and shapes of buildings and structures. 4. Landscaping plan, including proposed clearing, walkways, fences, walls, eleva- tion changes, irrigation systems, and existing and proposed vegetation, and any additional amenities. 5. Parking area and driveway plan. 6. Screening, including size, location and method. 7. Utility routing and connection points. 8. Exterior illumination, including location, manufacturer's fixture number, and sup- porting photometric test data. 9. Fire protection system as required by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Codes. 10. Elevation and plan view drawings of signs including copy, size, shape, color, type- face, location, illumination and materials. 11. Trash container storage locations and related screening. 12. Proposed use and estimated building occupant load. 13. Clearing plan and tree protection plan, plus measures for erosion control during construction. 14. Drainage runoff quantities for ten-year frequency. 15. Property lines with bearings based on the Texas Plane Coordinate System. 16. Coordinates for at least two opposite property comers based on the Texas Plane Coordinate System. 17. Building setback lines. 18. Location of all easements. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 3 Page 138 of 379 ® BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION 19. All adjacent streets and relationship to contiguous site improvements. 20. Utility demands - electricity, domestic water and sanitary sewer. Section 4.60: Submittal Requirements. Five sets of all documents are to be included in each submis- sion for review. All buildings must be designed by a registered architect and all land- scape plans by a registered landscape architect. The architect(s), assisted by registered engineers, shall be solely responsible for the safety, structural, mechanical, electrical and other systems in the improvements. The Board does not approve these elements. The Texas registration seal of appropriate architect, engineer and/or landscape archi- tect must appear on all documents. The architect must also submit a statement over his signature stating that all contract documents have been prepared in accordance with all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations of the City of College Station related to the project. Section 4.70: Letter of Approval. Upon final design approval, a letter will be issued by the Board, advising all concerned agencies of acceptance of the construction plans and specifica- tions. No construction activities are to commence without said letter. A clearing plan ' or site demolition plan clearly indicating all existing site features that are to be re- moved must be submitted to the Board for approval prior to any site clearing. I Section 4.80: Timeliness of Board Action. The Board shall approve or disapprove the plans and specifications within ten working days after submittal. Section 4.90: Tenant shall ensure that the drawings are revised upon completion of the work to show changes in the construction indicated by the Contractor on the "Record Prints" kept at the project's site. The tenant/owner shall deliver to the Director of Economic ' and Development Services the original or reproducible film positive copies, corrected to be "Record Drawings" made from the Contractor's "Record Prints" and one addi- tional set of reproducible film positive copies of these drawings and one (1) set of specifications. Paper sepias will not be acceptable. ARUCLE Y VAMANCES ' Section 5.10: In those instances where strict compliance with specific covenants would create an undue hardship by depriving the owner or lessee the reasonable use of its site or where, ' in the opinion of the Board, there are unusual characteristics which affect the property or use in question and which would make strict compliance with these covenants unfeasible, the Board may grant the owner or lessee a variance from these covenants ' as long as the general purposes of the covenants are maintained. Any variance granted from the provisions of these covenants shall be applicable only to the specific site and conditions for which the variance was granted, and shall in no respect constitute a ' change in or effect the terms or conditions set out in the'standards as same apply to other sites or condition. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 4 Page 139 of 379 ® BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION ,ARTICLE ENFORCEMEN i', lluxA IUN AM) AMENDMENT Section 6.10: Enforcement. The conditions, covenants, restrictions and reservations herein contained shall run with the land, and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Business Center and its lessees/owners. These conditions, covenants, restrictions and reserva- tions shall be enforced by the Director of Economic and Development Services. Vio- lation of any of these provisions shall give the Director of Economic and Develop- ment Services the right to take appropriate action against the party or parties violating or attempting to violate any of these provisions to prevent them from so doing, to cause any such violation to be remedied, and/or to recover damages resulting from such violation. In any legal or equitable proceeding to enforce these provisions or to enjoin their violation, the party or parties against whom judgment is entered shall pay the attorney's fees of the party or parties for whom judgment is entered such amount as may be fixed by the court in such proceeding. Section 6.20: Duration and Amendment. These Covenants may be amended from time to time or terminated by Council action. Amendments made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon building owners or their respective successors and assignees. Section 6.30: Separability. In the event any of these covenants are invalidated by judgment or court order, all of the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected. AJKLE-YU Yy,fuYliI Ir"" u6L 6 Section 7.10: Manufacturing. All business and trade activities will be conducted totally within an enclosed building(s). Outside storage of materials and/or products shall be in accor- dance with section 1.30 of these covenants. Manufacturing uses may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Instrument and component manufacturing 2. Apparel manufacturing 3. Transportation component manufacturing 4. Office equipment and supplies manufacturing 5. Electronics manufacturing 6. Electrical machine manufacturing 7. Printing and allied products 8. Rubber and plastics manufacturing 9. Recycling and collection facilities COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 5 Page 140 of 379 G) BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION Section 7.20: Warehousing and Distribution. Warehousing and distribution uses may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: I. Warehousing 2. Transportation 3. Office 4. Storage and management of products and/or product components 5. Distribution of products and/or product components to retail, wholesale, govem- mental or industrial customers Section 7.30: Research, Development and High Technology. Research, development and high tech- nology uses may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Research 2. Product development and production 3. Applied research requiring pilot product invention 4. Laboratory testing 5. Assembly and/or distribution 6. Sales 7. Installation and/or servicing of high.technology products and services Section 7.40: Low Technology and Offices. Low technology and office uses may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Business and trade services 2. Product wholesale sales 3. Display of products and services 4. Professional services 5. Product display and wholesale sales showroom and office 6. Product training and technical services 7. Marketing 8. Accounting 9. Architecture 10. Engineering 11. Planning 12. Landscape architecture 13. Financial consulting I4. Medical services 15. Clerical and secretarial services 16. Custodial services 17. Security services 18. Law 19. Stock brokerage 20. Insurance 21. Real Estate COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 6 Page 141 of 379 ® BusINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION CLE V rxuH1 11 LIP UbLb Section 8.10: The following uses are prohibited within the Business Center: 1. Any permitted or conditional uses identified in the following zoning districts: a. Agriculture (A-0) b. Single Family Residential (R-1 and R-IA) c. Duplex Residential (R-2) d. Townhouse (R-3) e. Apartment/Low Density (R-4) f. Apartment/Medium Density (R-5) g. ApartmenL-AUgh Density (R 6) h. Mobile Home (R-7) I. Neighborhood Business (C-N) j. Commercial Northgate (C-NG) k. General Commercial (C-1) 1. Commercial Industrial (C-2) m. Planned Commercial (C-3) 2. Radio/Television Tower 3. Public Parking 4. Recycling Facility (conform to Section 8.18 - Recycling Facilities in the Zoning Ordinance) 5. Commercial and/or Non-commercial Arena/Coliseum 6. Commercial Amusements and/or Theme -Parks 7. Drive-in Eating Establishments 8. Funeral Homes 9. Commercial Garage 10. Hospital or Sanitorium 11. Boarding, care or treatment of any animal not involved in medical research 12. Growing or production of any agricultural product 13. Sheet Metal Fabrication 14. Trailer and/or accessory equipment manufacture, rental, storage or repair 15. Welding Shop 16. Nursery/plant Retail/Wholesale Sales 17. Salvage or Junk Yards 18. Aircraft Landing Strips, Sales, Service or Repair 19. Storage of Explosives 20. Tire Vulcanizing and Retreading 21. Commercial or Non-commercial Theater or Motion Picture House 22. Outside storage of any product, material, equipment or vehicle manufactured, as- sembled, sold or offered for sale, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, processed, salvaged, recycled, collected, used in research, and/or reconditioned, on or off site. 23. Any retail sales and service use located within a self standing, single user struc- ture. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 7 Page 142 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION ARTICLE I ACCESSORY USES Section 9.10: Heliport. An area, either at ground level or elevated on a structure, licensed or ap- proved for the loading and take -off of helicopters, and including auxiliary facilities such as parking, waiting room, fueling and maintenance equipment. Section 9.20: Radio, Television, Microwave Tower or Satellite Dish. A tower or structure of skel- eton framework or dish, attached directly to the ground or to another structure used for the transmission or reception of radio, television, microwave, satellite or any other form of telecommunications signals. Section 9.30: Employee and Customer Service and Sales. A use which: 1. Is subordinate to and serves a primary use or principal structure. 2. Is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the primary use served. 3. Contributes to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of occupants or customers of the primary use served. 4. Is located totally within the building or buildings of the primary use and not vis- ible from outside the building. Examples of employee and customer services and sales include, but are not limited to, private garages, greenhouses, child care, health services, physical fitness, food ser- vice. ART.ICLE X AREA FmqumuvmNTS Section 10.10: Minimum Lot Area shall be one acre except as provided below: 1. Block 1 - one acre 2. Block 2 - three acres except Lot 1 - six acres 3. Block 3 - as shown on the final plat 4. Block 4 - Lot 1 and 2 as shown on the final plat, and Lot 3 - one acre 5. Block 5 - two acres 6. Block 6 - five acres Section 10.20: Minimum Front Lot Width at property line 1. Block 1 - one hundred feet 2. Block 2 - two hundred feet J. Block 3 - as shown on the final plat 4. Block 4 - Lot 1 and 2 - as shown on the final plat, Lot 3 - one hundred feet 5. Block 5 - two hundred feet 6. Block 6 - three hundred feet COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - S Page 143 of 379 BIISINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION AA AR DEVELttnym t b Y Ai*wARDS Section 11.10: Minimum Front Building Setback from street R.O.W. as shown on final plat. Section 11.20: Minimum Side and Rear Building Setback shall be as required in the zoning ordi- nance for the proposed use of the sitellot. Section 11.30: Parking lots and the associated 20' buffer zone as defined in Section 12.20 are prohib- ited within the Building Setback with the exception of lots which have Building Set- backs in excess of 40 feet. Granting ofpermission to encroach into these setbacks that are greater than 40 feet shall be at the discretion of the Board. LAJN Vbk_"M LT Section 12.10: Intent. It is the intent of this article to recognize, utilize and supplement the existing native woodlands and oak meadows to create a cohesive character and quality through- out the development. This will be accomplished through the establishment and main- tenance of Protected and Landscaped areas. The natural park -like character of the site shall be maintained and enhanced by emphasizing tree preservation, supplemental canopy tree plantings to imitate the natural tree groupings, and the incorporation of colorful masses of ornamental and understory trees. Section 12.20: Definitions. Developed Area - Is defined as an area bounded by a line located 20 feet beyond the outside boundary of the following: building footprints, parking areas, driveways, storage areas, drainage facilites and other areas of improvement. Existing vegetation within this area may be removed to accomodate site development. Developed Area may not encroach upon the L.A.U.EB.S. or Protected Areas. Landscaping. Access and Underground Utility Easements (L.A.U.E)Building Set- back Areas - Is shown on the final plat. For point calculations, the larger of the two will be used. Existing trees in this area may not be removed except for drive access or sight clearance. Protected Area - Total site minus Developed Area and all L.A.U.E.Building Set- backs. Minimum Protected Area for any given site is 15 percent of total site minus area of L.A.U.E.Building Setbacks, Existing Trees - Native canopy trees, 4" caliper and larger, in good farm and condi- tion and reasonably free of damage by insects and/or disease. Understory Veg a ion - All non -canopy woody vegetation. ICOVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 9 Page 144 of 379 ® BusiNESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION Section 12.30: Application ofArticle. Tree preservation, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be required on all developments in accordance with the terms and provisions of the fo1 lowing: 1. The conditions and requirements as contained in Section 9, Minimum Parking Requirements; Section 10, Site Plan Review Requirements; and Section 11, Land- scaping, of the College Station Zoning Ordinance. 2. Meet or exceed existing Zoning Ordinance Section 11 with the following addi- tions: a. No site work will commence without variance granted by the Board or ap- proved plans. b. All plans approved prior to issuance of building permit to include but not limited to: i. Landscape plan for Developed Area including irrigation plan and all point calculations; H. Plan showing Protected Area and tree survey showing size and species; ill. Streetscape plan for Landscaping, Access and Underground Utility Ease- ments (L.A.U.E.) or Building Setback (B.S.), whichever is greater, show- ing existing trees (size and species), Streetscape point calculations; loca- tion, species, and irrigation plan for new trees. 3. The landscape design shall be in general conformance with the landscape concept as shown on the Master Plan and the Master Landscape Plan. Section 12.40: Vegetation Protection/Removal. 1. Existing diseased and dangerous trees may be removed from the site with Board approval. 2. Within the L.A.U.E./B.S, a maximum of 75% of the understory vegetation may be removed. All clearing done by hand only. 3. Within the Protected Area a maximum of 50% of the understory vegetation may be removed. Remaining understory vegetation should be left within the dripline of trees. All clearing done by hand only. 4. The removal of strangling vines and poisonous vegetation is recommended and will not count against percentages in (2) and (3) of this section. 5. No site development work, material storage or construction parking shall be al- lowed in the Protected or L.A.U..E./B.S. Areas. Protected Areas must be fenced from the Developed Area prior to commencement of construction and remain in place until certificate of occupancy is granted. Section 12.50: Point Calculation. Point values for selected species shall be accordance with Land- scaping section (Section 11) of the Zoning Ordinance of College Station. 1. Protected Area - Is not used in either L.A.U.E.B.S. or Developed Area calcula- tions. 2. Developed Area - Points required equal 60 points per 1000 sq. ft. of Developed Area. No more than 50% of the points shall be canopy trees. Existing trees may not be used to meet point requirements without Board approval. • 3_ L.A.U.E./B.S. Areas - This area is landscaped and points calculated in accordance with the Streetscape standards as established in the Zoning Ordinance. Points do COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 10 Page 145 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION not transfer to points required in Developed Area Existing trees maybe used to count towards point requirements. New plantings must be a mix of canopy and non -canopy trees. Section 12.60: Minimum Size and Species Requirements. 1. All new canopy trees shall be a minimum of 2.75" caliper. All new non -canopy trees shall be a minimum of 1.5" caliper. 2. Recommended Species - See Section 11.3 of Ordinance 1638. Section 12.70: Sidewalks and Pedestrian Crossings. The treatment of sidewalks and pedestrian cross- ings shall contribute to the unified design and park -like quality of the streetscape. 1. Required sidewalks shall be in general conformance with the landscape concept as shown on the Master Plan and the Master Landscape Plan. Alignment of the sidewalks shall meander through the L.A.U.E. with smooth, fluid curves, taking into account any existing and newly planted trees and their root zones. Accessible connections shall be provided at the designated pedestrian crossings of streets. 2. Paving and landscape treatments of the pedestrian crossings shall be provided to "mirror" such treatments of pedestrian crossings as provided in the common open space areas. Section 12.80: Screening. All parking facilities, service and delivery areas, and refuse facilities shall be screened from view as indicated. Section 12.81: Parking Facilities. All parking facilities shall be screened from view of a public street and common open space by one or more of the following methods: 1. A planting strip that is continuous and measures a minimum of four feet in height at the end of two growing seasons. Vegetation used for screening purposes shall not accrue points toward the landscape requirements. 2. A wall that matches the architectural style, materials and/or color of the building. 3. An earth berm that measures four feet in height with a maximum of four feet horizontal to one foot vertical slope or profile. 4. A combination of any of the three screening methods mentioned above. Walls and/or planting strips shall be located at least two feet from any parking area. All methods of screening must be maintained during the life, of the development. Where the public street and/or the adjacent property site are at different elevations, the height of the screening may be increased to ensure adequate screening. Screening shall not be located within the L_A.U.E. or building setback. Section 12.82: Refuse Facilities. Each refuse facility shall be completely screened from view of pub- lic streets, private drives, private walks and the common open space by: 1. Meeting the requirements of the other sections of this article; or COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 11 r� Page 146 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION 2. Screening on throe sides by masonry walls that match the architectural style, ma- terials and/or color of the building not less than the height of the bin or container. An opening shall be situated so that the container is not visible from adjacent properties and public streets unless the opening is equipped with an opaque gate. Gates must have tie backs to secure in the open position. Section 12.83: Service Areas. Service, loading and delivery areas shall not be visible from public streets, private drives, public and/or visitor parking lots, walks, and the common open space. Screening shall be accomplished by an opaque screen consisting of one or a combination of the following: 1. Freestanding walls, wing walls or fences that match the architectural style, mate- rials and/or color of the building.. 2. Earthen berms in conjunction with trees and other landscaping. 3. Landscaping, which must be opaque and eight feet in height within eighteen months of planting. Screening shall be a minimum height of eight feet to screen truck berths, loading docks, areas designated for permanent parking or storage of heavy vehicles and equipment or materials. Screening shall be of a length to screen the maximum size trailer which can be accommodated on site. Section 12.84: Adjacent Land Uses. A six foot solid screening wall or fence shall be constructed adjacent to the property and/or lot line which abuts residentially zoned or other less intensive land uses. Such screening, methods of construction and use of materials to approved by the Board to provide continuity. ARTICLE PARKING Section 13.10: Objectives. The parking needs generated by a business or trade activity must be ac- commodated on the property occupied by the business or trade. On street parking cannot be usdd to satisfy the parking requirements. Further, the number of parking spaces required by the business or trade must be located behind the building setback line shown on the final plat of said property. Section 13.20: Parking Spaces Required. It shall be the responsibility of the developer or owner to establish the number of parking spaces required by using the following guidelines, provided however, the Board may require an increase in this number of parking spaces. 1. The number of on site parking spaces shall be based on the amount of area (square feet) occupied by each use or function within the building(s) and the number of employees. 2. The total number of on site parking spaces shall be the sum of the following: a. One space for each 250 square feet of office space. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 12 Page 147 of 379 EDBUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION b. One space for each 250 square feet of personal service. c. One space for each 65 square feet of food service. d. One space for each 250 square feet of retail sales and service. e. One space for each 250 square feet of day care center. f. One space for each 150 square feet of health studio. g. One space for each 4 seats contained in a theater and/or conference audito- rium. h. One space for each 250 square feet of wholesale display. L One space for each 500 square feet of manufacturing or assembly operations. j. One space for each 3,000 square feet of warehouse and storage space. k. One space for each two employees performing research and development ser- vices (one shift). However, the Board may increase or decrease the above calculated number of parking spaces for good and reasonable cause. Section 13.30: Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements. Parking requirements shall conform to the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance, as contained in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 or Section 13.20-2 above, whichever is more stringent. ARTICLE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Section 14.10: Architectural style is not restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. Monotony of de- sign in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variation of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. In multiple building projects, vari- able siting or individual buildings may be used to prevent a monotonous appearance. Section 14.20: Buildings shall have good scale and be in harmonious conformance with permanent neighboring development. All buildings are to be modem and progressive in design and concept. Buildings should reflect the technology of the day. All buildings shall have a horizontal appearance brought about by the use of horizontal bands and fascia to ri inimize the verticality of the structure. Building exterior walls shall be visually reduced to human scale by: 1. Fragmenting into smaller or multiple planes 2. Mature landscaping and land form manipulation 3. Wall texture placement 4. Clustering small-scale elements such as planter walls around the major form 5. Creation of a horizontal shadow line Section 14.30: Radical theme structures or signage, building, and roof forms that draw unnecessary attention from public streets and private drives to the building shall be avoided. COVENANTS AND RESTP ICTIONS - 13 Page 148 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION Materials shall have good architectural character and shall be selected for harmony of the building with adjoining buildings. One dominant material should be selected and expressed with its own natural integrity. Materials that convey permanence, substance, timelessness, and restraint are required. Low maintenance should be a major design criteria. Roof drainage down pipes on building fronts must be on the interior and not exposed. Reflective glass walls are permitted adjacent to landscaped areas, common open space and landscape easement. Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. Buildings shall have the same materials, or those that are archi- tecturally harmonious, used for all building walls and other exterior building compo- nents wholly or partly visible from public ways. A pre-engineered metal building will be acceptable as long as all sides of the building visible from the street have a masonry facade. Materials shall be of durable quality. In any design in which the structural frame is exposed to view, the structural materials shall be compatible within themselves and harmonious with their surroundings. Section 14.40: Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets shall have good proportions and relationships to one another. In instances where flat roof areas can be viewed from above, care should betaken that all roof vents, roof -mounted mechanical equipments, pipes, etc., are grouped together, painted to match wall and roof color, and screened. Sloped roof treatments are acceptable with certain exceptions. Sloped roofs may be of any traditional roof material except corrugated metal, wood, fiber- glass, and asphalt. Section 14.50: Colors shall be harmonious and shall use only compatible accents. Accent colors may be used to express corporate identity. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials har- monious with the building, or they shall be so located as not to be visible from any public ways. t ARTICLE XV SIu1v tc�;t�v>r.a�l;"1u1�S Section 15:10: Purpose: 1. The purpose of this section is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations per- taining to signs and to promote thereby an attractive business and trades environ- ment, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. 2. Reasonable provisions pertaining to size, scale, location, design, lighting, perma- nency, and maintenance are necessary to avoid visual clutter, preserve and im- prove the appearance and character of the business park, to avoid traffic problems COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 14 Page 149 of 379 BUSINESS CENTEP, AT COLLEGE STATION caused by distracting signs or structures in close proximity to streets, which com- plete with traffic signs and signals for the attention of motorists, and to prevent deterioration, disregard, and abandonment of signs or structures. 3. The regulations contained herein complement the provisions of the Federal High- way Beautification Act of 1972. Section 15.20: Definitions: Sill. Means any written or graphic representation, decoration, form, emblem, trade- mark, flag, banner, or other feature or device of similar character which is used for the communication of commercial information, or communication of ideas or subjects of political significance, and which: a. Is a structure or any part thereof, including the wall of a building, or a free stand- ing sign; b. Is written, printed, projected, painted, constructed or otherwise placed or displayed upon or designed into a building, or upon any material, object or device whatso- ever; and c. By reason of its form, color, wording, symbol design, or illumination attracts or is designed to attract attention to the subject thereof, or is used as a means of identi- fication, advertisement or announcement. d. A sign sball be considered to be a single display surface or a double-faced display surface containing elements clearly organized, related and composed to form a unit. Attached Sign: A sign attached to or applied on and totally supported by a part of a building. Dilectional T'ZAa Control Sign: A sign utilized as a traffic control device in off- street parling or access areas. Commercial Sign: A sign attached to a building and/or freestanding which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or attraction sold, offered, or existing upon the premises where such sign is displayed. Premises: An area of land planned and designed as a single comprehensive project, considered from the time the plan is first submitted to the Board. Section 15.30: General Provisions: 1. Building Permits. A permit shall be required from the City of College Station. 2. Signs Attached to Building. At attached sign shall advertise only the name of, uses of, or goods or services available within the building to which the sign is attached. Such sign shall be parallel to the face of the building, shall not be canti- levered away from the structure, and shall not extend more than one foot from any exterior building face. Section 15.40: Permitted Signs. The following signs shall be permitted in the Business Center at College Station. 1. One freestanding commercial sign which conforms to the following regulations: a. The sign shall be no larger than 64 square feet. b. The sign shall be sand blasted concrete with a black granite or brick insert. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 15 Page 150 of 379 BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION c. The sign shall have two-6" square tile insert on each side of face and shall contain the business park logo. d. The sign shall be double face. 2. Directional Traffic Control signs shall conform to the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station. 3. A one (1) commercial sign, attached to a building, shall be permitted which con- forms to the following regulations. a. The building sign shall match in letter style, color and logo as the freestanding sign. b. Letters may be backlighted. c. Sign shall be in keeping which good character. Section 15.50: Prohibited Signs. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Business Center at College Station. 1. Trailer Signs. 2. Off premise signs. 3. Signs painted on roof tops. 4. Signs and displays with flashing, blinking or traveling lights, or erratic or other moving parts, either internal or external to the premise, and oriented and visible to vehicular traffic. 5. Any sign which emits sound, odor or visible matter. 6. Subdivision and area identification signs. 7. Development sign. 8. Portable sign. 9. Real estate sign. 10. Political sign.' 11. Fuel price sign. Section 15.60: Permit Requirements: 1. A building permit shall be required in accordance with the provisions of the Col- lege Station Building Code. 2. All abandoned signs and their supports shall be removed in accordance to the Codes of the City of College Station. ARTICLE XYI UTILITY SERVICES ak Section 16.10: Utility Services shall be designed, located and installed in a manner that reduces the visual and environmental impacts to the site. The following methods are minimum guidelines: 1. All electrical lines shall be installed underground. 2. Pad mounted transformers shall be located behind the building setback line shown on the final plat and screened from parking lots, drives and walks. 3. Whenever possible, water and sewer service lines shall be located adjacent to access drives to minimize disturbance of the landscape. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS - 16 Page 151 of 379 (*Orq" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas Ad'M University' RESOLUTION OF BUSINESS CENTER ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING RELEASE OF CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT THIS RESOLUTION is executed by the Business Center Advisory Board (`SCAB") to be effective on the date of adoption provided below, WHEREAS, this Resolution is filed regarding certain real property located in Brazos County, Texas; the property being Lots 1R, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 6 of The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5, a subdivision in Brazos County, Texas according to the map or plat recorded under Document Number 2019-1375570 (Volume 15639, Page 231) of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Property"); and WHEREAS, within the Property there is a 40' wide Shared Cross Access Easement generally along the northwestern and southwestern property line of Lot One "R" (1R), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, and generally along the southwestern property line of Lot Two (2), Lot Three (3), Lot Four (4), and Lot Five (5), Block Six (6), The Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, per the Resubdivision and Final Plat recorded in Volume 15639, Page 231, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Cross Access Easement"); and WHEREAS, the following parties are all of the current owners of the Property at the time of execution of this Resolution: Fera Diagnostics and Biologicals Corporation, a Delaware corporation; HFLPI-College Station, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation; and Grand Jr., LLC, an Idaho limited liability corporation (collectively, "Owners"); and WHEREAS, the City of College Station ("Declarant") previously executed and recorded Covenants and Restrictions for the Business Center at College Station recorded in Volume 15667, Page 143 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Business Center Restrictions") and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of the Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5 Subdivision, recorded in Volume 15667, Page 195, of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Declaration of Restrictive Covenants"); and WHEREAS, the BCAB was established under the Business Center Restrictions and the BCAB has the authority provided in the Business Center Restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Owners agreed to release the Property from the Cross Access Easement pursuant to the Mutual Release of Easement recorded in Volume , Page of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas ("Mutual Release of Easement"); and 4872-4051-4515v.2 P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE • COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS • 77842 cstx.gov Page 152 of 379 City of College Station Page 2 WHEREAS, Declarant and Owners restated and amended the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants as the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of the Business Center at College Station, Phase Two, Block 6, Lots 1R & 2-5 Subdivision recorded in Volume Page of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas by removing in its entirety Section B.3. of the Original Declaration which describes the Cross Access Easement and maintenance cost sharing among Owners for the Cross Access Easement ("Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants"); and WHEREAS, the Declarant, Owners and BCAB all desire to release the Property from the Cross Access Easement and terminate the Cross Access Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, it its hereby resolved that BCAB approves release and termination of the Cross Access Easement as described in the Mutual Release of Easement and Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Date of Adoption: , 2024 Business Center Advisory Board: By: Bryan C. Woods City Manager, City of College Station By: Michael Ostrowski Chief Development Officer, City of College Station By: Anthony Armstrong Director Planning and Development Services, City of College Station 4872-4051-4515v.2 Page 153 of 379 f THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION PH 3 �� v LOT 3 - APPROX. LIMITS OF SPECIAL l \ ' 1 FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS SCALED \ BLOCK 4 FROM FEMA FIRM NO. / 48041C205C DATED 1ULY 2,1992 / \ ' Vol. 3764 Pg. 730 - I THE BUSINESS CENTER ( i p O �` THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ' SYSTEM REAL ESTATE OFFICE I AT COLLEGE STATION PH 3 ! \. \ � <0 "� `; 301 TARROW ST (6TH FLOOR) Q \, COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840-7896 LOT 2R BLOCK 4 THE BUSINESS CENTER 1` � � � t` \ \ �� 20' Drainage AT COLLEGE STATION PH 2 , Easement CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ' \ 30' Landscape ✓/Vol. 3764,Pg 730 %f X ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT ' LOT 2 , &Utility Easement �' ! PO BOX 9973 1 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842-7973 % �' BLOCK 4 30' Landscape, \ , Vol. 3764,Pg 730 - _ - - i 1 Access & Utility- - / Vol. 3490 Pg. 267 Easement _r J-1 / 30' Landscape, STATA CORPORATION � � � . � - �R=760.00' i ' �iD=21°30'00" - - Access & Public 4905 LAKEWAY DR 1 \ _ Underground COLLEGE STATION, TX j , L=285.19' ' Utility Easement 77845-4512 Vol. 2354,Pg 351 / J , A� DRw G CB N43500'00"VV R=25.00' A`� D=93 ° 07'10" ,� ' 0 W ' 0 32 ° ► ►► $Q R• 26i,3764/?3 �""Oft l5 00 E 6 L=40.63' j 30' Landscape, tow LC=36.30' Access & Utility g87/g1,3490/ Now _ ► goo - - - 2- CB=N67 ° 50'09"W _ - ��_ Easement THE BUSINESS CENTER ------- 7A� �' " 5�O 30' andsca e AT COLLEGE STATIONE� I p PH 1 R=840.00' -- - S 53° 45 � Access and ' " - Public Underground LOT 2 \ � � D=32 28 26 � CRY OF STATION �GE BLOCK 3 ' ' ;r L=476.09' ' ,- Utility Easement X ACCOUNTING LC=469.74' avow Vol. 2887,Pg 81 ' DEPARTMENT ' CB=S37 ° 3U'47"E PO BOX 9973 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842-7973 l -�' i "" � � 40' Building I Setback Line R=748.00' i D=15 ° 46'41" L=205.98' LC=205.33' CB=S57°42'56"W ' I I � 90' Building Setback Line THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION PH 1 LOT 3 R I W BLOCK 3 j j Vol. 3021. Pg. 325 0 O a m 30' Landscape, THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM SYSTEM REAL ESTATE OFFICE i d' 0 0 ti LO t Access & Public Underground PROPERTY TAX DEPT 301 TARROW ST (FL 6) CV W Utility Easement COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840-7896 �- �' Vol. 2887,Pg 81 ° 0) d' Z' 20' College Station Power '- Easement Vol. 904, Pg.19.22 30' Landscape, Access & Public COLLEGE Underground STATION Utility Easement GPS Mon. Vol. 2354,Pg 351 J No.11 LOT 1 BLOCK 6 30.743 Ac. r-1 0) LA 00 CD 60 0 0 90' Building Setback Line - - .. - . - .. - .. - 30' Landscape, Access &Public 15' GTE Easement 20' College Station Utility ' ,-- Underground Utility Easement Vol. 650, Pg 77 - - - - Easement Vol. 904, Pg. - - - - - - Vol. 2887,Pg 81 _ -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- - -- - -- -- - _ _ 7_7 __55303VV2 Clty o ry —°� ��► 01.00►f B an ElectricalN 40 ° 10'24" W 720.85' - -(�j 4 20'College Station Power 40 10 24 W 704.45 - -- - Easement Vol. 2960, Pg.114 Easement Vol. 754, Pg. 138 20' College Station Power City of Bryan Electrical _ Easement Vol. 754, Pg. 133 Easement Vol. 2960, Pg.114 ORIGINAL PLAT I STATE HIGHWAY No. 6 R.O.W. VARIES SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 OF 2 — ORIGINAL PLAT SHEEP 2 OF 2 — REPLAT A020201, S W ROBERTSON (ICL), TRACT 14.11, 133.242 ACRES, FUTURE PHS'S OF PEBBLE CREEK —WEST OF PEBBLE CREEK PKWY (NOT PLATTED) PEBBLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO %YOUNG GLORIA D PO BOX 7114 WACO, TX 76714-7114 Scale: 11 I 1 inch = 80 feet - I A020201, S W ROBERTSON (ICL), TRACT 14.11, 133.242 ACRES, FUTURE PHS'S OF PEBBLE CREEK —WEST OF PEBBLE CREEK PKWY (NOT PLATTED) PEBBLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO %YOUNG GLORIA D PO BOX 7114 WACO, TX 76714-7114 VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES: 1. Origin of Bearing System: The found iron rod monuments along the S.H. No. 6 Boundary and record bearings for the 200 Acre City of College Station tract described in Volume 1385, Pg. 14 of the Official Records of Brazos County were used on the Basis of Bearing. 2. Information regarding the Special Flood Hazard Area was taken from the Original Plat recorded in Volume 2354, Page 259 and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, Map No. 48041 CO205 C, Effective July 2, 1992. 3. Except where indicated. all Building Setback Lines shall comply with the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance No. 1638. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all lot corners are marked with Y2" Iron Rods. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS I - (, rr� Of Cox JA� E JM 0 p G owner and developer of the land shown on this plat, and designated herein as Lots 1R & 2-5, But 6 of The Business Center at College Station Subdivision in the City of College Station, Texas, and whose name is subscribed hereto, hereby dedicate to the use of the public forever all streets, alleys, parks, gree ways, infrastructure, easements, and public places thereon shown for the purpose and consideration therein expr". All such dedications shall be in fee simple unless expressly provided otherwise. City of Collee Station C/0 Natalie , AICP I STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS ,� I n', U - Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared MOLD e, IC.�Z known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein stated. Given under my hand and seal on this day of. ()Izkd.) er 2019. _�& Filed for Record Notary Public, BrazosCounty,T Official Public Records Of: ^, z : < �. r 7 —� Brazos County Clerk 5 -� On: 10/18/2019 12:04:59 PM :`, r In the PLAT Records {` N f '�� ✓ �h� Pti M.l{f.�1liV .r Doc Number: 2019-1375570 r"' Volume —Page: 15639-231 - Number of Pages: 2 ��,� Amount: 73.00Ordr t�iofauir tI ,I� � B y: A ; 20191018000053 B y: A M t M1 Commission Expires � r Noah 30.2020, I SHEET 10F 2 FINAL PLAT OF THE THE. BUSINESS CENTER A T COLLEGE STATION PHASE TWO BLOCK 6, LOTS 1R & 2-5 BEING A REPLAT OF THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION, PHASE TWO, BLOCK 6, LOT 1 FINAL PLAT (VOLUME 3490, PAGE 267) PREPARED AND SCALE 1 "-80' JO. 74J ACRES SUBMITTED COLLEGE STATION JUNE 2019 OWNER: BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS SURVEYOR: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ENGINEER: McCLURE & BROWNE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ATTN: NATALIE RLO AICP MITCHELL & MORGAN, L.L.P. ENGINEERING/SURVEYING P0. BOX 9960 3204 EARL RUDDER FWY. SOUTH 1008 WOODCREEK DRIVE, COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 SUITE 103 PHONE (979) 260-6963 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 (979) 764-3510 (979) 693-3838 Page 154 of 379 / i i I APPROX. LIMITS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS SCALED FROM FEMA FIRM NO. 48041C205C DATED JULY 2,1992 THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION PH 3 am 7 i CITY OF COLLEGE STATION C/0 ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT PO BOX 9973 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842-7973 30' Landscape, Access & Public Underground Utility Easement ' I THE BUSINESS CENTER \ AT COLLEGE STATION PH 3 ' \ LOT 3 \ I _ Scale: BLOCK 4 ' ' 1 inch = 80 feet Vol. 3764, Pg. 730 \ THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM \ 0 O, SYSTEM REAL ESTATE OFFICE O (L \ \ 301 TARROW ST (6TH FLOOR) 0 \ COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840-7896 THE BUSINESS CENTER \ 2 \ ' ' g 20' Drains e AT COLLEGE STATION PH 2 y Easement V 30' Landscape Vol. 3764, Pg. 730 I LOT 2 & Utility Easement r Vol. 37641,Pg 730 BLOCK 4 30' Landscape, Access & Utility Vol. 3490, Pg. 267 Easement Vol. 3490, Pg. 267 1 \ �. • • --._. _ STATA CORPORATION 1 ` R=760.00' _ 4905 LAKEWAY DR \ \ D=21 ° 30'00" COLLEGE STATION, TX L=285.19 '"A / 77845-4512 LC=283.52' Vol. 2354,Pg 351 � t J pRw CB=S43 °00'00" R=25.00' E • A / P \ , . 8a 6,, 3 , \ 2 6' ' D=93°07'10" • 30' Landscape, ' ' �p► • R.0 �64�-7311 �L-148'7p _ - L=9a:17� �' `�� 15'QQrr C L=40.63' Access & Utility 3Agol2 _ $.32 \ _ ��.� an 9 \ �/� v 1400 LC=36.30' Easement s8�/$1, 3 Vol. 3490 Pg. 267 v v CB=S67 ° 50'09"E i • /� �� ti A71iz3 dp - _ _ _._.. _ . _ . �� m ''� � L16 0.55 Ac. THE BUSINESS CENTERdp 7top AT COLLEGE STATION ♦ �_ G 45�o0i��6� � __. �_ V A/ v oFLor4 1 oac. 1 �� 1 PH 1 R=840.00 _ — — 5� 329 1 LQT 2 ♦ o.00a5 ac. D=32 ° 28'26" S L2''' �, 20 PUE 1 i I OF LOT 5 c� � � ..N CITY OF COLLEGE O � i ' 1 STATION (Row Dedication) L=476.09 / 117 BLOCK 3 C/O ACCOUNTING �♦ LC=469.74' 3�4� �T I - _ - = ti �\ �\ L20 ��'I I I v CB=S37 30 47 E 1 \ L14 1 PO BOX 9973 N 67°50'09" w ' 30' Landscape, ,� v �,I y COLLEGE STATION, 36.31' L�� ' \ \ ��'L21__------_-_-- TX 77842-7973 / / ' . \ 2s9.79, ... ""' "�. L_186.30' � • Access and - -` • • • -f`y � • '' I Public Underground o.002Ac L27 -' / ' ' I — • _ _ _ _ — ' '� Utility Easement OFLOT3 40' Building Vol. 2887, Pg 81 I �L12 N VARIABLE WIDTH PRIVATE ' /� Setback Line 40WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT / Vol. 2887, Pg. 81 I L25 P7 R=748.00' SHARED — TOTAL ACREAGE 1.552 Ac. m CROSS I I D=15°46'41" ' I 30' Landscape, ACCESS / I L=205.98' Access and EASEMENT OV LC=205.33' ! 70' Building I —Public Underground I I CB=N57 42 56 E Utility Easement Setback Line Vol. 2887, Pg 81 ap do I 15'PUE 10'LANDSCAPE I ' I EASEMENT IN ( I ( I L10 e-I C L8 i 2 40'W/DESHAREDCROSS 00 c1r) ACCESS EASEMENT 00 o I � � I I' d7 Io _ LOT 5 0 ( U) 00 i L31 . LOT 1R I LOT 2 LOT 3 I� LOT 4 I to BLOCK 6 i (� 00 _ � BLOCK 6 00 — BLOCK 6 i BLOCK 6 100 7.202 Ac. L7— — TCD 00 o BLOCK 6 0 �[ _ —' 0 N 6.007 Ac. d' 5.635 Ac.Ui 6.090 Ac. d. 5.809 Ac. L5 60 THE BUSINESS CENTER I� - ( to AT COLLEGE STATION PH 1 15'PUE 1= Cn LOT 3R i .M1 _30': _ 40' I� I I 0 i BLOCK 3 _ 0) (N o Vol. 3021, Pg. 325 I Q le � M d1' I a) ( I m - O 30' Landscape, d' THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM d' ti Access & Public to SYSTEM REAL ESTATE OFFICE U7 ( Underground Utility I I ' PROPERTY TAX DEPT Q N 15' PUE W Easement 301 TARROW ST (FL 6) I Vol. 2887,Pg 81 I I I COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840-7896 I LU M I of 40' WIDE SHARED CROSS z ACCESS EASEMENT L3 15'PUE III 20' College Station o Power Easement 1� I Pg Vol. 904, Pg.19.22 40'WIDESHARED 90, Building Setback Line ( ( � v � � 30' Landscape, Access &Public I I 20' College Station Utility CROSSACCESS Easement Vol. 904, Pg. 22 Underground Utility Easement EASEMENT Vol. 2887, Pg. 81 30' Lands ' ' Vol. 2887,Pg. 81 T ._ J l � J 40'W/DESHARED CROSS I L -- I cape, S40 ° 10' 2411E 724.33' ACCESS EASEMENT I� Access &Public I COLLEGE --- - ----- -- Underground Utility STATION I I l onG' ;3' 0311E 20100 _ SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 OF 2 - ORIGINAL PLAT SHEET 2 OF 2 - REPLAT CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ATrN: NATALIE RUIZ, AICP PO. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842 (979) 764-3510 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR 1, Gregory Hopcus, Registered Professional Land Surveyor No. 6047, in Brazos County, the State of Texas, hereby certify that this plat is true and correct and was prepared from an actual survey of the property and that property markers and /monuments were placed under my supervision on the ground. G4 opcus, R.P.LS. No. 6047 CERTIFICATE OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION A020201, S W ROBERTSON (ICL), TRACT 14.11, 133.242 ACRES, FUTURE PHS'S 1� •w Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City OF PEBBLE CREEK -WEST OF PEBBLE of College Station, Texas, hereby certify that the attached plat was duly approved by the Commission on the CREEK PKWY _ Vol. 1671, Pg. 276_ day of 2019. m ,� •o PEBBLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO tt \\ C/O YOUNG GLORIA D V PO BOX 7114 Chairma WACO, TX 76714-7114 CERTIFICATE OF CITY ENGINEER PUE /� w //��_�.� c•O LINE TABLE I, CA9 L. w 1 ► E(t City Engineer of the City of College Station, Texas, hereby Line # Length Direction certify that this Subdivision Plat conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the City of 1_1 32.74 N40° 10' 24"W College Station. L2 129.90 N49° 49'36"E L3 15.00 S40 ° 11' 14"E City Engineer L4 129.91 S49 ° 49' 36"W City of College Station 7 f A - L5 152.66 N40° 15' 39"W CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY CLERK L6 15.00 N49° 44' 21"E L7 152.68 S40° 15'39"E STATE OF TEXAS Filed for Record COUNTY OF BRAZOS Official Public Records Of: L8 158.67 S39° 59'57"E Brazos County Clerk ry`s y L9 15.00 N49° 48' 46"E 1, Karen McQueen, County Clerk, in and On: 10/18/2019 12:04:59 PM ; certificates of authentification was filed fc In the PLAT Records �! L10 158.67 S39° 59' 57"E Official Public Records of Brazos County, I L11 150.71 S38° 14'10^w Doc Number: 2019-1375570 rYOt°µ L12 141.61 S40 ° 10' 2411E WITNESS my hand and official Seal, at my Volume —Page: 15639 — 231 �A,rerl�c.�uee�t Number of Pages: 2 L13 20.00 N49° 48' 46"E Amount: 73.00 County Clerk L14 125.29 N40° 10' 24"W Blazo§ County, Texa5 Order#: 20191018000053 L15 134.24 N38° 14' 10"E By: AM - GENERAL NOTES - PRIVATE DRAINAGE 1. Basis of Bearing: The basis of bearing for this plat is City of College Station Monument No. EASEMENT LINE TABLE 11. The tie to this monument is shown at the northwest property corner. The bearing system and actual measured distance to the monuments are consistent with the recorded plat in Line# Length Direction Volume 3490, Page 267, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. Rotation to NAD 83 Grid L16 98.25 N38° 14' 10"E North is 00' 00' 29" in a counter -clockwise direction. 2. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, L17 169.72 S51° 25' 34^E' Map Numbers 48041 C0350E, map revised May 16, 2012 this property is not located in a L18 10.00 S38° 34' 26"w Special Flood Hazard Area. 3. The Building Setback requirements are established by the City of College Station Unified L19 169.78 s51° 25' 34^E Development Ordinance and The Business Center at College Station Covenants & Restrictions, whichever is more restrictive. Leo 56.00 s38° 1a'so"w I 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all lot corners are marked with Y2" Iron Rods. L21 388.29 S40° 10' 24^E I 5. The 40' wide shared cross access easement shall be maintained by each individual lot owner per the Property Owners Association document. L22 141.21 N49° 48' 46"E 6. The detention for lots 3, 4, and 5 will be provided in one regional facility located on lots 4 and 5 and designed in concert with the development of lot 5. 7. The detention for lots 1 R and 2 will be provided in one regional facility located on lots 1 R and 2 and designed in concert with the first of these 2 lots to develop. 8. According to the Title Commitment identified below, this property is subject to the following: a. Restrictive Covenants recorded in Volume 3490, Page 267 (plat), Official Records of Brazos A020201, S W ROBERTSON (ICL), TRACT County, Texas. 14.11, 133.242 ACRES, FUTURE PHS'S g. Easement from J.E. Marsh to Gulf States Utilities Company, dated April 1, 1947, recorded OF PEBBLE CREEK -WEST OF PEBBLE in Volume 129, Page 496, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. (N.L.S.T.) CREEK PKWY h. Easement from Holloway Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. to Howard L. Perry, dated June 1, 1973, Vol. 1671, Pg. 276 recorded in Volume 316, Page 416, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. (Blanket) i. Easement Kenneth M. Morris, Trustee to Clajon Gas Company, dated January 27, 1981, recorded in Volume 473, Page 65, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. (N.L.S.T.) PEBBLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO j. Easement W.D. Fitch to City of College Station, dated January 2, 1985, recorded in Volume C/O YOUNG GLORIA D 754, Page 138, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. (Shown on survey) PO BOX 7114 k. Easement W.D. Fitch to City of College Station, dated July 31, 1985, recorded in Volume WACO, TX 76714-7114 904, Page 22, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. (Shown on survey) I. Easement from City of College Station to City of Bryan, dated October 23, 1997, recorded in Volume 2960, Page 109, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. (Shown on survey) 9. The maintenance of the Private Drainage Easement shall be the responsibility of the Business SHARED CROSS ACCESS Center of College Station Phase Two Block 6, Lots 1 R & 2-5 Property Owner's Association EASEMENT LINE TABLE (POA). Line # Length Direction 10. No Construction, Landscaping, Grading, or Structures shall impede, constrict, or block the flow of water in any Private Drainage Easement. L23 40.01 S52° 55' 3711E 11. For signage purposes, the following lots shall be considered single building plots: L24 181.11 S38° 14' 10'W Block 6, Lot 1 R 'Block 6, Lot 2 L25 156.70 N40° 10' 24"W Block 6, Lot 3 ' L26 40.00 S49° 48' 46"W Block 6, Lots 4 & 5 L27 124.06 S40° 10' 24"E ABBREVIATIONS: PUE - Public Utlity Easement L28 149.29 S38° 14' 10"W N.L.S.T. - Not Located on Subject Tract L29 30.00 N49° 49' 36"E ' L30 30.00 N49° 49' 36"E ' L31 30.00 S40° 10' 2411E L32 70.00 S40 ° 10' 24"E SHEET 2 OF 2 a/J/I�,/n C6]011111Iil1 THE BUSINESS CENTER A T COLLEGE STATION, PHASE TWO BEING A REPLAT OF THE BUSINESS CENTER AT COLLEGE STATION, PHASE TWO, BLOCK 6, LOT 1 FINAL PLAT (VOLUME 3490, PAGE 267) PREPARED AND SCALE 1 "-80' JO. 74J ACRES SUBMITTED COLLEGE STATION JUNE 2019 BRAZOS COUNTY TEXAS OWNER ' SURVEYOR: McCLURE & BROWNE ENGINEERING/SURVEYING 1008 WOODCREEK DRIVE, SUITE 103 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 (979) 693-3838 ENGINEER: MITCHELL & MORGAN, L.L.P. 3204 EARL RUDDER FWY. SOUTH COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 PHONE (979) 260-6963 Page 155 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 7.12. Purchase of Single & Three Phase Transformers for Electric Warehouse Inventory Sponsor: Timothy Crabb, Director of Electric Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on contracts for the City's purchase of single and three-phase transformers for Electric warehouse inventory with a total expenditure of $482,081.50, awarded to Texas Electric Cooperatives, KBS Electrical Distributors, and Techline, Inc. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Financially Sustainable City Recommendation(s): Staff recommends awarding this purchase to Texas Electric Cooperatives in the amount of $385,782.50, KBS Electrical Distributors in the amount of $90,305.00, and Techline, Inc. in the amount of $5,994.00. Quantity and size details for awarded units are attached. This purchase aligns with historical years' activity for the Electric warehouse needs. Summary: Bid #24-081 was issued on August 12, 2024, for Electric Single and Three Phase Transformers and the Bid was opened on September 10, 2023. Twelve (12) sealed proposals were received and were reviewed by Electric Staff to ensure the compliance of required specifications. Texas Electric Cooperatives, KBS Electrical Distributors, and Techline, Inc. were awarded based upon delivery dates, meeting College Station Utility specifications, and pricing. Upon Council approval, staff will issue purchase orders to Texas Electric Cooperatives, KBS Electrical Distributors, and Techline, Inc. for a one-time purchase. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available and budgeted within the Electrical Fund. Various capital projects will be expensed as supplies are requisitioned by staff and issued from inventory. Attachments: 24-081 Bid Tab Transformer Award Page 156 of 379 ITB#24-081 TRANSFORMER AWARDS BID #24-081 SINGLE PHASE POLE MOUNT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS AWARD KBS ELECT DISTRIBUTOR I Techline Inc. I Texas Electric Co-op Unit Item Delivery II Unit Item Delivery Ij Unit Item Delivery kVA QTY 5 6 Price Total $ 1,300.00 (weeks) 10 15 10 $ 1,497.00 $ 14,970.00 1 STK 25 15 $ 1,889.00 $ 28,335.00 STK 37.5 15 $ 2,395.00 STK 50 8 $ 2,800.00 STK 75 8 $ 3,995.00 STK 75 2 $ 3,700.00 STK KBS TOTAL kVA QTY 167 12 $ Price Total (weel $ 999.00 $ 5,994.00 46 $ 2,670.00 46 $ 3,530.00 46 $ 4,550.00 60 $ 5,470.00 60 $ 7,715.00 60 $ 7,290.00 60 TECHLINE Price Total S 1,332.50 $ 1,653.75 $ 1,898.75 $ 2,241.25 $ 33,618.75 $ 2,342.50 $ 18,740.00 $ 3,217.50 $ 25,740.00 $ 2,825.00 $ 5,650.00 TX ELEC CO - (weeks) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Total Award $ 5,994.00 $ 14,970.00 $ 28,335.00 $ 33,618.75 $ 18,740.00 $ 25,740.00 $ 5,650.00 $ 43,305.00 " INC TTL $ 5,994.00 OP TTL 1 3 53,i45. is I " $ 133,047.75 BID #24-081 SINGLE PHASE PADMOUNT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS AWARD KBS ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS PREISTER MELL & NICHOLSON TECHLINE INC. TEXAS ELECTRIC CO-OP (TEC) CMALONEY Unit Bid Delivery Unit Bid Price Delivery Unit Bid Price Delivery Item Total Delivery Unit Price ( Item Total ) Price $) (weeks) ($) Total Price (weeks) ( ($) Total Price (weeks) 12,698.00 30 $ 9,600.00 28-30 $ 19,740.00 72 $ 6,737.50 $ 80,850.00 22 KBS TTL $ - PMN CMALONEY TECHLINE TX ELECTRIC TTL $ - INC. TTL $ _ CO-OP TTL $ 80,850.00 BID #24-081 TREE PHASE PADMOUNT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS AWARD KBS Electrical Distribution PRIESTER MELL & NICHOLSON TECHLINE INC. C MALONEY Unit Bid Price Unit Bid Unit Bid Price kVA QTY ($) TOTAL COST Delivery TOTAL COST Price ($) Delivery ($) TOTAL COST Delivery 75 2 $ 15,500.00 20 $ 26,230.00 36 $ 26,170.00 52 150 2 $ 17,995.00 20 $ 28,140.00 36 $ 32,510.00 52 750 1 $ 59,000.00 20 $ 83,955.00 36 $ 85,800.00 52 1000 1 $ 85,000.00 20 $ 93,917.00 $ 66,862.00 36 36 $ $ 107,100.00 65,900.00 52 52 750 3 $ 47,000.00 $ 47,000.00 20 KBS TTL PMN- CM TECHLINE $ 47,000.00 TTL $ - INC. TTL $ _ TEXAS ELECTRIC CO Unit Bid Price ($) TOTAL COST $ 14,176.25 $ 28,352.50 $ 17,971.25 $ 35,942.50 $ 35,010.00 $ 35,010.00 $ 52,673.75 $ 52,673.75 $ 34,602.50 $ 69,205.00 TX ELECTRIC CO-OP TTL S 221,183.75 -OP Delivery 50 50 50 50 50 Tota l Award $ 80,850.00 $ 80,850.00 Tota l Award $ 28,352.50 $ 35,942.50 $ 35,010.00 $ 52,673.75 $ 116,205.00 $ 268,183.75 GRAND TOTAL OF AWARDS $ 482,081.50 Bid#24-081 Transformer Awards 9/18/2024 Page 157 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 8.1. 2023 BVEDC Incentive Compliance Sponsor: Michael Ostrowski, Chief Development Officer Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the 2023 Incentive Compliance Report by the Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation. Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Good Governance • Diverse & Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that Council receive and accept the compliance report. Summary: This item is the annual presentation on project compliance from the Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation (BVEDC). BVEDC staff, along with representatives of Ryan, LLC, a Texas -based tax services and consulting firm, will be present to provide the report. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. 2023 Compliance Report Page 158 of 379 Overview & Executive Summary • For 2023, five (5) projects under agreement were monitored for performance compliance by the Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation on behalf of itself, Brazos County, the City of Bryan, and the City of College Station. Name Fuji Film (2014) Fuji Film (2022) LSPI Matica Zoetis Compliance Status Metric Outstanding In Compliance Pursuing Contract Amendment In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Amount Owed / Not Paid $201,000 Cash Incentive — Brazos County N/A $57,600 Cash Incentive — City of Bryan $153,000 Cash Incentive — City of College Station N/A Until 2026: Cash Incentive — Brazos County N/A N/A Until 2026: Cash Incentive — City of Bryan N/A Until 2026: Cash Incentive — City of College Station N/A 40% Tax Abatement Cash Incentive — Brazos County 40% Tax Abatement Cash Incentive — City of Bryan Jobs, Salaries, & Cash Incentive of Five Installments of $8,000 — BVEDC Investment N/A Cash Incentive of Two Installments of $20,000 — BVEDC BRAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 159 of 379 Overview & Executive Summary • The 2023 report highlights companies across multiple targeted industries with properties valued over $353M and providing more than 856 quality jobs with local payrolls in excess of $90M. 2023 Incentives & Combined Impact Company Incentives Payroll Property Value 2023 Employment Fuji Film (2014)* $ 417,600.00 $76,289,377.38 $159,803,235 813 Fuji Film (2022) ---------------------------- $76,289,377.38 $159,803,235 813 LSPI 50% Tax Abatement $2,736,847 $32,827,047 29 Matica $8,000 N/A N/A N/A Zoetis $20,000 $11,334,935 $872,992 14 $90,361,159.38 $353,306,509 856 * To avoid duplicating Fuji Film total value between 2014 and 2022 Agreements, county BCAD value included once in total. B RAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 160 of 379 2023 Compliance Report — FUJIFILM Diosynth FUJ 1'f 1 LM Biotechnologies Texas @ Biocorridor (2014 Agreement) Di synth biotechnologies Incentive: I Brazos County - Cash Incentive I I Bryan - Cash Incentive I (College Station - Cash Incentive 2017 $266.21K 2018 $236.6K 2019 $207.OK 2020 $207.OK 2021 $207.OK 2022 $207.OK 2017 $74.01K 2018 $65.8K 2019 $57.6K 2020 $57.6K 2021 $57.6K 2022 $57.6K 2017 $196.8K 2018 $174.9K 2019 $153.OK 2020 $153.OK 2021 $153.OK 2022 $153.OK 2023 $147.9K 2023 $41.1K 2023 $109.3K Performance Metrics: PAYROLL PROPERTY VALUE EMPLOYMENT REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED BCAD REQUIRED ACTUAL 2015 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 2016 0 $7,462,958 0 " $84,000,000 0 92 2017 0 $12,000,000 $70,000,000 $26,045,160 0 153 2018 $6,000,000 $16,800,000 $70,000,000 $83,970,590 100 174 2019 $6,000,000 $20,800,000 $70,000,000 $79,759,250 100 257 2020 $6,000,000 $40,500,000 $70,000,000 $78,778,248 100 518 2021 $6,000,000 $54,900,000 $70,000,000 $104,272,717 100 677 2022 $6,000,000 $64,319,141 $70,000,000 $149,677,329 100 845 2023 $6,000,000 $76,289,377.38 $70,000,000 $159,803,235 100 813 • BCAD 2017 valuation reflected partial facility and only real property— While the Company reported $73,236,000 improvements (real + personal property), the B R A Z O S VALLEY Company opted not to challenge BCAD 2017 valuation and consequently, 2017 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT incentives were foregone. CORPORATION • Since 2018, BCAD reflects the updated valuation of facility complex. Page 161 of 379 2023 Compliance Report — FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies Texas @ Biocorridor (2022 Agreement) Incentive: Performance Metrics: Brazos County - Tax Abatement 2022 0 2026 2027 2028 2028 90% 80% 70% 70% 2023 0 2024 0 2025 0 FUJ IWI LM Di synth biotechnologies City of Bryan/College Station 380 Agreements Cash Payment (as % of ad valorem taxes assessed/paid) 2022 0 2025 0 2023 0 2026 90% 2024 0 2027 80% PAYROLL PROPERTY VALUE EMPLOYMENT REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED BCAD REQUIRED ACTUAL 2022 0 $64,319,141 0 $149,677,329 0 845 2023 0 $76,289,377.38 0 $159,803,235 0 813 2024 0 0 0 2025 0 $300,000,000 0 2026 0 $300,000,000 0 2027 0 $300,000,000 0 2028 $60,000,000 $300,000,000 750 2029 $60,000,000 $300,000,000 750 2030 $60,000,000 $300,000,000 750 • Commencement of Construction Deadline: January 1, 2023 • Completion of Construction of the Improvements Deadline: January 1, 2025 • 150 New FTE's above the Baseline of 600 for a total of 750 B RAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 162 of 379 2023 Compliance Report — LSPI BVEDC Incentive - Paid • $31,250 - Bldg Permit • $31,250 - CO Issued CoB 381 Aareement • $75K Rebate Development Fees (CO Issued) Brazos County — Tax Abatement Cash Incentive (as % of ad valorem taxes assessed/paid) 2018 100% 2022 40% 2019 70% 2023 30% 2020 60% 2024 20% 2021 50% Performance Metrics: Contract End Dates * BVEDC ** County/CoB-1 It Tier 2025 10% Lubr�lu+' SE,�c:��'ry Prcxluc:Is. hx. City of Bryan — Tax Abatement Cash Incentive (Application of Tier 1 Percentage / Due to Construction by 12.31.17) 2018 100% 2021 50% 2024 20% 2019 70% 2022 40% 2025 10% 2020 60% 2023 30% New PAYROLL PROPERTY VALUE New EMPLOYMENT * REQUIRED ACTUAL * REQUIRED BCAD *REQUIRED ACTUAL 2016 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 2017 $1,500,000 $1,697,142 0 $4,489,720 24 28 2018 $1,500,000 $2,464,386 $20,000,000 $41,962,870 24 59 2019 $1,500,000 $1,982,029 $20,000,000 $39,367,630 24 31 2020 $1,500,000 $2,254,705 $20,000,000 $37,826,438 24 25 2021 $1,500,000 $2,380,953 $20,000,000 $36,560,408 24 32 2022 $1,500,000 $2,517,438 $20,000,000 $34,685,970 24 29 2023 $1,500,000 $2,736,847 $20,000,000 $32,827,047 24 29 2024 $1,500,000 $20,000,000 24 2025 $1,500,000 $20,000,000 24 • NOV 2017 ribbon cutting (met DEC 2017 requirement) • $62AM facility investment (met $25M requirement) • BVEDC cash incentives paid BRAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 163 of 379 2023 Compliance Report — Matica Incentive: Performance Metrics: BVEDC Incentives Grant MILESTONE AMOUNT First Installment $8,000 Second Installment $8,000 Third Installment $8,000 Fourth Installment $8,000 Fifth Installment $8,000 %19 MCAIC0 BIOTECHNOLOGY Manufacturing Breakthroughs BVEDC-BBC Contribution Agreement The First Installment is due on the last to occur of: • The date Matica obtains a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of College Station, • The certification from its chief financial officer that $14,000,000 of capital improvements and equipment have been made at and for such location; OR • The employment of 35 new full-time employees at that location earning an average annual salary of $80,000 plus benefits. The Second - Fifth Installments are due on the date Matica provides notice to BVEDC that it has fully completed the employment requirements and capital investments requirements. PAYROLL INVESTMENT EMPLOYMENT REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED FACTUAL 2021 $2,800,000------------ 2022 $4,400,000------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ 35------------ 55------------ 2023 $5,600,000 N/A $1,000,000 N/A 70 N/A 2024 $6,800,000 2025 $8,000,000 85 100 'AgiBRAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 164 of 379 2023 Compliance Report — Zoetis Incentive: BVEDC Incentives Grant MILESTONE AMOUNT First Installment $20,000 Second Installment $20,000 Performance Metrics: z,,,o.e tis BVEDC Agreement • Minimum 14 Full-time Employees before receiving Second Cash Incentive Installment • Minimum $17,900,000, before receiving Second Cash Incentive Installment INVESTMENT AMOUNT * REQUIRED I ACTUAL 2021------------------------ 2022------------------------ 2023 $17,900,000 $11,334,935 2024 $17,900,000 EMPLOYMENT * REQUIRED I ACTUAL ------------ ------------ 14 14 14 'AiB RAZOS VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 165 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 8.2. Presentation from Texas A&M University SGA Representatives Sponsor: Bryan Woods, City Manager Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an update from representatives of the Texas A&M University Student Government Association (SGA). Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good Governance Recommendation(s): Summary: Annually, the City requests representatives of TAMU's Student Government Association (SGA) provide an update to the City Council regarding SGA's priorities for the academic year. Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: None Page 166 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.1. TCOS Refund Payment Resolution Sponsor: Bryan Woods, City Manager Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution delegating to the City Manager the authority to make an electric utility Transmission Cost of Service (TCOS) refund payment in the amount of $27,416,135. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff respectfully recommends the City Council approve the resolution. Summary: The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) has ordered the City of College Station to issue an arbitrary $27.4 million refund to 34 major utility systems that pay to use the City's transmission system. The order concerns the city's inclusion of a General Fund Transfer (GFT) in its interim Transmission Cost of Service (TCOS) applications in 2007, 2008, and 2017. The PUC upheld the order despite the State Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judges (SOAH ALJs) ruling that the refund amount was excessive and unwarranted. The attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to prepay the full refund now, in order to stop the punitive accrual of an additional $15 million in interest over 15 years. Budget & Financial Summary: This payment will reduce the fund balance in the Electric Utilities Fund by $27.4 million. Attachments: 1. College Station TCOS Resolution 9-26-24 Page 167 of 379 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, FINDING THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY ORDERED THE CITY TO REFUND REVENUE FROM ITS WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATES AND THAT THIS ACTION LACKS ANY ESTABLISHED LEGAL BASIS AND DISREGARDS THE FACTS AND THE MITIGATING FACTORS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD REGARDING THE CITY'S 2021 TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE ANY PAYMENTS RELATED TO THE REFUND IN THE CITY'S TCOS CASE THAT ARE FROM APPROVED AND BUDGETED FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City of College Station ("City") operates a municipally owned electric utility ("MOU") as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City owns and operates as part of its electric utility both a transmission system for longer distances and higher voltages and a distribution system for local electric distribution for shorter distances and lower voltages with rates set by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUC") is a state administrative agency appointed by the Governor of the State of Texas charged with the primary responsibility of implementing the Constitution and Texas laws relating to the setting of certain electric rates, including Transmission Cost of Service ("TCOS") rates for MOUs; and WHEREAS, the City needed to update its transmission system cost of service with the PUC because of maintenance, upgrades, and the installation of new transmission infrastructure and submitted its application for Update of Wholesale Transmission Rates on November 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, after administrative proceedings and discovery before the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAH"), on June 23, 2022, PUC Staff filed the direct testimony of PUC Staff witness Ruth Stark. Ms. Stark's testimony recommended the City be ordered to issue a $31.5 million refund, asserting that the City's inclusions of a General Fund Transfer ("GFT") in its interim TCOS applications in 2007, 2008, and 2017 were impermissible; and WHEREAS, at no time did the City overcharge its College Station Utility customers (distribution customers). The refund the PUC alleges the City owes is only related to the City's transmission system and is owed to other utility companies who pay to use the City's transmission system; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2022, the City filed rebuttal testimony including evidence of correspondence demonstrating that the City began including a GFT in its TCOS rates at the specific instruction of PUC Staff dating back to 2007 and that the inclusion of a GFT was subsequently and repeatedly approved by the PUC, through three official orders of the PUC, during open meetings of the PUC; and Page 168 of 379 Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, in response to the City's evidence included in the City's rebuttal testimony, PUC Staff filed the supplemental direct testimony of Ruth Stark on July 29, 2022. Ms. Stark endorsed an alternative recommendation for the City to refund only $6.6 million for its GFT inclusions; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, prior to an evidentiary hearing, the City, PUC Staff, and the Office of Public Utility Counsel ("OPUC"), an intervenor, filed an Uncontested Stipulation and Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") resolving all issues and requiring a refund of $3.9 million, and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers ("TIEC"), an intervenor, was unopposed to the Settlement and refund amount; and WHEREAS, the PUC during its Open Meeting on January 26, 2023, declined to accept the Settlement and remanded the proceeding back to SOAH, finding that the City was not authorized to include a GFT in its TCOS rates; and WHEREAS, after a hearing on remand, the SOAH ALJs issued a Proposal for Decision ("PFD") on July 27, 2023, finding that the PUC had already determined the key issue of GFT recoverability in TCOS rates and recommending a partial refund; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, the PUC rescinded its previous order issued on January 26, 2023, and ordered the SOAH ALJs to address all issues, including the permissibility of the City's GFT inclusion; and WHEREAS, after additional briefing, on December 21, 2023, the SOAH ALJs issued a second PFD recommending that, based on the unique circumstances of the case, the PUC should order a partial $900,000 refund for the City's inclusion of a GFT in its interim TCOS filings; and WHEREAS, the PUC during its Open Meeting on March 7, 2024, considered the second PFD and disregarded the ALJ's findings, ultimately ordering the City to refund $26.3 million, plus over $15 million in carrying charges, over a period of 15 years; and WHEREAS, after subsequent administrative proceedings, briefing, and a PUC Final Order, on August 14, 2024, the City filed, in accordance with the PUC's Final Order, a notice of its intent to prepay the outstanding refund balance on October 15, 2024, saving the City approximately $15 million in carrying charges; and WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the City appealed the PUC's Final Order in Travis County District Court because the PUC's decision is arbitrary, capricious, and lacks any basis in PUC rules or orders; and WHEREAS, as permitted under Ordering Paragraph No. 10 of the PUC's Final Order issued on July 11, 2024, the City intends to prepay the outstanding refund balance without penalty to transmission customers; now therefore, Page 169 of 379 Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: The above recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council. PART 2: The PUC's decision has no basis in a PUC rule or order. The PUC's only articulated legal basis for its decision is that College Station violated 16 TAC § 25.192 (the TCOS rule) because College Station's inclusion of the GFT was not first approved in a comprehensive rate case, but the TCOS rule has no such requirement. Therefore, the Commission's decision is an error of law. PART 3: The order from the City's last comprehensive TCOS filing with the PUC contains no prohibition against inclusion of a GFT in subsequent interim TCOS filings. The PUC's Final Order establishes a new "effective rate" policy for evaluating inclusion of a GFT that did not exist in any prior PUC rule or order and is not grounded in any known legal requirement. The City could not have reasonably been on notice that the PUC would adopt and enforce this policy to retroactively penalize College Station. PART 4: PUC precedent is to approve inclusion of a GFT in TCOS rates as "other associated taxes" under the TCOS rule. The PUC followed this precedent by approving inclusion of the City's GFT as "other associated taxes" in three separate orders in 2007, 2008, and 2017. The PUC's decision now arbitrarily disclaims its own prior orders. PART 5: In an effort to settle this matter, the City, PUC Staff, and OPUC executed the Settlement and, with no reason based in law or fact, the PUC arbitrarily rejected the Settlement. PART 6: After the PUC rejected the Settlement, the PUC asked the SOAH ALJs to resolve all issues and the SOAH ALJs brought some clarity to the case and provided a reasonable solution of the City refunding only $900,000 based on numerous mitigating factors, including prior PUC orders and explicit direction from PUC Staff. PART 7: The PUC's Final Order arbitrarily and capriciously punishes College Station and lacks any established legal basis. The PUC's Final Order also disregards the facts in the administrative record and the numerous mitigating factors that are inextricably tied to those facts, such as three orders issued by the PUC approving the City's inclusion of a GFT in TCOS rates. PART 8: That to prevent the excessive and punitive interest rate from accruing, the City Council authorizes the City Manager to pay from budgeted and approved funds the outstanding refund balance as permitted under Ordering Paragraph No. 10 of the PUC's Final Order issued on July 11, 2024, in PUC Docket No. 52728. Page 170 of 379 Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 PART 9: That this Resolution shall become effective immediately after passage and approval. ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2024. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor Page 171 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.2. FY24 Budget Amendment #3 Sponsor: Mary Ellen Leonard, Director of Fiscal Services Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on Budget Amendment 3 amending Ordinance No. 2023-4457 amending the budget for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year in the amount of $39,097,273. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good Governance Financial Sustainability Core Services & Infrastructure Neighborhood Integrity Diverse & Growing Economy Improving Mobility Sustainable City Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the City Council approve Budget Amendment #3. Summary: The Charter of the City of College Station provides for the City Council to amend the annual budget in the event there are revenues available to cover expenditures and after holding a public hearing on such budget amendment. The proposed budget amendment is to increase the FY24 budget appropriations by $39,097,273 as a result of an increase needed primarily for an electric utility Transmission Cost of Service (TCOS) refund payment in the amount of $27,416,135 and a grant awards in the amount of $5,924,138. Budget & Financial Summary: The City has resources or can reasonably expect resources to cover the appropriations in this budget amendment. The attached summary has the complete description of the items included on the proposed budget amendment. If approved, the net revised 2023-2024 budget appropriations will be $545,082,220. Attachments: 1. FY24 Budget Amendment #3 Ordinance 9-26-24 Page 172 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2023-4457 AS BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE 2023-2024 FISCAL YEAR AND AUTHORIZING AMENDED EXPENDITURES AS THEREIN PROVIDED. WHEREAS, on August 24, 2023, the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, adopted Ordinance No. 2023-4457 approving its Budget for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2024, the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, adopted Ordinance No. 2024-4495 amending its Budget for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year via Budget Amendment Number 1; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, adopted Ordinance No. 2024-4518 amending its Budget for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year via Budget Amendment Number 2; and WHEREAS this Budget Amendment Number 3 was prepared and presented to the City Council and a public hearing held thereon as prescribed by law and the College Station City Charter, after notice of said hearing having been first duly given; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Ordinance No. 2023-4457 is hereby amended by amending the 2023-2024 Budget adopted by a net amount of $39,097,273 as further detailed in Exhibit A. PART 2: That this Budget Amendment Number 3 shall be attached to and made a part of the 2023-2024 Budget. PART 3: That except as amended hereby, Ordinance No, 2023-4457 shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms. PART 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately after passage and approval. PASSED and APPROVED this 26th day of September 2024. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor Page 173 of 379 Budget Amendment No. 3 FY 23-24 Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 1. Electric Transmission Cost of Service (TCOS) Refund Payment - $27,416,135 (Electric Fund Budget Amendment) This item increases budget in the Electric Operating Fund to pay the refund with carrying costs as detailed in Ordering Paragraph No. 10 of the Final Order by the Public Utility Commission of Texas issued on July 11, 2024, in PUC Docket No. 52728. Grant Items: 2. Fire Department Grants & Deployments $253,805 (General Fund Budget Amendment) Active Attack Integrated Response Homeland Security grant $71,395 active shooter training kits. FEMA Fire Prevention & Safety grant for Stop the Bleed kits $16,990 cost and Fire Extinguisher training $15,430 with 95% reimbursement for both. The Fire Department deployed Fire personnel to assist with TIFMAS events (wildfires, June weather) and the EMTF7 wildfire. Personnel were paid overtime, and the City was reimbursed by the deploying agency. This amendment increases the overtime and related benefits expenditure budgets along with the applicable revenue budgets. 3. Community Development Fund Grant Allocation Adjustment - $5,525,222 (Community Development Fund Amendment) This is an adjustment on FY24 grants received for the LULAC Oak Hill Section 108 Loan, the LEAD Program and the Catholic Charites of Central Texas, including recaptured fund adjustments for the CDBG and HOME Grants. This is an equal sided adjustment with both equal expenses and revenues. 4. Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (LEOSE) Funds - $21,007 (Budget Amendment) This item provides additional budget to meet State of Texas compliance requirements. The City of College Station received LEOSE funds and must show a corresponding budget for use of those funds. 5. Night Vision - $98,889 (General Fund Amendment) Police received a $98,889 grant from Homeland Security Grant Program for purchase of Night Vision optics for SWAT. 6. JAG Grant - $25,215 (General Fund Amendment) Police received a $25,215 JAG grant with City of Bryan and Brazos County from the Department of Justice for the use of purchasing supplies. Page 174 of 379 Budget Amendment No. 3 FY 23-24 Page 3 of 4 Replacement Items: 7. IT Replacements - $410,000 (Budget Amendment) Transfer between IT Replacement Fund and General Fund to reconcile additional IT replacements due to age and timing. Appropriate funding was allocated to and is available in the IT Replacement Fund to cover the current year expenses. 8. Fleet Replacements - $800,000 (General Fund Amendment) Transfer between Fleet Replacement Fund and General Fund due to age and timing. Appropriate funding was allocated and is available in the Fleet Replacement Fund to reconcile this transfer. 9. Solid Waste Grapple Truck Emergency Replacement- $380,000 (Solid Waste Fund Amendment) Additional budget needed for emergency replacement of a Solid Waste Grapple Truck due to unplanned vehicle failure. Capital Items: 10. VPAC Synthetic Fields - $3,000,000 (Parks CIP Fund Amendment and Interfund Transfer) The synthetic turf fields at VPAC have compacted the playing areas that are making the fields unsafe for players. This transfer from HOT fund balance will refurbish and replace the four fields at VPAC. 11. Bachmann Park Senior/Little League Buildings - $500,000 (Parks CIP Fund Amendment) This item increases the budget for the Bachmann Park Senior/Little League Buildings capital project. The increase is needed to provide for future contingency on the project. If incurred, any contingency costs will be funded by investment earnings in the Parks Capital Improvement Projects Fund. 12. VPAC Feral Hog Repairs to Fields - $200,000 (General Fund Amendment) Due to a herd of feral hogs, there has been significant damage to multiple fields at Veterans Park Athletic Complex. This amendment includes costs for both hog removal and repairs to playing fields in time for fall tournaments. Page 175 of 379 Budget Amendment No. 3 FY 23-24 Other Items: Page 4 of 4 13. BioCorridor Agreement with the City of Bryan and Incentive Payments - $315,000 (Economic Development Sub Fund Amendment) Due to more properties coming online in the BioCorridor and incentive payment timings, the Contributions account needs to be increased by $315,000. 14. Roadway Maintenance sale & removal of asphalt millings- $152,000 (Roadway Maintenance Fund Budget Amendment) The sale of approximately 90,000 tons of asphalt milling to Texas Materials Group contract #24300445 was approved by Council on 05/13/24. This amendment increases the contracted labor budget and allow for additional preventive maintenance on city streets. 15. Reclass Tourism Manager to Operations Asst Manager- $89,427 (General Fund Amendment) & ($89,4274) (HOT Fund Budget Amendment) Per the needs of the Parks Department, the vacant Tourism Manager Position has been reclassed to an Operations Assistant Manager as approved by the City Manager's Office. This is a cross -fund transfer which will increase expenses in the General Fund and decrease them in the HOT Fund and result in no change in the City's net budget. Page 176 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.3. Housing Action Plan Ordinance Sponsor: David Brower Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the Housing Action Plan as a Master Plan. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good Governance, Core Services & Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse & Growing Economy, Improving Mobility Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance adopting the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the Housing Action Plan. Summary: This item will provide City Council with the opportunity to adopt an ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Housing Action Plan. Staff presented the draft Goals, Strategies, and Actions Report for the Housing Action Plan after giving a brief overview of the Existing Conditions Report and citizen participation efforts at the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 18th meeting and at City Council's August 8th meeting. Changes to the plan were incorporated after direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, namely to add language about encouraging and incentivizing the production of housing units. Staff presented the revised plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their September 5th meeting where the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Housing Action Plan. The City of College Station's Housing Action Plan strives to address pressing housing issues and to accomplish housing action items in the City Comprehensive Plan, specifically Action Items 2.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.9. The two main overarching goals of the plan are to create and incentivize more housing units of various types to meet growing demand and incentivize the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to community members. The 13-member Housing Action Plan Steering Committee has worked with City Staff to advise and make recommendations for a plan that reflects the community's vision for housing action and initiatives. Plan development included extensive research, public outreach, and stakeholder engagement. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Housing -Action -Plan 2. Ordinance Page 177 of 379 (*40'r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University® HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 178 of 379 CONTENTS 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 3 • Introduction 5 • Why Housing Matters 7 • College Station Existing Conditions Report Findings Summary 8 • College Station Demographics & Growth 13 • Education 16 • Employment 22 • Where do College Station Workers Live? 25 • College Station Housing Stock 27 • Projected Housing Supply Shortage 37 GOALS/STRATEGIES/ ACTIONS REPORT 39 • Goals, Strategies, Actions 40 • Comprehensive Plan Action Items 41 • Goals 47 • Public Meeting Feedback July 16, 2024 53 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 54 • General Housing Survey 111 • Student Survey 147 • Employer Survey 162 • Public Meeting Feedback 166 • Survey: Goals/Strategies/Actions 173 HOUSING ACTION PLAN STEEPING COMMITTEE MEMBERS i Page 179 of 379 INTRODUCTION I Housing opportunity and affordability are pressing national and local issues. Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies paints a broad picture of the state of US housing markets in their publication "The State of the Nation's Housing 2023" - httDS://www,_ichs.harvard,edu/ state- nations-housing-2023 The report highlights renter cost burdens reaching record levels, increasingly high incomes being needed to purchase homes, a general decline of low-cost rentals, and the number of homes for sale being at historic lows. Demographic trends and market shifts fueled by the pandemic combined with a housing shortage and a spike in interest rates have led to a rapid increase in housing costs — one that incomes have not kept up with. These housing trends are evident in College Station and the entire Brazos Valley region. The City addresses the issues of housing opportunity and affordability primarily through two planning documents: • The 5 Year Consolidated Plan — Required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Grant (HOME) funds. This Plan assesses the City's affordable housing and community development needs to make market and data driven decisions on how to invest CDBG and HOME funds. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan can be viewed here. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 180 of 379 • The City's Comprehensive Plan - Establishes a long-range vision for College Station's growth and development, housing, mobility, parks, the environment, economic development, city -provided infrastructure and services, and other related topics. This plan acts as a guidebook for decision - makers and is implemented over time through ordinances, infrastructure improvements, and other public and private development decisions. The City's Comprehensive Plan can be viewed here. The Goal of the College Station Housing Action Plan is to investigate available tools to create or incentivize affordable housing opportunities for residents. The plan will support the impactful implementation of housing goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically the following four Strategic Actions: • Action 2.3 — Create incentives and programs to revitalize existing areas and established neighborhoods. This could include fagade or landscaping improvement programs or rehabilitation initiatives. New programs should align with and complement existing City efforts through the Neighborhood Partnership Program, Neighborhood Grant Program, and proposed property maintenance programing. • Action 3.4 — Expand affordable housing and workforce housing. Continue to support efforts, programs, and incentives aimed at developing affordable housing stock and assisting low -and moderate- income citizens to secure affordable homeownership and/or rental opportunities. Potential actions may include regulatory provisions such as: ■ Development standards that reduce barriers for affordable and diverse housing types. ■ Pre -approved building plans or pattern books for target locations. ■ Incentives such as density bonuses or more flexible standards, or ■ A workforce housing capital pool where a public entity establishes a fund that is used for various types of affordable housing initiatives. • Action 3.6 - Develop and refine data monitoring processes to analyze housing trends and define a strategic set of actions to address housing affordability, diversity, and gentrification. Consider existing market data, best practices, and existing regulations and incentives. • Action 3.9 — Continue partnering with local nonprofit organizations and area partners to support affordable housing options. Continue partnerships with organizations such as the Brazos County Home Repair Coalition, Bryan/College Station Habitat for Humanity, Brazos Valley Community Action Programs, Elder Aid, Brazos Valley Council of Governments, and housing tax credit developers. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 181 of 379 4- 4- r� � ++ J WHY HOUSING MATTERS Housing is Ivey to College Station's future. Quality affordable housing opportunity is connected to better life outcomes, especially for children, and to economic competitiveness. • Health - There is strong evidence characterizing housing's relationship to health. Housing stability, quality, safety, and affordability all affect health outcomes, as do physical and social characteristics of neighborhoods (Health Affairs Policv Brief). ■ The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified housing as an important social determinant of health, highlighting the link between where people live and their health. - httos;//health.gov/healthVDeODle/oriority-areas/social-determinants-health ■ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Issue Brief on Housing and Health, ■ Habitat for Humanity International - "How does housina impact health?" ■ Brookings Institute Report - Housina as a Hub for Health, Community Services, and Upward Mobilitv. States that housing is important as a "hub" for well-being. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 182 of 379 Opportunity/Upward Mobility— Housing is a platform for opportunity and upward mobility. • Urban Institute brief focusing on evidence of relationship between housing and upward mobility. Whv Housina Matters for Upward Mobilitv. ■ Opportunity Atlas mapping tool. Shows which neighborhoods in America offer children the best chance to rise out of poverty. One kev finding is that growing up in a higher -mobility area has a causal effect on children's outcomes in adulthood, in proportion to childhood exposure. ■ Penn Institute for Urban Research Opportunity and Housing Access. i *AIIIIIIIIIII6, Economy— The existence of housing affordable to a range of households is key to economic growth. Businesses need a diversity of workers to thrive and grow; and those workers in turn need a range of housing options. ■ National Association of Counties — Housina as Part of a Countv's Economic DevelODment Strateav_ . "Having a sufficient supply of housing affordable to households all along the income spectrum is also critical to supporting vibrant and sustainable local economies." ■ The Urban Institute — Four Reasons Whv EmDlovers Should Care about Housina. "Available, affordable housing that fits a range of household types and lifestyles is essential to attracting, retaining, and developing a diverse, productive workforce." 12° IN B° MoM Growth 40 2a -14 . , �1�nth Average CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 183 of 379 COLLEGE STATION EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT FINDINGS SUMMARY College Station, home of Texas A&M University, has seen rapid growth since the 1970s and has become a desirable place to live, work, and go to school. Like most cities in the U.S., College Station's home prices and rents have risen significantly in recent years and the city currently has a shortage of moderately priced housing. Housing costs have risen at a faster pace than incomes resulting in a financial strain for renters and a lack of homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate -income workers. Significant findings of the Existing Conditions Report include the following: • Most College Station workers live outside the city limits. • Most units in College Station are single family homes or multifamily apartments. There is a lack of middle housing options like duplexes, condos, and townhomes. • Population and development predictions project a significant housing supply shortage by 2030. • 58% of renters and 18% of homeowners with a mortgage in College Station are cost burdened (spending more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs) • The 2023 median sales price for a non -new construction home in College Station was $389,000 — a price that is out of reach for most middle -income families. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 184 of 379 ne ___r_______ _ COLLEGE STATION DEMOGRAPHICS & GROWTH College Station is a unique in many ways. Incorporated in 1938, College Station is relatively young with an older sister city (the City of Bryan) that was incorporated in 1871. While young, the city is home to the oldest public institution of higher education in the state, Texas A&M University (established in 1876). Texas A&M is also the largest university in the nation by enrollment and one of the largest campuses in the country at 5,200 acres. The College Station — Bryan metropolitan statistical area (MSA) serves as the economic and educational hub of the entire Brazos Valley region. The populations of Bryan and College Station grew at about the same rate until the 1970s, when an influx of students at Texas A&M University (the result of a change in enrollment policies) contributed to accelerated growth. Both College Station and Texas A&M University have grown and changed quickly. In 1970 Texas A&M had a total enrollment of 14,200 students and the City's population was 17,676. Today, Texas A&M enrolls 74,824 students and the population of College Station is 124,326 — a 426% and 603% increase respectively. In 1970 there were just over 4,000 total housing units in College Station, today there are over 48,000 (1970 Census and 2021 ACS 5 Year Estimate). CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 185 of 379 Population Growth College Station and Brazos County Population Growth Year College Station Population Brazos County Population 1990 52,456 121,862 2000 67,890 154,415 2010 93,857 194,851 2020 120,511 233,849 2022 ACS 124,326 242,014 2030 P&DS Estimate 145,000 Data: Decennial Census, American Community Survey, College Station P&DS Looking specifically at the City of College Station and the number of college students living in the city, American Community Survey data estimates that 45,506 residents of College Station are enrolled in college or graduate school (37,541 undergraduates and 7,965 in graduate or professional school) (Source: 2021 ACS 5 Year Estimates). It can be assumed that most of these students are enrolled at Texas A&M University, however; a percentage also are most likely enrolled at Blinn College, the Texas A&M RELLIS Campus, or Sam Houston State University. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 186 of 379 Population by Age in College Station 2010 vs. 2020 The fastest growing age group in College Station is adults 60 years old and above, with the largest increase in adults between the ages of 65 and 74 years. Texas A&M's influence is evident: in 2020, 29% of the population was between the ages of 20 and 24. This same demographic makes up 7% of the total Texas population. Age Group 2010 2020 Numerical Change % Change 85 years and over 471 734 263 55.84 75 to 84 years 1,388 2,469 1,081 77.88 65 to 74 years 2,516 4,613 2,097 83.35 60 to 64 years 1,923 3,030 1,107 57.57 55 to 59 years 2,457 3,212 755 30.73 45 to 54 years 5,796 7,796 2,000 34.51 35 to 44 years 7,134 10,134 3,000 42.05 25 to 34 years 13,922 17,447 3,525 25.32 20 to 24 years 30,850 35,318 4,468 14.48 15 to 19 years 15,578 18,297 2,719 17.45 10 to 14 years 3,386 5,323 1,937 57.21 5 to 9 years 3,910 5,713 1,803 46.11 Under 5 Years 4,526 6,486 1,960 43.31 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 10 Page 187 of 379 Race and Ethnicity In College Station, over 63% of the population that identifies as a single race is White, a greater proportion than in the county or state. There are fewer Black and Hispanic residents, though more Asian, in College Station than in Brazos County or the state. Race and Ethnicity 2020 Cencus Comparative Overview 70 63.5 60 60 50 40 a� U 30 20 10 0 White Black Asian Hispanic All Other Races ■ College Station ■ Brazos County ■ Texas Source: US Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 188 of 379 Despite the preponderance of White population in the city, College Station has seen a surge in the minority population over the last decade. The Hispanic population has nearly doubled in just ten years; gains were also made in the Black (53.3%) and Asian (43.6%) populations. The "All Other Races" category includes those who identify as "Some other race" on the census, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native — this group has grown by over 130% since 2010. The population of College Station is diversifying as it grows. RacelEthnicity in College Station 2010 vs. 2020 Race/Ethnicity 2010 2020 Numerical Change % Change White 72,502 76,475 3,973 5.5 Black 6,383 9,788 3,405 53.3 Asian 8,576 12,317 3,741 43.6 All Other Races 4,161 8,903 4,742 113.9 Hispanic Origin 13,165 23,357 10,192 77.4 Source: US Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 12 Page 189 of 379 �Id a EDUCATION College Station Independent School District WATER/WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATIONS SAFETY PRINCIPLES 16"e n mpoomble Im solery 7 Woi4ing Solely irorondnmi, for emploYmenl 3 all onidenls ore pievemn� Call locks mn be rompleled S lely p m 6 D poi,r College Station ISD is experiencing rapid growth along with the City and Texas A&M University. CSISD's enrollment was 14,462 for the 2022-23 school year. The enrollment in 1993 was 6,150 — a 135% increase. More information about current and projected future CSISD enrollment can be found in their Annual Enrollment Review and Report. As it has grown, CSISD has maintained a high level of academic performance as judged by their Texas Education Agency rating system score. CSISD has a rating of 89 overall and a letter grade of B. More about this rating can be found here. Demographics for College Station Independent School District can be found on CSISD's website here. Of note is that 35.8% of CSISD students are considered at -risk of not meeting standards or dropping out of school and 35.95% are economically disadvantaged, meaning they are eligible to participate in the national free or reduced -priced lunch program. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 13 Page 190 of 379 Texas A&M University Texas A&M University is the flagship institution of the Texas A&M University System and is the only university in Texas to hold a simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution. Texas A&Ms 74,828 students earn degrees in more than 130 courses of study through 17 colleges. As mentioned previously, Texas A&M University has experienced rapid growth and change since the 1970s. Current student demographics can be found here. While it can be assumed that many of the University's undergraduate students are dependents of their parents and receiving financial support, a look at the Financial Aid Common Data Set shows that 21,554 of the 50,109 undergraduates at Texas A&M were determined to have financial need — 43% of all undergraduate students. Educational Attainment in College Station Compared to the state, College Station has a higher percentage of high school and college graduates. A person living in College Station is almost twice as likely to have a college degree as elsewhere in the state. Moreover, while almost 30% of the over-25 population in College Station has a graduate or professional degree, only 11.2% in the state have attained that level of education. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 14 Page 191 of 379 Educational Attainment College Station Texas 2021 ACS 5yr Estimate Number Percent Number I Percent Total residents over age 25 51,640 18,619,469 Less than 9th grade 963 1.9% 1,422,360 7.6% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,711 3.3% 1,403,821 7.5% High school graduate 6,785 13.1% 4,563,619 24.5% Some college, no degree 8,775 17.0% 3,956,030 21.2% Associate degree 3,465 6.7% 1,402,444 7.5% Bachelor's degree 15,633 30.3% 3,791,665 20.4% Graduate or professional degree 14,337 27.8% 2,079,530 11.2% Percent high school graduate or higher 94.8% 84.8% Percent bachelor's degree or higher 58.0% 31.5% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2016-2021) Education plays a major role in a person's future earning power. With each additional level of education, a person is much more likely to have greater income. For example, an individual in College Station with a bachelor's degree is likely to earn annually $25,844 more per year than a person with a high school education. Over a thirty-year career, that would amount to a gap of over $775,320, not considering the potential for promotions and other means of upward mobility because of education. Income by Educational Attainment Texas Brazos County Less than high School graduate $26,451 $26,334 High school graduate $32,983 $32,032 Some college / associate's degree $40,650 $36,049 Batchelor's degree $60,543 $51,739 Graduate / professional degree $76,818 $64,239 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2016-2021) College Station $16,042 $34,199 $37,224 $51,840 $66,213 While this data reveals many positive conclusions, one fact cannot be understated: there are at least 9,459 individuals in College Station, age 25 and over, that have no more than a high school education (diploma, GED, or less), lacking the requisite education for many career opportunities. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 15 Page 192 of 379 � 1 ,i f Mwa Traffic � J EMPLOYMENT The table below shows the estimated employment status of the working -age population in 2021. With a large undergraduate student population, the city has a larger percentage of residents age 16 and older not in the labor force. According to the American Community Survey (ACS) glossary, this category "consists mainly of students, homemakers, retired workers, seasonal workers interviewed in an off season who were not looking for work, institutionalized people, and people doing only incidental unpaid family work (less than 15 hours during the reference week)." For those in the labor force, the county, and especially the state, share a greater percentage of the unemployed population. Brazos Texas I County Total Pop. Over 16 22,261,181 188,101 Civilian Labor 14,390,216 64.6% 115,759 Force Employed 13,618,630 61.2% 110,682 Unemployed 771,586 3.5% 5,077 Not in Labor Force 7,768,365 34.9% 71,984 Armed Forces 102,600 0.5% 358 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2021) College Station 98,179 61.5% 59,768 60.9% 58.8% 57,119 58.2% 2.7% 2,483 2.5% 38.3% 38,411 39.1% 0.2% 166 0.2% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 16 Page 193 of 379 ti INCOME AND HOUSEHOLDS Income for College Station and Brazos County residents tends to be lower than that for residents of the state as a whole. These numbers are greatly influenced by the large local student population. Undergraduate students in particular are more likely to receive financial compensation outside of traditional wages, in the form of scholarships, grants, loans, gifts, and parental financial support. Graduate students, on the other hand, may not receive as much parental financial support, but rather, depend on teaching or research assistantships or have a working spouse. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as "all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence." This definition includes unrelated individuals — like college students, for example — living together. There are 41,592 distinct households in College Station, 83,627 in Brazos County and 10,239,341 in the State of Texas. The Census Bureau delineates between family and nonfamily households, in which a family is defined as "a group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption." The table below illustrates the share of family and nonfamily households in each of the three geographies. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 17 Page 194 of 379 Texas Brazos County College Station 0% Percentage of House Hold Types Comparative Overview 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Family Households Ir Nonfamily Households Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2016-2021) The City of College Station has a larger percentage of nonfamily households, very much unlike the county, and even more so the state. Most households in the State of Texas and Brazos County are family households (68.9% and 55.5%, respectively). Again, this difference is particularly influenced by unrelated, college -aged persons living together. College Station families have a comparable, and even slightly greater, median income than that of families in the county and state (see the table below). However, the income of College Station nonfamily households is much less than their counterparts. Combining the very low nonfamily income with the comparatively high number of nonfamily households creates a situation in which total household income of College Station is approximately 74.3% of the income of Texas households overall. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 18 Page 195 of 379 Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months Comparative Overview $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Texas Brazos County College Station ■ Households $67,327 $52,658 $50,089 ■ Families $80,498 $76,765 $86,323 ■ Nonfamily Households $41,693 $30,552 $28,020 ■ Households ■ Families ■ Nonfamily Households Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2016-2021) The table below shows the median household income and the percentage change for College Station since 2013. College Station Household Income in the Past 12 Months Estimated Median Household Income Percent Change 2021 $50, 089 5.5% 2020 $47,456 3.57% 2019 $45, 820 6.65% 2018 $42, 964 8.96% 2017 $39,430 8.11% 2016 $36,471 6.68% 2015 $34,186 2.25% 2014 $33, 434 5.82 % 2013 $31, 596 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 19 Page 196 of 379 The two tables below show estimated median household income for College Station nonfamily and family households as well as the percentage change since 2013. Estimated Median Nonfamily Household Income Percent Change 2021 $28, 020 5.93 2020 $26,452 8.22 2019 $24,442 3.88 2018 $23, 529 5.10 2017 I $22, 387 5.38 2016 $21, 244 6.72 2015 $19, 907 L86 2014 $19, 544 13.46 2013 $17,,226 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Estimated Median Family Household Income Percent Change 2021 $86, 323 6.84 2020 $80,795 -6.24 2019 $86,176 5.85 2018 $81, 415 9.39 2017 $74,428 3.30 2016 $72, 047 5.05 2015 $68, 584 2.72 2014 $66, 765 -0.31 2013 $66, 974 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 20 Page 197 of 379 This table shows estimated median household income for families with single parents (female and male householders with no spouse present) since 2013. Please note that the estimated median family income for these families is less than half of the median income for families in general. This estimated Census data show there are approximately 3,800 female householder families with no spouse present and 1,531 male householder families with no spouse present in College Station. Estimated Median Family Household Income - Single Householder No Percent Change Spouse Present Female HH Male HH Female HH Male HH 2021 $40, 023 $39, 697 $33, 325 $32, 883 $28, 612 $30, 995 $31,192 $26,386 $28,622 Survey 5-year Estimates $40,135 $32,132 $50, 000 $45,150 $40, 303 $29, 698 $27, 801 $27,451 $25,400 0.82 19.12 1.34 14.93 -7.69 - 0.63 18.21 -7.81 24.91 -35.74 10.74 12.03 35.71 6.82 1.27 8.07 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 21 Page 198 of 379 ��r�6�m 1i �a�,��,�`��i �`"��.y• � li c1, f\r''•y �k'�x Ir �-' I'~ w f, r�.Ji. ijtity�\ iAv t,Ix J �'.' S4� ih •IS,c'S �,�',` \. �� ,� ' fir. 7 i i ttr4!:�r'�1 .iU•+y.�t '1 ` a . DO tl'-14 49 .'31E STATION --'.RS LIVE? The map below displays the inflow/outflow counts and proportions for the employees in College Station. 7 • Bryan + i Where Do College Station Workers Live? LEGEND Q Brazos County Limits City Limit College Station Worker Households Job Count • 1 o 0 2.5 �o O 5 , O 10 • O 25 O50 75 "e • .a O r O 100 i Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap 2020 Inflow/Outflow Counts for All Jobs for College Station, Texas Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap 2020 Inflow/Outflow Counts for All Jobs for College Station, Texas CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 15 30 60 Miles I . . 23 Page 200 of 379 Where Do College Station Workers Live? LEGEND Q Brazos County Limits City Limit College Station Worker Households 1-3 - 4-8 - 9-14 - 15-21 - 22-31 - 32 - 43 - 44-60 - 61 - 81 A 41 t GO Milas A Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap 2020 Inflow/Outflow Counts for All Jobs for College Station, Texas A significant number of those employed in Brazos County live outside the County. Of the 106,234 jobs in Brazos County, 48,010 (45%) live outside the County and commute in. Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap 2020 Inflow/Outflow Counts for All Jobs for Brazos County, Texas ' a --mvim, CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 24 Page 201 of 379 COLLEGE STATION HOUSIN STOCK College Station is a young city with a housing stock that reflects our rapid growth. Data from the Brazos Central Appraisal District shows that of the 24,126 residential platted parcels (a unit of land (tract, lot, or otherwise) designated in the original plat or in any other plats with residential structure(s) present) in College Station 13,863 (57%) were built since 2000-17,359 (72%) since 1990. Also of note is the type of housing in College Station and when it was mostly built. 78% of residential platted parcels are single family homes. There are 191 apartment complexes in the City, with about 118,000 beds total (Data from the College Station Fire Department). Other housing options that typically make up "middle housing", or alternatives to single family homes and apartment complexes (including manufactured homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, patio homes, and homeplexs) represent 4,998 platted parcels, or 20% of the total. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 25 Page 202 of 379 Total Number Average Year Constructed Residential Structures 24,126 1998 Single Family (Al, E1) 18,922 1998 Manufactured Homes (A2, EA2, M1) 23 1989 Duplex (A3, 132, E132) 1,441 1992 Triplex (133) 11 1984 Fourplex (A5, 134) 348 1981 Condominium (A6) 3 1996 Townhome (A7) 2,355 2010 Patio Home (A8) 486 2000 Homeplex (A9) 331 1986 Multifamily (131) 191 1994 Fraternity/Sorority House (131O) 15 1992 Source: Brazos Central Appraisal District 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1860 1880 Source: Brazos Central Appraisal District Total Housing - Construction Year 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 26 Page 203 of 379 PROJECTED HOUSING SUPPLY SHORTAGE L The City of College Station Planning and Development Services Department has estimated that the total College Station population will reach 145,000 by the year 2030 — a growth rate of about 2% per year over the next ten years. Given production projections based on planned development, there is estimated to be a shortage of4,162 units. What is housing affordability? Workforce or affordable housing is not a specific type of housing. Rather it is housing within the financial reach of community members across the full spectrum of incomes and budgets. Housing is generally considered affordable if a household spends no more than 30% of their income to live there. For renters this would include rent and utilities, for homeowners this includes mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, utilities, and HOA fees. Housing is considered "affordable" if a household spends no more than 30% of their income to live there. Source: https•//www.housingdata.org/toolbox/municipal-impacts CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 27 Page 204 of 379 Housing Cost Burden Households spending more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs are considered "cost burdened." Households spending more than 50 percent of their monthly income on housing costs are "severely cost burdened." When households are housing cost burdened, money that would go to other things, such as bills, health care, food, or savings, is instead funneled toward housing costs, potentially leading to disruption of utilities, malnutrition, and an inability to prepare for emergencies or work toward a better future. According to American Community Survey Census data, approximately 58 percent of College Station renters and 18 percent of College Station owners with a mortgage are cost burdened — 35 percent of these same renters at 9 percent of the same owners are severely cost burdened. 15 percent of owners without a mortgage are cost burdened, 8 percent are severely cost burdened. Renters 25,095 Cost Burdened 15,095 Severely Cost 9,278 Burdened ■ Owners with Mortgage 9,208 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2016-2021) 1,728 873 Owners w/o Mortgage 5,877 901 503 Cost burden can also be looked at according to household income and whether the household is an owner or renter. Mobility Renters are more likely to move within Brazos County than owners — 26.6% of renters moved vs 7.2% of owners. • Those with lower incomes are more likely to move than households with higher incomes. 8.9% Individuals making $75,000 a year or more moved within the county while 22.3% of individuals making $25,000-$34,000 annually made a move within Brazos County. Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2016-2021) CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 28 Page 205 of 379 Homebuyer migration patterns using Freddie Mac's automated underwriting system data show a population in pursuit of affordable housing. Buyers left large expensive metro areas going to smaller more affordable destinations at a rate three times greater than before the pandemic. Fast growing metro areas with a shortage of housing and high house price to income ratios eventually led to an increase in out - migration as homebuyers seek more affordable destinations. The Freddie Mac report can be found here. Housing Costs Housing costs are rising faster than incomes. Households across the income spectrum are affected by the lack of diverse and affordable housing options. The average College Station home price has grown by 73% since 2015 while the median family income has only increased by 25.86%. Source: Bryan -College Station Regional Multiple Listing Service and US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Rents have gone up 25.44% since 2015, with the average monthly rent for a 2-bedroom unit being $970, a 3-bedroom unit being $1,620, and 4-bedroom being $2,004. While increases in rent have kept pace with increases in income during this time period, rents still remain high, especially for 3 and 4 bedroom units. Source: Multiple Listing Service and US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 29 Page 206 of 379 New Construction Median Sales Price for College Station $500,000 $465,001 $450,000 $442,513 $400,000 $364,450 $363,750 $345,898 $338,104 $342,0 $350,000 327500 $345,000 $300,000 $272,800 $235,950 $252,ZZ��_ $250,000 227000 �$234,9 $207,400 =07,540 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 tNew Construction Homes t New Construction Townhomes Source: Bryan -College Station Regional Multiple Listing Service The above graph shows that the median sales price for a new construction single family home in College Station is $442,513 (134 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 187 days on the market). A household would need to make $125,665 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($88,503) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). The median sales price for a new construction townhome in College Station is $345,000 (23 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 162 days on the market). A household would need to make $97,864 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($69,000) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). New Construction Median Sales Price for Brazos County $400,000 $350,000 $311,950 50 $315,679 $30�0 $300,000 $269,90 • $250,000 /f 264,900 $200,000 46 27000 $238,000 $252,OOC $2 $20Z400 . )n onn $100,000 $50.000 $0 $20Z540 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 41111-New Construction Homes t New Construction Townhomes Source: Bryan -College Station Regional Multiple Listing Service $36 $344,500 2022 2023 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 30 Page 207 of 379 The above graph shows that the median sales price for a new construction single family home in Brazos County is $365,000 (458 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 167 days on the market). A household would need to make $103,567 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($73,000) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). The median sales price for a new construction townhome in Brazos County is $344,500 (22 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 112 days on the market). A household would need to make $97,722 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($68,900) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). Non -New Construction Median Sales Price for College Station $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $21000� $227,500 $247,000 , $200,000 s $210,950 213,000 $150,000 $176,255 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $250,000 III — $259,900 s $3 %_ S 91,92s$2 ,nn 30,000 $201,500 __52U97U0— $293,750 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 tSingle Family t Townhome The above graph shows that the median sales price for a non -new construction single family home in College Station is $389,000 (679 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 62 days on the market). A household would need to make $110,410 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($77,800) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). The median sales price for a non -new construction townhome in College Station is $315,000 (105 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 47 days on the market). A household would need to make $89,310 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($63,000) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 208 of 379 Non -New Construction Median Sales Price for Brazos County $400,000 $335,000 $315,000 $300,000 $272.250 $241,000 $302,000 $224,295 $227,000 $235,000 $286,000 $209,250 S $200,000 $190,000 a $195,000 $206,000 $19 00 $207000 212,000 $172,900 $100,000 $0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 11IIII—Single Family Townhome Source: Bryan -College Station Regional Multiple Listing Service The above graph shows that the median sales price for a non -new construction single family home in Brazos County is $335,000 (1,232 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 66 days on the market). A household would need to make $95,013 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($67,000) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). The median sales price for a non -new construction townhome in Brazos County is $302,000 (137 listings of this type have sold in 2023 with an average of 47 days on the market). A household would need to make $85,606 annually to afford this home given a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest, 20% down payment ($60,400) and 35% of their monthly income going to the total monthly house payment (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). More detailed sales data for both Brazos County and the City of College Station from the Bryan -College Station Regional Multiple Listing Service can be found on cstx.aov/housing_ plan. This data includes additional housing types for both new and non -new construction. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 32 Page 209 of 379 The Effect of Rising Interest Rates on Purchasing Power Interest rates have risen sharply since the Federal Reserve started raising them to combat inflation in 2021. The average interest rate for a 30 year fixed rate mortgage in 2021 was 2.96%. Today, the average rate for the same product is 8.04%. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 30yr. Fixed Rate Mortgage Rate 8.04 4.54 3.66 3.98 4'I� 3.85 3.65 3.99 3.94 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 30yr. Fixed Rate Mortgage Rate Source: St Louis Federal Reserve Monthly Mortgage Loan Principal and Interest Payments Loan Amount 4% 5% 6% 7% $100,000 $477 $537 $600 $666 $734 $150,000 $715 $805 $900 $999 $1,101 $200,000 $954 $1,074 $1,200 $1,332 $1,462 $250,000 $1,192 $1,342 $1,500 $1,665 $1,835 The monthly principal and interest payment (not including taxes and insurance) for a those purchasing a home and borrowing $250,000 from a mortgage lender is $1,192 with a 4% interest rate. That number jumps to $1,835 for the same loan with an 8% interest rate - a 54% increase. The median sales price for a non -new single-family home in College Station was $389,000 for 2023 (through October). With a 4% interest rate 30 year fixed rate mortgage and 20% downpayment ($77,800) a household would need an annual income of $82,057 to afford the home. With an 8% interest rate and identical mortgage loan, a household would need an annual income of $110,410 to afford the same home — 34.55% more income. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 33 Page 210 of 379 Annual Mean Wage by Occupation for College Station Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Annual Monthly I Monthly I Home Home Income Income Rent - 30% Purchase Purchase -30% - 35% Childcare Workers $22,640 $1,886 $565 $70,000 $81,000 Cooks, Short Order $25,870 $2,155 $646 $79,500 $92,500 Phlebotomists $33,510 $2,793 $838 $103,000 $119,000 Pest Control Workers $34,780 $2,898 $869 $106,000 $123,500 Community Health Workers $39,270 $3,273 $982 $120,000 $140,000 Credit Counselors $41,070 $3,423 $1,026 $125,500 $146,000 Chefs and Head Cooks $44,880 $3,740 $1,122 $136,500 $158,500 Automotive Service $45,240 $3,770 $1,131 $138,000 $160,500 Technicians and Mechanics Child, Family, and School $45,260 $3,772 $1,257 $138,000 $160,500 Social Workers HVAC Mechanics and $47,270 $3,939 $1,181 $144,000 $167,500 Installers Paramedics $47,990 $3,999 $1,199 $146,000 $169,500 Paralegals and Legal $49,510 $4,125 $1,238 $151,000 $175,500 Assistants Clergy $51,670 $4,306 $1,292 $157,000 $183,000 Middle School Teachers $52,970 $4,414 $1,325 $161,000 $187,000 Chemists $67,600 $5,633 $1,690 $205,000 $240,000 Accountants and Auditors $76,490 $6,374 $1,912 $232,000 $270,000 Registered Nurses $78,180 $6,515 $1,955 $237,000 $277,000 Database Administrators $83,950 $6,996 $2,098 $254,000 $296,000 Electrical Engineers $91,960 $7,663 $2,298 $278,000 $323,000 Pharmacists $123,380 $10,282 $3,084 $372,000 $435,000 Source: U S. Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2022 Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates College Station -Bryan Home Purchase Price assumes a 30yr fixed rate mortgage at 8% interest rate and 20% down payment. Total monthly Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance payment is 30% of gross monthly income and 35% of gross monthly income. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 34 Page 211 of 379 Case Study Jane Smith is a 35-year-old single mother of two. She formerly worked a low wage job earning $11 an hour ($22,880 annually) and received government assistance for rent, food, and medical care. As the recipient of a housing choice voucher to help pay her rent, Ms. Smith was eligible to enroll in the Brazos Valley Council of Government's Family Self Sufficiency Program. As part of the program she set goals that included paying off debt, further education to get a better job, and the purchase of a home. She received financial coaching, made a budget and paid off debt, and got her GED and an associate degree. Ms. Smith graduated from the Program 5 years ago. She has since secured a higher paying job (earning $50,000 annually), become independent of all government assistance, and has saved over $20,000 towards the downpayment on a house. Ms. Smith has been pre -approved by a lender for a mortgage loan and can afford a purchase price of $180,000. She quickly becomes frustrated and discouraged while shopping for a home. Houses that were listed for $170,000 four years ago are now selling for $280,000. The median purchase price for non -new construction homes is $389,000. Even with the help of available down payment assistance programs, very few options exist in her price range and competition for them is fierce. She is considering giving up. « 4 F 1 � YilYiYlG1i�Y o�.wi.u. o • a� �- x �1 n ¢,vwaxrmxw wram moxwuvuva�snv�veci.r�..oi.0 R - v., me am am r..dr.•m�o,n m,. rm m .e.w YI'i�YiYWiYrJ k Mac600k Air 71=4 ® a �o f t T, 0D CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 35 Page 212 of 379 Other Communities' Housing Plans San Marcos, TX - SMTX 4 All - Housina Plan Denton, TX - Affordable Housina Strateaic Toolkit Waco, TX - Waco Strategic Housina Plan Plano, TX - Housina Trend Analvsis and Strategic Plan Irving. TX - City of Irvina Housina Plan Grand Prairie, TX - 2021 Housina Strateav El Paso, TX - El Paso Reaional Housina Plan Austin, TX - Austin Strateaic Housina Blueorint Fort Worth, TX - Neiahborhood Conservation Plan and Affordable Housina Strateav Dallas, TX - Dallas Comprehensive Housina Policy San Antonio, TX - Strateaic Housina Imolementation Plan Alexandria, VA - Housina Master Plan & Reaional Housina Initiative Boise, ID - Housina Needs Analvsis Chattanooga, TN - Housina Action Plan Nashville, TN - Affordable Housina Task Force Rebort Louisville, KY - My Louisville Home Puyallup, WA - PuvaIIUD Housina Action Plan Tacoma, WA - Affordable Housina Action Strateav Mankato, MN - Affordable Housina Action Plan Omaha, NE - Housina Affordabilitv Action Plan Juneau, AK - City and Borouah of Juneau Housina Action Plan New York, NY - Housina New York Charlotte, NC - Housina Charlotte Framework Grafton, MA - Housina Trust Action Plan CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 36 Page 213 of 379 now ■.r ■w • ,rr, ■r. wadi- 4- JAIV ►ti.ch k-ft GOALS/STRATEGIES/ACTIONS REPORT • Goal I - Create and incentivize more housing units and more diverse housing types by studying and creating a proposal for: ❑ Strategy 1 —Selectively allow and encourage increased density ■ Action 1 — Amend the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for greater density and housing variety ■ Action 2 — Rezone certain areas to allow more density and housing variety ■ Action 3 — Create a process for expedited permitting and reduced or waived fees for affordable housing development ❑ Strategy 2 — Encourage and allow infill development ■ Action 1 — Explore opportunities for infill development when amending the UDO or rezoning for greater density ■ Action 2 — Investigate allowing or promoting housing on unused institutional or public land ❑ Strategy 3 — Encourage innovation and sustainability in housing construction ■ Action 1 — Create a program to encourage and incentivize alternative and energy -efficient building methods CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 37 Page 214 of 379 • Goal 2 - Incentivize the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to current and future community members by studying and creating a proposal for: ❑ Strategy 1 — Partner with community stakeholders to develop housing for their constituencies ■ Action 1 — Work with organizations to create employee / client housing programs ■ Action 2 — Create formal mechanisms to collaborate with Texas A&M, Brazos County, and City of Bryan to share data and achieve housing goals ❑ Strategy 2 — Create programs to facilitate homeownership ■ Action 1 — Create a deed -restricted homeownership program ■ Action 2 — Pursue partnerships to construct affordable homeownership opportunities ■ Action 3 — Pursue tools to help households qualify for financing by helping them to become landlords (live in one half of duplex, etc...) ❑ Strategy 3 — Create rental housing for income -qualified residents ■ Action 1 — Investigate the creation of a Municipal Housing Authority ■ Action 2 — Create an inter -generational home share program ❑ Strategy 4 — Establish funding mechanisms to create affordable housing for rent or purchase ■ Action 1 — Create a density bonus system for new development meeting increased density goals ■ Action 2 — Create a Local Housing Finance Corporation ■ Action 3 — Partner with developers through Housing Public Facility Corporations ■ Action 4 — Partner with Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developers ❑ Strategy 5 — Preserve and enhance existing housing stock ■ Action 1 — Acquire and rehabilitate existing housing stock that is at risk of losing affordability ❑ Strategy 6 — Prevent displacement of low and moderate -income homeowners ■ Action 1 - Create initiative to help homeowners without homestead exemptions to file ■ Action 2 — Refer homeowners to existing weatherization programs and possibly create new program ❑ Strategy 7 — Provide education for tenants, homebuyers, and homeowners ■ Action 1 — Create a home maintenance education and training program ■ Action 2 — Create comprehensive homebuyer education training program ■ Action 3 — Create a tenant education and training program ❑ Strategy 8 — Continue to seek stakeholder and citizen feedback and direction on Housing Action Plan implementation Action 1 — Create a Housing Action Plan Implementation Committee Action 2 — The Housing Plan Oversight Committee and City staff will prepare an annual progress report CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 38 Page 215 of 379 4 -iris 61.1k - GOALS, STRATEGIES, ACTIONS This plan proposes to accomplish Comprehensive Plan Action Items 2.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.9 by using a goal, strategy, and action framework to create or incentivize additional housing units of diverse types and affordable housing opportunities for residents. Each goal will tie back to one or more Comprehensive Plan Action Items. Strategies will fall under each goal and specific actions will be listed under each strategy. Implementation of the Housing Action Plan is anticipated to take seven to ten years. Implementation of the strategies and actions in the following section must be completed to meet the goals of the plan. Plan implementation is broken down into three time frames — short-term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-6 years), and long-term (7-10 years). Programs and policies aimed at providing affordable and workforce housing, along with encouraging unit production and a mix of housing types for all demographics and lifestyles, will be essential to maintain viable and strong neighborhoods that serve all College Station citizens. There are two main overarching goals of the Housing Action Plan — to produce more housing units of various types to meet growing demand and to produce and preserve housing that is affordable to community members. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 39 Page 216 of 379 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTION ITEMS • Action 2.3 —Create incentives and programs to revitalize existing areas and established neighborhoods. This could include facade or landscaping improvement programs or rehabilitation initiatives. New programs should align with and complement existing City efforts through the Neighborhood Partnership Program, Neighborhood Grant Program, and proposed property maintenance programming. Action 3.4 — Expand affordable housing and workforce housing. Continue to support efforts, programs, and incentives aimed at developing affordable housing stock and assisting low- and moderate -income citizens to secure affordable homeownership and/or rental opportunities. Potential actions may include regulatory provisions such as: o Development standards that reduce barriers for affordable and diverse housing types. o Pre -approved building plans or pattern books for target locations. o Incentives such as density bonuses or more flexible standards, or o A workforce housing capital pool where a public entity establishes a fund that is used for various types of affordable housing initiatives. • Action 3.6 - Develop and refine data monitoring processes to analyze housing trends and define a strategic set of actions to address housing affordability, diversity, and gentrification. Consider existing market data, best practices, and existing regulations and incentives. • Action 3.9 — Continue partnering with local nonprofit organizations and area partners to support affordable housing options. Continue partnerships with organizations such as the Brazos County Home Repair Coalition, Bryan/College Station Habitat for Humanity, Brazos Valley Community Action Programs, Elder Aid, Brazos Valley Council of Governments, and housing tax credit developers. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 40 Page 217 of 379 i GOALS • Create and incentivize more housing units and more diverse housing types • Incentivize the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to current and future community members Goal Y — Create and incentivize more housing units and more diverse housing types (Comp. Plan Actions 3.4, 3.6, & 3.9). Building new housing will address the projected housing shortfall (See Housing Action Plan Existing Conditions Report Pg. 28). Ensuring the opportunity for greater diversity in the types of housing that are built will afford current and future residents (using the Census definition of residence: the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time) housing opportunities that are not currently available, as most housing units in the City are either single family or multifamily (See Existing Conditions Report Pg. 26). As demand in the housing market is outpacing supply, creating more units in this strategic fashion will create market -driven cost stabilization and reductions through an increase in supply and supply diversity. The increases in density required to create more housing units can be leveraged for affordable housing (housing for those at or below certain income levels for below market prices) by requiring new developments to provide affordability in exchange for density. Innovative building technologies and techniques will be encouraged to increase housing density and affordability. Access to amenities and accessory services (retail, entertainment, food, etc.) and adequacy of city services such as drainage, sewage, and transportation, will be examined for infill and new development. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 41 Page 218 of 379 ❑ Strategy 1 — Selectively allow and encourage increased density (zoning relief and administrative adjustments to incentivize targeted development) - increased density should be sought when it can be supported with appropriate standards, infrastructure and services, and impacts can be managed appropriately. Increased density should support the creation of neighborhoods with a diverse range of housing stock that supports the needs of various life stages, abilities, and age groups including patio homes for aging homeowners to be able to downsize and housing for persons with disabilities. Elements of both new and existing zoning such as minimum lot size and minimum parking requirements should be evaluated. ■ Action 1 — Amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow for greater density and housing variety (smaller lot sizes, decreased setbacks, etc.). Planning and Development Services (P&DS) will investigate appropriate changes to the UDO to achieve greater density and housing variety. This will be accomplished in the next 2-3 years. Not to be pursued in neighborhood conservation areas. ■ Action 2 — Rezone certain areas to allow more density and housing variety. P&DS will engage with the public and stakeholders to determine where increased density would be feasible and desirable. Over the next 2-3 years P&DS will bring forward rezonings of these areas to achieve this goal. ■ Action 3 — Create processes offering expedited permitting and reduced or eliminated City development fees for projects that provide affordable housing units that are rented or sold below market rates and restricted to low- and moderate -income households. P&DS staff will investigate appropriate changes to the Fee Schedule and make recommendations for changes. This will be accomplished in the next 2-3 years. ❑ Strategy 2 — Encourage and allow infill development using vacant land and repurposing lots and buildings. Changes to zoning or the UDO allowing infill opportunities should ensure building standards that fit within existing neighborhoods. Action 1 - Opportunities for infill development will be explored in the first two actions in this section to allow greater density through amendment of the UDO and rezoning of certain areas. Possibilities could include small home communities or accessory dwelling units. This will be accomplished in the next 2-3 years. Action 2 — Investigate allowing or promoting housing on unused institutional/public land. Work with partners to investigate the potential for housing to be developed on unused or excess land. This will be accomplished in the next 3-4 years. ❑ Strategy 3 — Encourage innovation and sustainability in housing construction. Alternative and sustainable building methods will be supported and encouraged, especially in the development of affordable housing. ■ Action 1 — P&DS and the Community Services Department will create a program to encourage and incentivize alternative and energy -efficient building methods with a focus on affordable housing. These could include but are not limited to modular construction, 3D printed units, mass timber, carbon neutral building materials, etc... Incentives for efficient, innovative construction and design will be explored. Staff will assess the limitations in city codes, workflows, permitting, and inspections that will need revision to encourage this type of development. This will be accomplished in the next 3-5 years. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 42 Page 219 of 379 - F0io I i c i it - RJRiV'�'WIIA�JIM �YNe? ® -- .- �. ,�..-.. .*^"' :}R.. - .:R� ��'"'iBp• -ilk *�.� x t. ■ Goal 2 — Incentivize the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to community members (Comp. Plan Actions 2.3, 3.4, 3.6, & 3.9). Housing currently affordable to low- and moderate - income residents should be preserved. Additional affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate -income residents will be created. This will be accomplished by implementing mechanisms to help fund affordable housing, by creating specific housing programs to meet housing needs across the low- and moderate -income spectrum, by leveraging new development to create affordable units, and by advocating for local affordable housing development and activities. Affordable housing development should be supported with sufficient transportation infrastructure to ensure resident success. ❑ Strategy 1 - Partner with community stakeholders to develop housing for their constituencies. ■ Action 1 - Work with organizations and businesses to create housing for their employees through a client or employee housing program. The City will develop a program to assist employers with developing and securing financing for low and moderate income housing opportunities. This program will seek to leverage private resources in the provision of affordable workforce housing. The Community Services Department will develop this program in the next 2-3 years. ■ Action 2 — Create formal mechanisms to collaborate with Texas A&M University, Blinn College, Brazos County, and the City of Bryan to share data, achieve housing goals, and advocate for changes needed to implement housing goals. The City will actively seek to establish and strengthen partnerships with Texas A&M University around shared and mutually beneficial housing goals and actions. This effort will begin immediately with formal mechanisms being created in the next 1-3 years. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 43 Page 220 of 379 ❑ Strategy 2 —Create programs to facilitate homeownership for working families / Advance new home ownership models. The production of housing units for affordable homeownership opportunities using alternative and energy -efficient building methods should be supported and encouraged. ■ Action 1 — Create a deed -restricted homeownership program. Create a program to assist income -eligible families to purchase homes by providing downpayment assistance. Deed restrictions will be placed on purchased homes to ensure resale to income -eligible families at prices pre -determined through appreciation formulas. Community Services Staff will create this program in the next 1-2 years. Action 2 — Pursue partnerships with nonprofit and for -profit organizations to construct affordable homeownership opportunities using CDBG, HOME, or other funding sources. This will be accomplished in the next 1-3 years. ■ Action 3 — Pursue tools to assist with the financing of affordable homeownership such as the purchase of a duplex with the buyer residing in one half and using rental income from the other half to help qualify for financing or the construction of an accessory dwelling unit that could be used to generate rental income to qualify for financing. The rental units could be designated as affordable for low- and moderate -income households. Community Services Staff will investigate these methods and make a recommendation regarding their inclusion in homebuyer assistance models in the next 1-3 years. ❑ Strategy 3 — Create rental housing for income -qualified residents. The City should partner with for -profit and nonprofit developers to create affordable housing opportunities for income - qualified residents. Available funding mechanisms and the creation of affordable rental housing through allowing more dense development through density bonuses should be pursued. Examine amenities such as retail, food, and transportation and city services like sewage and drainage to ensure sufficiency in areas where density is being considered. ■ Action 1 — Community Services Department staff will investigate the creation of a Municipal Housing Authority to provide rental housing opportunities for households making at or below 80% of the area median income. A recommendation will be made in the next 1-3 years. ■ Action 2 — Community Services Department staff will work with local partners to create an inter -generational home share program. This program will match homeowners with extra space with students in search of affordable housing. This program will be created in 2-3 years. ❑ Strategy 4 — Establish funding mechanisms to create affordable housing for rent or purchase. Increased density should be leveraged when possible to create affordable housing opportunities. Staff will continuously evaluate new funding opportunities as they arise and recommend them when appropriate. Action 1 — create a density bonus system for new development meeting increased density goals. In exchange for increased density, lower parking requirements, or other incentives above a base allowed level, developers will either create affordable units in their new development that are for sale or rent to income -eligible households at affordable prices or they will pay a fee that will be used to create affordable housing opportunities elsewhere. Prior to re -zoning, staff will conduct an analysis of the appropriate unit or fee in lieu of unit levels. Where appropriate, these will be part of rezoning efforts. This will be accomplished in the next 1-3 years. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 44 Page 221 of 379 ■ Action 2 — Create a Local Housing Finance Corporation (HFC) to help finance affordable single-family and multi -family developments. Revenue generated by lending activity will be used to achieve other affordable housing goals. Community Services Staff will pursue the creation of this entity with creation occurring in 3-5 years. ■ Action 3 — Partner with developers to create affordable rental housing through the creation of Housing Public Facility Corporations. The developer would offer affordable rental units for low- and moderate -income families in exchange for being exempt from all local property tax obligations. Community Services Staff will pursue these partnerships with the goal of 1 yearly for the next 5 years. Action 4 — Partner with Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developers to secure awards of 9% tax credits to bring additional affordable rental housing to College Station. Investigate partnerships using 4% credits to produce affordable rental housing. Community Services Staff will contact LIHTC developers to seek partnerships. This will be pursued annually. ❑ Strategy 5 — Preserve and enhance existing housing stock. Action 1 — The Community Services Department will use grant funds or other available funds to acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing units that are at risk of losing their affordability. This will be done directly by the Community Services Department or through nonprofit partners. These units will be made available to income -eligible households at below market rates as either rental or homeownership opportunities. This program will be created in the next 1-2 years. ❑ Strategy 6 — Prevent displacement of low- and moderate -income homeowners. ■ Action 1 — Create initiative to help homeowners without homestead exemptions to file their homestead exemption. The Community Services Department will work with the Public Communications Department and other relevant stakeholders to create coordinated outreach efforts and an awareness campaign in 1-2 years. ■ Action 2 — Create awareness and, where eligible, refer homeowners to existing weatherization programs such as the Brazos Valley Community Action Programs (BVCAP) Weatherization Program or the City's existing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded Minor Home Repair Program. Community Services Department staff will investigate the need for additional weatherization assistance and make a recommendation in 1-2 years. ❑ Strategy 7 — Provide education for tenants, landlords, homebuyers, and homeowners to help ensure success. ■ Action 1 — Community Services Staff will work with partners to create a home maintenance education and training program in 2-3 years. Action 2 — Community Services Staff will build on the City's current home buyer education offerings and will work with local partners to create a comprehensive homebuyer education program. This program will equip participants regarding fundamental financial components of homeownership like budgeting, credit, mortgage lending, shopping for a home, and the closing process and will be created in 1-3 years. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 45 Page 222 of 379 Action 3 — The Community Services Department will work with partners and community stakeholders to create a rental education program. This program will equip participants with information about community resources and skills necessary to fulfill tenant and landlord responsibilities. The Community Services Department will develop this program in the next 1-3 years. ❑ Strategy 8 — Continue to seek stakeholder and citizen feedback and direction in the implementation of the Housing Action Plan. P&DS and Community Services Department staff will work to ensure future planning efforts such as transportation and capital improvements consider the goals of the Housing Action Plan in their future planning efforts. ■ Action 1 — Create a Housing Plan Oversight Committee to provide guidance, support, and direction in the execution of the plan. The Committee would meet at least quarterly and would be established within a year of the Housing Action Plan's adoption. Action 2 — The Housing Plan Oversight Committee and City staff will prepare an annual progress report. This will ensure that the Plan is consistently reviewed and that any needed modifications are identified for amendment. Consistent assessment of the relationship between the Plan, the City's implementing ordinances, and regulations is an essential part of this effort. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 46 Page 223 of 379 PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK JULY City of College Station Housing Action Plan Goals, Strategies, and Actions Summary At the July 16, 2024 public meeting each Goal, Strategy, And Action was printed on a poster and placed on the wall of the City Hall Bush 4141 Community Room. After a brief presentation of the Housing Action Plan by City staff, each of the 24 attendees to the meeting were given green, yellow, and red sticker dots and asked to place one dot on each Goal, Strategy, and Action. Green indicated that they approved of, or liked the item, yellow indicated they were neutral, and red indicated they did not like or were against the item. Attendees were invited to also write comments on each poster. Below is a summary of the results of this exercise. • Green Dots 1 • Yellow Dots 1 • Red Dots CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 47 Page 224 of 379 Goal I - Create more housing units and more diverse housing types COMMENTS: • New construction increases costs. • Fix the old and preserve neighborhood quality. • Increase density and affordability very obvious -many samples of failure nationwide. • Action 1&2 - Research doesn't necessarily bear out that increased density equals increased affordability. • Goal 1 Action 2 Utility -flood impact? • Action 1 & 2 are contradictory. • Action 5 - Need matrix defining affordability. • Strategy 1 - Why are we increasing density when apartments aren't at capacity? • Strategy 1 — Who is looking at the architecture of the new builds? They should fit the existing neighborhood. The new build on Highland (in progress) is a complete disappointment. • No mention of impervious cover percentages/restrictions on any of these plans overall. • Goal 1 should be to produce and preserve affordable housing to current and future housing. • Goal 2 should be to create more housing units and.. • Strategy 2 Action 1 — I am opposed to developing neighborhoods consisting of tiny homes. • Strategy 3 — Fluff, ill-defined. • Strategy 3 — Current developers seem focused on putting up quick/cheaply built structures. Anything to encourage quality would be a plus. • Incentivize efficient buildings being built, not the efficiency of the action of building. • Strategy 3 — define. o Strategy 1 — Selectively allow increased density ■ Action 1 — Amend the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for greater density and housing variety • 6 1 • 3 ■ Action 2 — Rezone certain areas to allow more density and housing variety • 5 ■ Action 3 — Create parking requirement reductions or exemptions • 1 I• 1 I• 7 ■ Action 4 — Create pre -approved building plans and development patterns • 2 • 2 • 2 ■ Action 5 — Create a process for expedited permitting and reduced or waived fees for affordable housing development • 2 1 • 1 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 48 Page 225 of 379 o Strategy 2 — Encourage and allow infill development • 3 1 P 2 1 • 1 ■ Action 1 — Explore opportunities for infill development when amending the UDO or rezoning for greater density • 3 10 2 10 5 ■ Action 2 — Investigate allowing or promoting housing on unused institutional or public land • 11 o Strategy 3 — Encourage innovation and sustainability in housing construction • 2 I • 2 1 • 1 ■ Action 1 — Create a program to encourage and incentivize alternative and energy -efficient building methods • 2 I � 6 Goal 2 - Produce and preserve housing that is affordable to current and future community members COMMENTS: • Goal 2 should be To create more housing units and..... • Rather than focus on homeownership, focus on housing affordability regardless of owner or renters. • Goal 2 Action 3 — Risky -new homeowners could lose everything! • Feasible? If I'm working hard to make ends meet. I may not want to also have to supervise tenants. • Strategy 1 Action 3 — Awesome idea-HFH could help! • Strategy 1 Action 1 — Permanent deed restrictions can't adapt when the city changes throughout the years and decades. • Strategy 2 Action 2 — Do this! Awesome idea! • Strategy 3 Action 1 — Simply allow the density instead of gating it behind conditions. If more units are needed and the neighborhoods can bear the density as grown by the fact that its offered, just allow the more units to be built. This is better than nothing. Status quo<Proposal<Blanket Upzone. • Strategy 3 Action 3 — Are these exemptions permanent? Example 20 years? • Strategy 3 Action 3 - Rather than exempt ALL property taxes, just exempt improvements. This keeps all the incentives to build quality & dense housing but prevents the market rate units to balloon in price while the city gets nothing as the city grows & areas become more desirable. • Strategy 4 Action 1 — Your employer should not also be your landlord. Affordable housing city wide should allow such employees the freedom to choose where they want to live. • Strategy 4 Action 2 — Texas A&M has no significant skin in the game with regard to on -campus housing, yet they place an out -sized demand on city resources. Why do we all this? • Strategy 4 Action 2 — This didn't work in the past -too much leverage on employee by employer. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 49 Page 226 of 379 • Strategy 4 Action 2 — Texas A&M, sure but that's like pulling teeth. • Strategy 5 Action 1 — Well beyond city's expertise. • Strategy 6 Action 2 — My low-income friends don't perceive of this as being helpful enough. This is why education is important. • Strategy 7 — Are existing productive & well attended? • Strategy 7 Action 3 — What are the landlord's responsibilities with regard to tenants? o Strategy 1 — Create programs to facilitate homeownership ■ Action 1 — Create a deed -restricted homeownership program. • 8 1•1 1 ■ Action 2 — Pursue partnerships to construct affordable homeownership opportunities • 7 • 1 ■ Action 3 — Pursue tools to help households qualify for financing by helping them to become landlords (live in one half of duplex, etc...) • 5 • 4 o Strategy 2 — Create rental housing for income -qualified residents ■ Action 1 — Investigate the creation) of a Municipal Housing Authority • 2 I • 1 • 3 ■ Action 2 - Create an inter -generational home share program • 5 o Strategy 3 — Establish funding mechanisms to create affordable housing for rent or purchase ■ Action 1 — Create a density bonus system for new development meeting increased density goals • 2 • 4 ■ Action 2 — Create a Local Housing Finance Corporation C=m�C ■ Action 3 — Partner with developers through Housing Public Facility Corporations ■ Action 4 — Partner with Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developers • 6 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 50 Page 227 of 379 o Strategy 4 — Partner with community stakeholders to develop housing for their constituency ! 1 • 1 ■ Action 1 — Work with organizations) to create employee / client housing programs • 6 • 1 • 3 ■ Action 2 — Create formal mechanisms to collaborate with Texas A&M, Brazos County, and City of Bryan to share data and achieve housing goals • 10 • 1 Strategy 5 — Preserve and enhance existing housing stock — Green dots=3 ■ Action 1 — Acquire and rehabilitate existing housing stock that is at risk of losing affordability • 7 2 • 1 Strategy 6 — Prevent displacement of low and moderate -income homeowners • 6 ■ Action 1 - Create initiative to help homeowners without homestead exemptions to file • 5 • 2 ■ Action 2 — Refer homeowners to existing weatherization programs and possibly create new program 3 _ 2 o Strategy 7 — Provide education for tenants, homebuyers, and homeowners • 5 • 1 ■ Action 1 — Create a home maintenance education and training program • 6 I• 2 I• 1 ■ Action 2 — Create comprehensive homebuyer education training program • 6 • 2 • 1 Action 3 — Create a tenant education and training program — Green dots=4, Yellow dots=2, Red dots=1 • 4 2 • 1 Strategy 8 — Continue to seek stakeholder and citizen feedback and direction on Housing Action Plan implementation • 4 ■ Action 1 — Create a Housing Action Plan Implementation Committee • 7 I 4 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 228 of 379 OTHER THOUGHTS AND IDEAS: Make sure low-income housing is distributed evenly throughout the city not concentrated. Not much reference to specific intended areas or zoning types. Hope to see more of that moving forward! Utilize Midtown Industrial Park which has no demand & no available workforce for affordable housing. Multi -tenant housing and single-family housing are incompatible. Strengthen support of HOA deed restrictions. Goal 2 should be Goal 1 and Goal 1 should become Goal 2 — it matters. What is the plan to hold A&M's and Blinn's feet to the fire with regard to helping by adding significant on - campus housing? Goal 2, Strategy 3, Action 3: 1 believe tax exemptions should have an expiration date. Selectively allow increased density -be careful with this. If you rule certain neighborhoods off limits close to A&M, you might as well not do density at all. Recommendation -allow "gentle-fication" — allow every neighborhood parcel to increase in density one level. SFH, townhomes, tri-plex, etc. Would also avoid the otherwise unavoidable consequence of looking like you're only pushing density in poorer neighborhoods with no political power. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 52 Page 229 of 379 r �x COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The public input process was designed to understand the housing needs, choices, and preferences of people who live, work, or go to school in the City of College Station. Input was gathered through three separate surveys, two public meetings, and two builder/developer focus groups. Each of the following surveys opened on February 15, 2024, and closed on April 5, 2024: • General Survey — 712 responses • Student Survey —1,637 responses • Employer Survey — 53 responses An additional survey to gather feedback on the Draft Goals, Strategies, Actions Report of the Housing Action Plan opened on July 1, 2024 and closed on August 19, 2024. This survey had 147 responses. Survey results and analysis follow as part of this section. Four public meetings were also held with 48 community members attending: • The first was on March 21, 2024 at the College Station MTF Assembly Room at 1601 Graham Rd. • The second was on March 26, 2024 in the City of College Station City Council Chambers. • The third was on July 16, 2024 in the City Hall Bush 4141 Community Room. • The fourth was a virtual meeting held on July 17, 2024. Additionally, two builder/developer focus groups were held in partnership with the Greater Brazos Valley Builders Association. The Housing Action Plan Sterring Committee and City Staff used data gathered through the public participation process to inform the development of the Goals, Strategies, Actions Section of the Housing Action Plan. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 53 Page 230 of 379 SURVEY RESULTS QI- What is your zip code? Answered:712 Skipped:0 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 54 Page 231 of 379 Q2- Do you work inside the College Station city limits? Yes No, I commute elsewhere for work I am retired I am not currently employed I work remotely from home Answered:712 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 63.48% 452 No, I commute elsewhere for work 10.67% 76 1 am retired 16.43% 117 1 am not currently employed 3.93% 28 1 work remotely from home 5.48% 39 TOTAL 712 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 55 Page 232 of 379 Q3 - How many people in your household fall into the following age groups, including yourself. Answered: 712 Skipped:0 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Under 18 43.96% 313 18 to 35 46.07% 328 36 to 55 47.89% 341 55 to 65 26.54% 189 Over 65 27.39% 195 Q4 - Which of the following best describes your household? Answered- 712 Skipped- 0 None of the above Adult living alone Couple with no children living w/you Couple with child(ren) living with you Single parent with child(ren) living with you Unrelated adults/ roommates 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES None of the above Adult living alone Couple with no child(ren) living with you Couple with child(ren) living with you Single parent with child(ren) living with you Unrelated adults/roommates TOTAL RESPONSES 0.56% 4 16.29% 116 33.01% 235 35.67% 254 7.02% 50 7.44% 53 712 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 56 Page 233 of 379 Q5 - Do you own the place you live in or rent? Answered:712 Skipped:0 Own iiimiii Own my mobile home but rent my lot Rent RW 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Own 65.17% 464 Own my mobile home but rent my lot 0.84% 6 Rent 33.99% 242 TOTAL 712 Q6 - Do you have a mortgage? Answered:461 Skipped:251 Yes ►[7 0% 10% 20% 30% ANSWER CHOICES Yes No TOTAL 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 64.86% 299 35.14% 162 461 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 57 Page 234 of 379 Q7 - Which of the following best describes the housing you live in? Answered:489 Skipped:223 Single-family house Du plex/tri plex/town home Apartment building Mobile/manufactured Accessory dwelling unit A rented room in a single family home Other, not listed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Single-family house Duplex/triplex/townhome (shares walls with other dwellings) Apartment building Mobile/manufactured home/trailer Accessory dwelling unit (a smaller detached unit located on the same lot as a single family home) A rented room in a single family home Other, not listed (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 69.33% 339 12.68% 62 14.31% 70 1.43% 7 0.20% 1 0.82% 4 1.23% 6 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 58 Page 235 of 379 Q8 - How long have you lived at your address? Answered:489 Skipped:223 Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30-40 years More than 40 years 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Less than 1 year 14.11% 69 1-3 years 26.79% 131 4-6 years 20.04% 98 7-10 years 11.86% 58 10-20 years 15.54% 76 20-30 years 6.54% 32 30-40 years 3.07% 15 More than 40 years 2.04% 10 TOTAL 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 59 Page 236 of 379 Q9 - Which factors were most important to you when choosing the place in which you live? Please select the five most important factors Cost/I could afford it Close to work/job opportunities Close to public transit Close to family and friends Close to quality schools for my children Close to Texas A&M University Number of bedrooms/size of home Like type of home Good investment for rent or future resale Safety of neighborhood/community Amenities Allows pets Want to live near people like me Needed a place to live quickly Condition Proximity to services Other Answered 489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Cost/I could afford it Close to work/job opportunities Close to public transit Close to family and friends Close to quality schools for my children Close to Texas A&M University Number of bedrooms/size of home Like type of home/apartment/townhouse/duplex, etc. Good investment for rent or future resale Safety of neighborhood/community Amenities (pool, gym, laundry, community room) Allows pets Want to live near people like me Needed a place to live quickly Condition (upkeep, amenities, quality of appliances/finishes, etc.) Proximity to services (church, schools, transit, retail areas, parks, etc.) Other (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 85.89% 420 37.63% 184 4.91% 24 20.86% 102 34.36% 168 18.61% 91 65.24% 319 19.84% 97 19.22% 94 70.55% 345 6.54% 32 24.95% 122 9.82% 48 13.50% 66 30.47% 149 26.99% 132 10.63% 52 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 60 Page 237 of 379 Q10 - If you were to move in the next five years, what type of housing would best suit your needs? Select all that apply. Newly constructed/remodeled home Home with larger yard Home with smaller yard Home within walking distance to bus Home with more walkable neighborhood Home that is closer to restaurants/social activities/nightlife Home that is closer to grocery/pharmacy Single level home/condo/apartment—no stairs Home that is closer to work Larger home (more bedrooms or living space) Downsize/smaller home More affordable home I rent and want to own I own and want to rent Retirement community or seniors -only development Assisted living facility I plan to move in with family Don't know My current home suits my needs —moving for other reasons Other Answered 489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 238 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES Newly constructed/remodeled home RESPONSES 30.47% 149 Home with larger yard 33.74% 165 Home with smaller yard 11.25% 55 Home within walking distance to bus 6.34% 31 Home with more walkable neighborhood 32.11% 157 Home that is closer to restaurants/social activities/nightlife 10.02% 49 Home that is closer to grocery/pharmacy 15.75% 77 Single level home/condo/apartment—no stairs Home that is closer to work 24.13% 14.93% 118 73 Larger home (more bedrooms or living space) 26.58% 130 Downsize/smaller home 15.34% 75 More affordable home 1 rent and want to own 1 own and want to rent 32.92% 24.95% 0.82% 161 122 4 Retirement community or seniors -only development 10.63% 52 Assisted living facility 2.25% 11 I plan to move in with family Don't know 1.43% 3.27% 7 16 My current home suits my needs-1 plan to move for other reasons 14.31% (specify below) Other (please specify) 18.61% TOTAL CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 70 91 489 62 Page 239 of 379 Q11 - What is keeping you from buying a home? Select all that apply. I am not interested in buying a home I don't have the required money for the down payment and/or closing costs My credit score is too low I don't want to take on the maintenance responsibility associated with owning property I worry about property taxes and/or other expenses that come with owning a home The available housing in the area is not affordable The available housing in the area doesn't meet my needs I don't know enough about how to buy a home I don't know if I can afford it long term on my current income My employment is unstable or jeopardized Other Answered:489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES 91 I am not interested in buying a home RESPONSES 25.97% 127 1 don't have the required money for the down payment and/or closing costs 35.99% 176 My credit score is too low 10.22% 50 1 don't want to take on the maintenance responsibility associated with owning property 6.13% 30 I worry about property taxes and/or other expenses that come with owning a home The available housing in the area is not affordable 31.70% 47.24% 155 231 The available housing in the area doesn't meet my needs 12.27% 60 1 don't know enough about how to buy a home 7.36% 36 I don't know if I can afford it long term on my current income 22.09% 108 My employment is unstable or jeopardized 3.89% 19 Other (please specify) 24.74% 121 TOTAL CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 63 Page 240 of 379 Q12 - We would life to collect data on your experience with displacement, if you have experienced any. There are several types of displacement: • Exclusion: being excluded from living in a desirable neighborhood due to a lack of housing options you can afford • Physical Displacement: having to leave your home because it was being sold, renovated, or redeveloped; it was in an unlivable condition; or you were evicted ■ Economic Displacement: having to leave your home because you can no longer afford rent or mortgage or you can no longer afford/access your daily needs like a grocery store, public transit, etc. • Cultural Displacement: leaving your neighborhood because you can no longer afford or access your cultural needs such as culturally appropriate stores or spaces Based on the definitions provided, have you experienced the following situations while living in College Station? Select all that apply. Answered:489 Skipped:223 Exclusion Physical Displacement Economic Displacement Cultural Displacement I have no experience with these I prefer not to say 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Exclusion 27.40% 134 Physical Displacement 6.75% 33 Economic Displacement 13.29% 65 Cultural Displacement 2.04% 10 I have no experience with these 61.35% 300 1 prefer not to say 4.09% 20 TOTAL 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 64 Page 241 of 379 Q13 - If you you and/or the head of your household is employed in College Station but live outside the City of College Station, why? Select all that apply. Answered- 489 Skipped: 223 I live and work in College Station, so this question does not apply to me Cost is lower where I live Lifestyle is better where I live I am close to family/friends where I live I prefer the schools where I live Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES ' RESPONSES I live and work in College Station, so this question does not apply to me 65.64% 321 Cost is lower where I live 14.93% 73 Lifestyle is better where I live 4.91% 24 1 am close to family/friends where I live 2.86% 14 1 prefer the schools where I live 1.43% 7 Other (please specify) 21.68% 106 TOTAL 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 65 Page 242 of 379 Q14 - Solutions to housing and affordability challenges often involve adding more housing options to communities and neighborhoods. This section will ask you to indicate which housing types and for which resident groups are most appropriate in your current neighborhood, other neighborhoods in College Station, or nowhere in College Station. Indicate if the following types of housing are appropriate in your neighborhood, other neighborhoods in College Station, or not appropriate anywhere in College Station. * An accessory dwelling unit is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone (i.e., detached) single-family home. ** A manufactured home, sometimes referred to as a mobile home or trailer, are houses completely constructed in a factory and built on a fixed, steel chassis (rather than a permanent foundation). Manufactured homes are built to a national building code administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. *** A modular home is built offsite in a factory and assembled on a permanent foundation. Modular homes are built to all applicable state and local building codes. My neighborhood Answered:489 Skipped:223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 66 Page 243 of 379 Answered:489 Skipped:223 Other neighborhoods Not Appropriate Anywhere 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Answered:489 Skipped:223 80% 90% 100% 01/. 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 67 Page 244 of 379 . Duplexes . Triplexes Apartments . Tiny Homes . Manufactured/Mobile Homes . Modula Homes . Townhomes . Apartment . Separate Accessory . Accessory APARTMENT APARTMENT TINY SEPARATE (n BUILDINGS BUILDINGS HOMES ACCESSORY w UP TO WITH MORE (>500 DWELLING w LU 0 3 STORIES THAN 3 So FT) UNITS*, X X = NEAR STORIES ATTACHED w w Z MAJOR NEAR AND w O ROADS MAJOR UNATTACHED ROADS My 47.70% 25.75% 52.30% 31.98% 13.82% 22.76% 42.28% Neighborhood 176 95 193 118 51 84 156 Other 72.08% 55.85% 78.76% 65.63% 50.60% 51.79% 53.22% Neighborhoods 302 234 330 275 212 217 223 Not 7.84% 16.79% 4.48% 17.16% 36.57% 35.45% 28.36% Appropriate 21 45 12 46 98 95 76 Anywhere CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 68 Page 245 of 379 Q15 - On a scale of I to 9, where 9 means extremely important and 1 is not at all important, how important is it to you that College Station's housing supply includes the following types of homes? Starter homes for first-time homebuyers Answered:489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Apartments for young adults working or starting families in College Station 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 69 Page 246 of 379 Apartments, condos, and neighborhoods that appeal to millennials or young adults 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Apartments, condos, and neighborhoods that appeal to seniors C1T�i�l'�Z lilll'�i6I4l'A Housing that meets the needs of residents looking to downsize 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 70 Page 247 of 379 Housing that meets the needs of residents losing mobility and needing housing with no stairs Housing for larger households needing four or more bedrooms Housing for middle class families 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 248 of 379 Permanent supportive housing for homeless persons 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% V 1 1 1 1 Housing affordable to residents working in College Station public service/retail jobs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Housing affordable to residents living on fixed incomes like Social Security 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 72 Page 249 of 379 Executive/Luxury level housing Campus based or connected residence halls/apartments for students 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% .1 .2 .3 .4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 ■9 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 73 Page 250 of 379 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL Starter homes for first-time 4.50% 1.43% 2.04% 2.25% 7.98% 4.29% 10.22% 7.77% 59.51% 489 homebuyers 22 7 10 11 39 21 50 38 291 Apartments for young adults 6.34% 1.84% 3.07% 3.48% 10.43% 8.18% 12.27% 11.66% 42.74% working or starting families 489 31 9 15 17 51 40 60 57 209 in College Station Apartments, condos, and neighborhoods that appeal 9.00% 5.93% 4.70% 6 95% 12.27% 7 57% 12.88% 9.00% 31.70% 489 to millennials or young 44 29 23 34 60 37 63 44 155 adults Apartments, condos, and 2 86% 2.45% 5.52% 5.11% 12.27% 10.43% 15.34% 12.27% 33.74% neighborhoods that appeal 489 14 12 27 25 60 51 75 60 165 to seniors Housing that meets the 5.32% 3.07% 5.93% 6.34% 19.02% 11.86% 11.86% 10.02% 26.58% needs of residents looking 489 26 15 29 31 93 58 58 49 130 to downsize Housing that meets the needs of residents losing 4.09% 2.66% 3.27% 6.54% 11.04% 8.59% 13.70% 10.63% 39.47% 489 mobility and needing 20 13 16 32 54 42 67 52 193 housing with no stairs Housing for larger 10.22% 4.50% 5.93% 9.00% 15.13% 11.25% 11.45% 9.20% 23.31% households needing four or 489 50 22 29 44 74 55 56 45 114 more bedrooms Housing for middle class 1.84% 0.82% 2.66% 2.86% 5.52% 6.34% 11.25% 11.45% 57.26% 489 families 9 4 13 14 27 31 55 56 280 Permanent supportive 15.13% 10.63% 5.93% 5.93% 11.45% 7.98% 9.41% 5.52% 28.02% housing for homeless 489 74 52 29 29 56 39 46 27 137 persons Housing affordable to residents working in College 3.27% 2.25% 3.07% 5.32% 8.59% 7.16% 10.84% 11.04% 48.47% 489 Station public service/retail 16 11 15 26 42 35 53 54 237 jobs Housing affordable to 3.27% 2.25% 2.25% 6.34% 8.38% 7.98% 14.11% 9.82% 45.60% residents living on fixed in 489 16 11 11 31 41 39 69 48 223 comes like Social Security Executive/Luxury level 40.90% 11.04% 6.54% 8.59% 11.86% 4.91% 7.57% 2.45% 6.13% 489 housing 200 54 32 42 58 24 37 12 30 Campus based or 17.38% 5.11% 3.68% 7.16% 11.45% 6.13% 10.22% 8.38% 30.47% connected residence halls/ 489 85 25 18 35 56 30 50 41 149 apartments for students CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 251 of 379 Q16 - To mare College Station more affordable, I would be willing to... Select all that apply. Pay $25/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund Pay $50/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund Pay $150/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund Pay $200/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund Rent out part of my house to a family member, local worker, or student Meet federal and/or state guidelines that allow my rental property to be rented to a Housing Choice Voucher recipient Build an accessory unit on my property and rent to a family member or local worker Incentivize developers to create affordable housing Allow smaller lot sizes for single family homes Allow duplexes or townhomes in my neighborhood Allow a quad-plex rental building in my neighborhood Allow small lot (e g , patio homes) in my neighborhood Accept more on -street parking in my neighborhood Have a high rise (8-12 stories) rental complex along major streets Have a medium rise (3-5 stories) rental complex along major streets Have a medium rise (3-5 stories) rental complex in my neighborhood Nothing Other Answered 489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 252 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Pay $25/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund 24.13% 118 Pay $50/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund 20.04% 98 Pay $150/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund 12.27% 60 Pay $200/year more in taxes to support an affordable housing fund 16.16% 79 Rent out part of my house to a family member, local worker, or student 11.86% 58 Meet federal and/or state guidelines that allow my rental property to be rented to a Housing Choice Voucher recipient (rent assistance program from 8.59% 42 the US Department of Housing and Urban Development) Build an accessory unit on my property and rent to a family member or local 12.68% 62 worker Incentivize developers to create affordable housing 48.26% 236 Allow smaller lot sizes for single family homes 38.85% 190 Allow duplexes or townhomes in my neighborhood 32.72% 160 Allow a quad-plex rental building in my neighborhood 15.34% 75 Allow small lot (e.g., patio homes) in my neighborhood 36.81% 180 Accept more on -street parking in my neighborhood 16.36% 80 Have a high rise (8-12 stories) rental complex along major streets 28.22% 138 Have a medium rise (3-5 stories) rental complex along major streets 41.92% 205 Have a medium rise (3-5 stories) rental complex in my neighborhood 17.18% 84 Nothing 13.91% 68 Other (please specify) 13.50% 66 TOTAL 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 253 of 379 Q17 - Which types of housing assistance should the City of College Station invest in over the next five years? Select all that apply. Programs to ensure middle and low wage workers in College Station can live in College Station Programs to mitigate the risk of homelessness for low income families Programs to help low and middle income households transition to homeownership Discussing housing options for students, faculty and staff of local higher education institutions with campusadministrators Down payment assistance program to assist with purchasing homes Programs to provide affordable rental options Assistance for making properties more energy efficient Use of city unused owned land for affordable housing Tenant protections like rent increase notices and longer eviction notice terms Programs for employers to provide housing assistance to their low and moderate income employees Work with legislators to create more tools for affordable housing Financial and homebuyer education to assist renters to become homeowners Homeowner education programs to minimize existing expenses Programs to assist with renovations to make living spaces accessible Efforts to ensure that affordable infill homes maintain the character of existing neighborhoods None of the above Other Answered 489 Skipped 223 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 254 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Programs to ensure middle and low wage workers in College Station can live 64.83% 317 in College Station Programs to mitigate the risk of homelessness for low income families 52.15% 255 Programs to help low and middle income households transition to 59.51% 291 homeownership Discussing housing options for students, faculty and staff of local higher 43.56% 213 education institutions with campus administrators Down payment assistance program to assist with purchasing homes 46.63% 228 Programs to provide affordable rental options 48.67% 238 Assistance for making properties more energy efficient 40.70% 199 Use of city unused owned land for affordable housing 48.88% 239 Tenant protections like rent increase notices and longer eviction notice terms 0.00% 0 Programs for employers to provide housing assistance to their low and 37.01% 181 moderate income employees Work with legislators to create more tools for affordable housing 43.97% 215 Financial and homebuyer education to assist renters to become 43.97% 215 homeowners Homeowner education programs to minimize existing expenses (homestead 43.56% 213 exemptions, home repair, energy savings,etc... ) Programs to assist with renovations to make living spaces accessible (for 48.47% 237 elderly or persons with disabilities) Efforts to ensure that affordable infill homes maintain the character of existing 48.06% 235 neighborhoods None of the above 4.70% 23 Other (please specify) 11.25% 55 TOTAL 489 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 255 of 379 Q18 - Are there any housing strategieslideas you have seen in other places that would help us creatively address housing needs in the City of College Station? Answered:305 Skipped:407 Q19 - What is your vision for the future of housing in College Station? Answered:361 Skipped:351 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 256 of 379 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES General Survey Analysis and Responses to the Question "Are there any housing strategies/ideas you have seen in other place that would help us creatively address housing needs in the City of College Station?" 348 respondents gave an answer to the question "Are there any housing strategies/ideas you have seen in other place that would help us creatively address housing needs in the City of College Station?" (responses like "none" or "I don't know" were removed and not included) Here are the major trends in the responses: • 119 respondents mentioned needing affordable housing. • 16 other respondents mentioned that housing is currently unaffordable. • 56 respondents mentioned the desire to separate students from non -students in housing, frequently expressing the desire to see students live on campus or closer to campus. Increased density for student housing was mentioned often. • 52 respondents expressed the desire to see more housing density or a more diverse range of housing options. • 32 respondents expressed wanting more homeownership opportunities. • 27 respondents mentioned Texas A&M University and the University do more in the housing space • 26 respondents mentioned the desire to have transportation related issues, siting the desire to live closer to work, in more walkable neighborhoods, etc... • 21 respondents envisioned enhanced or protected neighborhood integrity and/or expressed a desire to maintain existing neighborhoods. • 21 respondents envisioned more affordable housing for college students. • Respondents expressed the desire for more housing options for the following groups of people: • 34 stated more housing options were needed for working families. • 27 stated more housing options were needed for low-income families. • 26 stated more housing options were needed for middle class families. • 14 stated more housing options were needed for young families or young professionals. • 10 stated more housing options were needed for seniors and/or persons with disabilities. • 18 respondents wanted to see less dense housing development moving forward. • 16 respondents mentioned wanting diverse or inclusive housing. • 12 respondents wanted to see lower property taxes. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 80 Page 257 of 379 Newly designed architecture. Everything need not be boring it's 2024. Let's make something beautiful and functional. Wide open roadways, no traffic, no smart streets (they didn't work in San Antonio 10 years ago ND they don't work here lol. I want to see communities coming together not standing apart. We need to do everything in our power to unifiy these twin cities and fast. 2. That I'm not in it. 3. A voter backlash on the idea of not increasing density. Density must increase in single family neighborhoods as the town grows. 4. Denser housing products closer to the university, asking the university to aid in infrastructure reconstruction in the older parts of town nearer the school. 5. Affordable, modest size homes for middle class families. 6. Appropriate housing options for all groups. Tax break options for builders and businesses in College Station. Over regulation is creating higher tax issues affecting current homeowners. Active living upgrades (walking trails, parks, event center programs, skating rink, etc...) 7. Affordable housing for lower income families. 8. Maintain the existing family neighborhoods and keep the current occupancy regulations. 9. Affordable, duplex and apartments. 10. Densification near campus, outside suburban areas with middle housing and mixed -uses (groceries). 11. 1 know it's hard to meet the needs of all the various populations, but I do think College Station is making a conscious effort to do so. 12. Less restrictions in housing areas close to campus, this has become incredibly complex! 13. Affordable housing for citizens not making 6 figure salaries. 14. A future where families can reside in safety im proximity to schools and services. 15. More affordable housing. 16. That safe and affordable options are provided to working families without 3-4x the income- it's a discriminatory practice. 17. Designing areas so that Heat Islands are not created, using environmentally friendly lighting to prevent skyglow, using energy efficient materials and require bird -friendly glass and designs to help migrating birds. 18. More affordable options and ensuring neighborhoods are up -kept. 19. Less college student centric housing options, more availability for young professionals and young families to enter the housing market. New homes that are affordable are not walkable. 20. That housing and living in College Station will become more affordable for ALL. That student housing will be addressed by TAMU to create more affordable on -campus living spaces. That neighborhood integrity will be upheld to maintain the "home" feeling of College Station. That taxes will be reduced OR that city funds will be more wisely spent to lower/stop increasing the tax burden on owners. That more housing options will become available for middle and lower income families. Let's keep the city family friendly and family focused, while also trying to accomodate our students with appropriate housing that doesn't flow over as much into established residential areas. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 81 Page 258 of 379 21. A wider mix of housing options for the young professionals who work in College Station. Whether it's Class A apartments that do not allow students, or more affordable first time homebuyer homes that are protected against investors. 22. There becomes more availability for those who are not super rich to still live somewhere decent. 23. To be affordable. 24. My ultimate vision for College Station is to have Southgate and Eastgate develop similar to Northgate. If that were allowed to happen, it would concentrate the student population around campus, allowing better commutes to TAMU and freeing up some of the congestion on the rest of the roadway network. This would also result in properties that are student rentals currently to be available for first time home buyers in areas near College Hills, South Knoll, and Southwood Valley elementary schools. 25. Have A&M take responsibility for housing their students. 26. Abundant, affordable, student housing options. On campus housing with kitchens. 27. Affordable. 28. Keep restaurants and housing separate. 29. More families live in the residential neighborhoods and communities. College Students live closer to campus. Every neighborhood has parks, sidewalks and bike lanes. 30. No particular vision for the community but my 5 year plan currently is to move out of College Station. Rising property taxes, a long with everything else, makes living here unaffordable. 31. More walkable neighborhoods and useful public transportation. 32. Improve housing to those who are house less, low to middle income as well as disabled individuals. 33. Well built generally, and with increased density combined with amenities like corner shops with a walkable community. Consider a role for public transportation. 34. Parks and Recreation could expand pickle ball and lap swim for the ever growing elderly population. 35. Honestly, anything ACTUALLY affordable that doesn't feel like it'll be turning into a slum in the next 15 years. It's harder and harder to afford to live in this city anymore. 36. Affordable housing options for low-income renters and homebuyers. 37. Gearing more towards the families that live here year round rather than the students that are here temporarily 38. More family homes vs the amount of student housing we currently have. 39. Somehow balance needs of students and full-time residents 40. We need to have a zoning for student housing specifically, wherein you can use portions of existing neighborhoods for denser types of development but still maintain areas where you can incentivize first time buyers and lower income resident families to live outside of those areas. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 82 Page 259 of 379 41. A place where those who live and work here are prioritized over glitzy living luxury apartments and large spacious houses that are too expensive for average workers and instead favor students who will only be renting temporarily. Affordable places for a family of one are almost always poorly cared for, in suspicious neighborhoods, or are so expensive they fall outside the range of what most jobs pay in this area. 42. Low to middle income service workers will be forced to live in poorly maintained homes or won't be able to afford to live in town. Housing - even for college students - is far too expensive. The average worker - even TAMU faculty - cannot afford housing. 43. Plant more trees, make it look better and have structures that look good after 10 years or more, and faddish. 44. Affordable housing for everyone. 45. Unfortunately I see what is semi -affordable housing being replaced with four and five bedroom rentals with little off-street parking. Try driving down streets in Carter's Grove! 46. More affordable/closer housing for TAMU faculty and staff. It was very hard moving to this area from out of state and finding housing that was affordable and close to the university. I would also love to see all TAMU students have access to affordable, safe housing close to the university. 47. Nice and affordable house both homes and apartments. 48. Less housing options that are being only geared towards students (Ag Shacks). There are apartment buildings and tons of housing options going up all over town for students but very few affordable options for young families in neighborhoods. The houses that young families could afford were bought, torn down, and developed for student housing. 49. Affordable for working families without taking over half of the paycheck. 50. None, I'm mostly concerned with my own family and neighborhood and having affordable options for middle class (say, family income $60-12Ok) families. 51. Work with TAMU to ensure that the city can handle the infrastructure needs of an ever -inflating (and transitory) student population. 52. Safe, clean, friendly neighborhoods that support the students, staff and faculty of the university. This will include a combination of single and multi unit structures. 53. To be a more inclusive community. 54. What the heck does this matter, the city will do what it wants. 55. More 3 or 4 bedroom homes in the 200-250,000 range. 56. A variety of housing options in walkable neighborhoods with close access to parks / green space, functional public transit, and restaurants / grocery. 57. We're going to need more affordable housing. 58. The way things are going, I see faculty and staff being pushed farther and farther from campus while new student housing developments are being built. Additionally, the housing market is terrible right now for buyers so many staff are renting too and don't want to be renting student housing apartments, but duplexes or triplexes for non -students. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 83 Page 260 of 379 59. Options for all levels. 60. All are welcome, all can afford to be here, College Station is MUCH more than just the home of TAMU. 61. More affordable options for both residents and students, however a greater focus on developing for residents who are paying taxes here year round. 62. My vision is the outcome caused by the plans I selected in q16. Being aggressive by building apartment units on major streets is unappealing to me. The city of college Station is a beautiful place to reside and getting to aggresive with housing efforts will result in unintended consequences as seen in other cities who have done so. 63. Uncertain. 64. Having an actual middle class, and homes that can be owned by families instead of corporations. 65. Available. Affordable. 66. We are running out of land. 67. Mixed use walkable dense infrastructure. 68. Family home neighborhoods not be infiltrated with students and minimal on street parking. 69. More affordable housing, less property taxes. 70. Neighborhoods maintained for families, areas of higher density housing, lots of apartments for students, affordable on -campus housing. 71. No more apartments. 72. Affordable homes instead of greedy. 73. Make it more affordable for all demographics similar to North Houston. 74. Strategy that encompasses all people of all ages, races, economical and social status. 75. Affordable housing for all ages. Especially those who make 50g a year or less. 76. To fill homes that are being built on south side and build more apartments for students close to campus. 77. Housing options available for individuals in every walk of life. Small, affordable housing units should be available in some areas, but not to the detriment of existing home prices in the immediate area. Mixing and matching single-family homes, apartments, and potentially micro -apartments within a very close area is likely to frustrate everyone involved. I also hope that affordable housing doesn't become the priority to the exclusion of options for others to build larger houses with a larger yards within the bounds of CS school districts for expanding families. 78. There needs to be a way to stop the 5/5 and up type housing for students in residential neighborhoods. It chases out other homeowners and drives up the cost of real estate making it very difficult to buy into housing when you are competing with rental units. 79. A place for all people regardless of income. 80. People work to afford what's important to them... CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 84 Page 261 of 379 81. A mixture of single -person rentals suitable for the large student population, small homes for individuals, and medium homes for families. 82. Equity. Maintain our green spaces in neighborhoods to draw people in. Rental property code enforcement that cares. 83. More affordable apartments, and "starter" homes, accessibility requirement requirements for all new housing units (bathrooms included), roommate friendly apartment and townhouses, as well as communities for disabled individuals and their families. 84. 1 would like to see students and lower income renters or homeowners comfortably and safely thriving in their neighborhoods and within the communities. Too many people are sacrificing groceries, foregoing meals and/or picking and choosing which bills are more important because the housing cost is too expensive and inflation is already unaffordable for most. This is a student driven town, there's no reason extra and unnecessary financial burdens should be levied upon young adults trying to attain a higher education. 85. Lower rent cost for affordable and stable home environments for all. 86. 1 wish there was just really good middle class starter housing. And, not built by cheap builders like DR Horton or in undesirable areas like the old race track. Anyone who has lived here knows that soil is questionable. 87. Affordable and accessible options for employees of the university who aren't paid well enough to afford housing. 88. AFFORDABLE. 89. Affordable and plentiful for people of all income levels without being forced into having roommates due to cost. 90. 1 honestly doubt anything will change tbh. 91. It needs to be more diverse and not cater to college students or people in high income earning brackets. 92. More Shared wall housing with an emphasis on acustic dampning on common walls, and a focous on home ownership rather than rentals. 93. Working class families can afford 3-4 bedroom homes. Without everything being catered to college students 94. To have more houses with larger yards under $300k. 95. Residents of CS would be able to work, send their kids to schools and live in CS if they s desired. 96. Don't want to spend 40% of my income on rent. 97. That it will be more affordable to live in a space that properly accommodates families, without sacrificing good schools. 98. Where low income students and non students can find housing and not have to choose between rent and food where they can choose to live alone. Less luxury housing and apartments and more units that aren't in disrepair because they were built in the 60s. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 85 Page 262 of 379 99. Not looking good my friends. I've lived in BCS for almost 20 years now. From 13 to 31. I've only ever seen this shit get worse, and I know y'all ain't incompetent or brain dead. Good luck, and may whatever deity you believe in have mercy on us all. Start getting ready for them homeless, and I really hope it isn't by criminalizing and dehumanizing them. Won't go well for this city if it does. 100. More affordable homes for middle class. 101. Rent to own. 102. To get the realtors out of the halls of government. To get Texas A&M to build on their land. If you are going to increase student numbers you must provide more housing period. 103. No property taxes. No zoning. Builders flock to this area and the supply increases and prices drop. 104. There needs to be more affordable options for homebuyers, we have plenty of apartments and student housing. I would like to see a return to 2 bed 1 bath smaller homes. 105. It's just going to get more expensive. Brazos county is one of the top most expensive taxed areas in the state. 106. More affordable and equitable housing options. 107. To break the $500 for a room and access to a bathroom mentality that keeps all prices inflated. Bring back studio apartments designed for one, maybe two, people which have fewer amenities and cost less. 108. More housing with adjoining walls to save energy on home energy expenses. 109. More homes (houses and duplexes) affordable for families (rental and to buy); less high rises and AgShacks. 110. Property taxes for houses which more accurately reflect property value: fewer exceptions to exclude some from paying; better alignment of market values and CAD appraisal values. 111. Less Students. 112. We don't have enough housing and the cost of living has gone up exponentially in the five years. If we want to both attract people and keep them, we need a variety of types of housing, more duplexes and townhomes, and they need to be at affordable prices. I'm a hiring manager at the university and I'm genuinely concerned that housing prices will deter candidates from moving here and have already seen it in action. I figure I've got 3-4 years before I'm basically priced out of the rental market here and just need to find a different job because living here has gotten unreasonable. I was College Station to be a place where people can both work AND live, because right now it's trending in a way that it will not be in the near future. 113. More single family homes that reflect the salary ranges of residents, not parents of college students. 114. Less luxury, prohibitive cost residential construction of houses and apartments. 115. 1 would like to see more affordable single bedroom and studio apartment complexes for students and young adults. Less single family homes and more duplexes and townhomes to cater to young working adults. 116. Affordability for middle class families who continue to struggle with inflation, cost of living and increased taxes. Local and State government need to intervene but unfortunately, money talks and pockets are filled to keep the status quo. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 86 Page 263 of 379 117. 1 would like to see a variety of housing options for smaller families/households such as retires, empty nesters, and young families/professionals that don't require large houses and that otherwise would live in apartments, condos, or townhomes. 118. It's bleak as long as the current mortgage payment for the average house in College Station will continue to cost more than my entire net income. 119. A debt free city with affordability for all income classes. 120. More affordable living so that the roots of this town being the locals can continue to enjoy this area. 121. Safe neighborhoods and apartment complexes with a focus on quality of life like parks, trails, safe biking, traffic easing measures, and preserving what makes living here a peaceful place. 122. No more new apartment complexes and lower taxes. 123. To have affordable housing and not need 14 roommates to be able to afford it!! 124. You pay for proximity. Places like Hearne, Snook, and Iola are very affordable. 125. As a person over 55 1 don't see much of a future in College Station the housing caters to students. 126. More affordable housing for single adults. 127. Need to control cost of renting. Cost to rent has gone way up with inflation, but wages have not keep up at all. 128. Affordability. 129. More mixed neighborhoods. Less sprawl. Housing for all income levels. 130. Smaller two bedroom duplexes really fit a need for many here. 131. More walk and bikeable areas. Higher density housing. 132. Maintain character of existing neighborhoods; do not build student housing (AgShacks) in existing neighborhoods. 133. There needs to be more regulation and accountability of developers and housing companies who continue to build more private student housing, but fail to maintain it so it becomes undesirable to students and the cycle of building the newer/better student housing continues. Our roads cannot handle enormous student complexes going in. 134. In general, more affordable housing for middle class. Most middle class adults live outside of the city, while students and upper class adults can afford to live in the city. 135. 1 don't have an answer yet, but as A&M continues to grow ... it's going to get worse. The university has to be a part of the solution. 136. There should be caps on rent, no discrimination against low income renters, more affordable housing that is also dignified to live in. 137. 1 see dense neighborhoods with mixed retail and living in the north and west areas of the city. I would love to integrate parks and green spaces to alleviate traffic and encourage less car dependent cultures. There should be small homes on small lots for first time home buyers. Apartments should be plentiful and cheap and well kept. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 87 Page 264 of 379 138. 1 think the infrastructure needs to be addressed before any new housing is developed. More small shops/cafes should also be dispersed in neighborhoods so we don't have so many boring square miles of nothing but single family homes. 139. Greater access to housing for all residents. 140. Affordable housing and good public transportation. 141. Density scaling with distance from Campus, NO single family exclusive zoning withing a half mile of campus. 142. Make housing more affordable for first-time buyers; make transitional housing accessible. 143. More affordable housing for grad students and other lower -income people without sacrificing safety or living in a heavily undergrad-based area. 144. Affordable housing regardless of demand. If companies can somehow be made to care less about their profits, the people in the city would have more money to spend on things besides housing, which would surely help the local economy. 145. Lower taxes. 146. Affordable homes in affordable neighborhoods. 147. As more seniors choose to retire in this area, I would like the city to place higher emphasis on senior living areas that are not multilevel, but consist of standalone homes for independent living. 148. That the City become more concerned with people who actually live here, not the students! 149. The future would involve stereotypical family neighborhoods with individual houses, other neighborhoods with multi -family housing, tiny homes on small lots, etc, with access to public transportation. These areas would have covered bus stops to protect from rain and sun. Really, the transportation issues should go along with the neighborhood planning issues. Younger people don't like driving, and seniors are less able to drive. But we have to factor in the summer heat and how to protect people who need public transportation. 150. Around 10,000 of our 31,000 family householders (>25yrs age) have incomes less than $45K/yr and cannot afford to compete with the typical rental cash flow from only 2 students ($1000/mo.). The cost of "tools" that essentially subsidize this group to compensate is unrealistic. Any strategy to provide this demographic affordable housing must isolate them from competition with students. The university's de facto housing strategy right now is to simply to continue to take our single family. New construction in Northgate with $1000/bdr/mo rentals provides no relief at all. Students will not pay that when they can simply take another house at $500/bdrm. Again, our lowest 10,000 residents cannot afford $500/bdrm. 151. Keep housing affordable for people that work here. 152. The city getting out of the way and letting the market take care of it. 153. No ag-shacks in established single family neighborhoods. 154. Vision of what's likely? More & larger freaking apartments. 155. A community that is welcoming to all. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 88 Page 265 of 379 156. Expand borders. 157. It shouldn't become another Houston, Dallas or Austin with all the high rises and no parking and parking garages everywhere. It should maintain a more country rural feeling with biking trails, green spaces, trees. Everywhere there is building the first thing they do is take down all the trees and add concrete. The current large housing complexes standard of construction is cheap and I would hate to see what they will look like in 10 years. 158. Keep single family homes and neighborhoods just that "single family" Work with the university and have them create more housing for students. 159. Market driven! 160. Control growth. 161. Maintain the family neighborhoods and keep college students out of these areas. 162. That the families living in a trailer park nearby will be able to find affordable housing at an acceptable place for an affordable price. 163. Housing for young families. Our schools are at risk of depopulating. 164. Affordable homes for families, get the housing prices under control so the taxes don't push us out to Navasota. 165. To have affordable housing to meet all citizens NEEDS, as opposed to their exorbitant desires. 166. Less students in my neighborhood. 167. Custom neighborhood. 168. Honestly I'm worried I'm going to have to move to Navasota to be able to afford to buy a house in the next few years. 169. Affordable housing for families. 170. An infrastructure that meets demand. 171. So focusing every building, every home, and every business around the students. There are families here as well and we are simply forgotten and ignored. 172. Everyone who wants someplace to live can do so easily. 173. Affordable housing for all! 174. Affordable. 175. To pay affordable rent in a decent neighborhood. 176. 1 would like to see neighborhoods that don't bulldoze every tree in sight to cram as many houses as possible in a neighborhood. A family should be able to move into a home with mature trees in the front and back of the home. 177. Keep nice neighborhoods intact. 178. For it to be better and more affordable. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 89 Page 266 of 379 179. Stop catering everything in this town to the university. Those of us that live and work here year round deserve better. I would like to see more housing options for families. The majority of rentals here are per bedroom so clearly aimed at students. 180. More focus on the people who are not students. Rent is really high and most jobs here do not pay a livable wage. I would love to see more efforts to support low income families. 181. Something affordable for everyone!! 182. Neighborhoods that are walkable, bikible, affordable, accessible for disabled/elderly, close enough to amenities (e.g., public transport, groceries). Not all has to be present in every neighborhood but there should at least be two/three of these in every neighborhood with a good mix of various combinations. 183. This is a growing community and likely will reflect larger urban areas with suburban type feel neighborhoods and more dense properties closer to the university and retail/commercial areas. 184. Students on campus. 185. More affordable housing for families less catering to college students. 186. Stop students and investors from taking over single family homes. Keep them in apartments or on campus housing. 187. 1 want to be able to afford to own a home in my own hometown!!! 188. Neighborhoods that are "luxury living" be left alone as luxury and utilize other city land that isn't currently being developed to cater to students and more "attainable" housing. 189. A good mix of neighborhood types, with different affordability levels, and assistance on a case - by -case basis. This should not detract from the character of existing neighborhoods, nor hinder development and improvement of areas. 190. No idea. 191. Inclusivity of all demographics in ideal. 192. Affordable housing for lower income families. 193. Everything is going to continue raising in prices. It is going to be more difficult for workers to buy homes in the area. TAMU is increasing its enrollment each year, but I don't know that the infrastructure can support the increases. 194. Invest in housing that will draw more people into College Station (Del Webb -type; combined shopping/education/housing sub -division. 195. More options, lower prices. 196. Absolutely zero corporate owned single family homes, and for Brazos County to reduce the land size necessary for Ag exemption. I also believe we need to adjust rent prices and potential fix them to lower rates and prevent owners from skyrocketing rent. We need to stop taxing people out of their homes, there is absolutely no reason to raise the value of a home that has had zero modifications done to it. 197. Affordable, and able to bring a diverse group of people. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 90 Page 267 of 379 198. Do not follow Austin's relaxing of minimum lot sizes, etc. 199. To be affordable. 200. To be more affordable. 201. 3-4 bedroom homes that are affordable ($260,000 - $330,000). 202. Family neighborhoods with sidewalks and schools nearby. Keep college student housing near campus. 203. A balance of off campus housing for students and single family housing for residents that's affordable. Not all students are rich and can survive rent charges as they are now and manyjobs for every day workers also can't afford rent around this area. Find the happy medium so more people are enticed to live in the city that are permanent residents. 204. Affordable housing WITHOUT students living in the neighborhoods. 205. Gee, good question. I would love to see the old neighborhoods preserved meaning restrictions put in place to protect them. Areas for affordable housing and affordable housing. Investors who live outside of BCS don't give a hoot about our neighborhoods or the people who live in them. 206. If the costs of living and the high utilities bills don't come down, my family of 6 will not be able to afford living here and providing a higher education for our children and our income is a little over 100,000. Thought that was great, but barely hanging on and we are frugal with our income. 207. Affordable home -ownership opportunities for all middle-class families. 208. Build less apartments 209. The University will step up with student housing innovation ideas and funding. 210. More areas where basic things that a family needs can be accessed without a car. 211. Natural. 212. A community where there are no vacant houses/bedrooms. There could be plenty of people in Pebble Creek or South Side who would actually want the extra income of renting a bedroom to a student. 213. The city not ruining what has made College Station what it is. 214. A variety of neighborhoods with some offering single family housing and some offering student housing. To maintain property values I would prefer that student housing is not mixed into single family home neighborhoods. 215. To install more drain pipes along the main road to decrease flooding. 216. Continue with neighborhood developments that have homes in the same pricing and square footage. Decreasing the size and pricing to sell property decreases the appeal to existing residents. Visions of developments are what appeal to new residents and changing those ideals /plans does not provide trust in residents of developers and the city of college station. 217. More affordable housing for middle income people. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 268 of 379 218. Hopefully, small 800 sgft -1,100 sqft but high quality patio home neighborhoods for downsizing, first homes, seniors, etc. And a mixture of mid -rise apartment buildings, townhomes, condos with walkable neighborhood amenities in other areas, and normal single-family home neighborhoods for traditional family living, and a bunch of higher -density student housing options near Texas A&M campus. 219. Higher density at the core. The new city building is an abomination sending the signal that we want to sprawl and we are willing to waste previous investments. 220. Efficient housing provided to all stakeholders of Texas A&M. 221. A fair housing Mecca where everyone who works can make it. 222. More housing types allowed. Working with the community to be more accepting of new housing options. 223. A safe, walkable, affordable city. Preferably with more starter homes too. 224. Municipal Utility Districts via Economic Development Agreements with the City. 225. Affordable single-family homes for low or middle income families. 226. More houses that are affordable for middle class families. 227. Not allowing AgShacks in single-family residential areas. 228. Affordable housing options for individuals who are just starting out their careers and want to be homeowners in safe residential areas/not student housing. 229. More affordable home prices and no property taxes. 230. Less parking requirements (closer to public transit and in bikeable, walkable friendly areas) will help with affordable housing. 231. Capacity increases in high -density areas, with an emphasis on quality of life. 232. Lower wage workers can afford to live in the community they serve. 233. Everyone being able to comfortably rent or own a home. 234. More affordable housing. 235. More 2 or 3 bedroom homes for people who aren't students in nice areas that are affordable. 236. To have more options on the outskirts of the city for housing on 1-5 acre lots. 237. More affordable rent options for upperclassmen, easier to own starter homes. 238. Would like to see it be more affordable for middle income families. 239. Keep existing neighborhoods in good condition and limit college students in family neighborhoods. 240. Diverse. 241. 1 wish houses were more affordable but also offered variety and character. Current housing being built looks cheap and cost too much. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 92 Page 269 of 379 242. 1 do not support tax money funding efforts to make the COCS a less desirable place to live. Affordable Housing means high density which means a strain on infrastructure: traffic, parking, electricity, water, etc. 243. Affordable housing for all: Students, Low, middle, high incomes. 244. My personal vision is to move out of the city limits. I am COCS employee and enjoy this city but cannot afford my rent & utilities. Without more affordable options or these new programs I have no other option. 245. Options for luxury affordable renting and buying options. 246. More affordable homes. Even Bryan has been building more affordable homes under 200k with smaller footprint for small families. All we have are 200/500k homes popping up in the area & I am flabbergasted at who can actually afford these homes and what jobs they have; because the jobs are no paying like that here. Especially faculty jobs in secondary schools. 247. 1 think there are too many instances in which new student housing is rolled out and old, dilapidated apartments are rented out using Section 8 vouchers. 248. More dense walkable neighborhoods in appropriate areas. Not just student housing, especially east of Hwy 6. 249. Mixed use and mixed income apartments, condos, and other forms of multifamily housing! 250. Students are primarily housed on or near campus. Housing prices would come down allowing more individuals to afford a mortgage. I am a clinical professor at TAMU and I can not afford to own a home because I am a single parent. Beyond housing, there is a large problem with transportation which is directly impacted by housing. Regardless of which government entity owns the roadways in which neighborhoods/complexes are built - if the road isn't suitable for the number of humans that will require its use because the housing has been built, that is a problem. This has been a problem for many years in the area. As a parent, I have found this issue to be more concerning as I consider the safety of the roads that kids walk along when going to and from school. 251. That more housing would be targeted for seniors and families. Mutli-student households, rent by the room and student targeted housing drive up the costs for families and non -student singles. There are many student complexes but too many students rent in family neighborhoods, drivibg up those rental costs and causing parking and noise issues. It is becoming harder for families and seniors to live here with so many things, housing included, targeted to students. While TAMU is important, the city needs to be attractive to all ages, notjust students. Other citizens often feel marginalized economically, socially, etc. since almost everything seems to be target towards TAMU. 252. Every family/citizen has a place to call home. 253. Slow down the student population from taking over family neighborhoods. Reduce the cheaply built homes with tiny lots that continue to pop up everywhere (Ag Shacks, Southern Pointe type neighborhoods, etc.). 254. Fair and affordable housing for all - alongside the options discussed in this survey, i believe the fair housing ordinance should be amended to include sexuality and gender identity as protected classes. 255. Whatever meets the needs of the people living here. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 93 Page 270 of 379 256. The city should get out of the way!! 257. Remove ROO, as 80% of residents voted against it, but was passed by city council do to their own and donor interests. More townhomes with consolidated parking. Allow for short term rentals despite the surplus of hotel rooms. Let the free market dictate the future. 258. Affordable housing maintained for all of the fast food, workers and low income university workers somewhere near the University. 259. A more walk -able city center with high-rise multi -family housing. 260. Housing is a need, not a commodity. Burst the price bubble. 261. With property taxes and higher utility bills, College Station is becoming less affordable every year. I believe many residents will move to better affordable areas outside City limits. 262. 1 am personally struggling to become a homeowner for the first time and I make well above the average salary in CS. I can only imagine people making less having little hope of owning a home. I'd like to see CS have students moving into the high rises and student complexes so that the "investors" from other cities who own a lot of the single family homes and multiplex houses will lower rents or sell to people who want to live locally here. We are losing a lot of money as a community with profits from rentals going to other cities instead of staying local. I personally want a house in town since I work in town and want a shorter commute. I would want people who work in College Station to be able to live in CS if they so choose. Many people who work in public service or retail can't afford to work here. We need to serve our citizens who make this city run much better. 263. It's only going to get worse. I don't have hope. 264. Affordable housing with small, fenced yards that welcomes pets. 265. More affordable options. 266. More ways for people to become homeowners when they can't come up with the cash needed. 267. Hopefully more affordable housing to own. 268. Too many houses on too small lots. 269. Increased pricing due to supply/demaind within a certain proximity of campus. 270. Balanced (demographically, racially) affordable housing sufficient to the need. 271. Build homes for low to middle class residents that are will to do there part in our Community and make a difference. 272. Scratch the new middle housing zoning. A serious mistake killing neighborhoods. 273. Preserve existing and expand family -oriented neighborhoods. ELIMINATE on -street parking for rental properties. Preserve historic neighborhoods. 274. When increasing housing, make sure the infrastructure can withstand the increase in population density. 275. Grim. 276. Choice in home size, lot size. We may not be able to meet all need within our city. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 94 Page 271 of 379 277. Truly affordable quality housing. 278. It is affordable. 279. High density on all sides of TAMU to provide more housing closer to campus and create less traffic. 280. Sadly, it's dystopian - undergrads will infiltrate Pebble Creek and Castlegate, and there will be high- rises everywhere. 281. Maintain the integrity of neighborhoods, make A&M responsible for some of the problems they are creating, make the building permit process easier for smaller/starter homes. 282. Bryan -College Station in 2024, with a population of-200,000lbs is approximately the same size as Austin, TX was in -1970. Our town will continue to grow as long as the state continues increasing enrollment at Texas A&M, which they've committed to do and we cannot stop. Please stop kidding ourselves by acknowledging that we are on that path, but we're going to provide the needed housing without increasing density. I know that a noisy bunch of voters think increasing density is taboo and ruining "neighborhood integrity," but please limit the amount of time that those exclusionists keep us on the current path of pretending that we can service a growing housing need without increasing density in single family neighborhoods. Try as we might: even lower income residents and students will pay a premium NOT to live in apartment complexes. That means the current growth pattern of College Station is increased suburbanization (more and more people commuting into the city center from afar), which generates infrastructure, traffic & transit challenges. Look for ways to increase density and decrease regulation, fees & taxes; that will increase housing affordability for all classes of our population and avoid the coming traffic crises that we're running into, as long as our voter base is adamantly opposed to increased density in single family neighborhoods. 283. Expand high occupancy overlay to include more housing especially closer to campus. 284. Housing attainability for first time home buyers, low to middle class citizens. 285. Inclusive housing. 286. Abolish No More Than Four. 287. Diversity. 288. Well, we have a housing crisis and rent keeps going up. Families can't afford to live here anymore, which means it's harder to make the move into homeownership. 60-70% of single-family homes in B/CS are rental units. It would be nice to have some stability of single-family homes for families, not "starter homes" that cost $450k+ with 7% interest rates. Homeowners also don't want to invest in a poorly -crafted home that we are currently seeing being built in our area. If a house can be built in 2 months, it's not going to last. I'd be worried about the integrity and longevity of the neighborhood. 289. 1 would like to see renovation of existing apartment complexes to encourage full occupancy instead of constant new construction of infill housing that eliminates homes suitable for families. 290. Higher density apartments within a mile of campus, duplexes/townhomes within 3 miles, and keep the low density detached homes >3 miles away. Geometry does not support low density homes for everyone near campus. 291. All types of housing options should be available with a reasonable cost. 292. One where people working and studying here can actually afford it without thousands of dollars in debt to loans to pay for their housing, whether it's in dorms or an apartment or a house. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 95 Page 272 of 379 293. Home owners and college students mixed neighborhoods. 294. 1 know that the future of College Station is big. High rises are already being built all over town. I hope that I can preserve my area as single family and welcome the growth all around me.:) 295. Put the affordable housing as close as possible to Navasota. 296. Have three goals: 1-save existing single family neighborhoods (allow either four or two if ROO). Work with University to create affordable housing for students (University of Texas gave money to this). 3-Upgrade dilapidated apartments for students 4-Keep duplexes/townhomes for working class but require rental inspection to make sure landlords aren't taking advantage of people 6-Build high rises along Harvey 7-Create bike paths that connect all parks close to University (Brison to Tarrow), (John Crompton to Wolf Pen along Wellborn), (all along Anderson to Bee Creek), (Brison to Gabbard) -this would allow for students and working class to bike; provide incentives to businesses to upgrade facades and provide incentives to apartment buildings to upgrade making their properties suitable for students and working class families, plant trees everywhere, build mixed use in West Park, keep your historic neighborhoods. 297. TAbet home developments group homes for elderly starter homes for new middle income homeowners. 298. A mix of housing types where walkable connections exist and encourage socioeconomic mixing in public "third places". 299. 1 wish I could afford to live here. 300. The city will have to have more decent areas with income restrictions to keep housing affordable. 301. 1 am working in neighboring communities. As long as elected officials and employees have the attitude that they know best without asking for input from real professionals, the problem will only get worse. CSISD will decline and the city will be forced to raise taxes to just keep it's head above water. 302. 1 would love to see more options for elderly people that do not look like nursing homes. 303. Walkable. Mass transit. Green. 304. Let the free market work! Work with developers to build more houses! 305. There would be low income housing options in every neighborhood, not just in isolated areas. It is better for the community as a whole if we are all living among one another, and not pushing others to corners. 306. A mixture of all types of housing options. More dorms for A&M students. 307. More requirements and laws to keep property owners who rent their facilities responsible for the upkeep of them and to not gouge renters. Should be a maximum percentage they can increase rent. 308. More single family starter homes that are well-built. 309. Clean and neat. 310. More family oriented neighborhoods with less student renters. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 96 Page 273 of 379 311. A place where those who work and live here permanently have affordable choices and don't have to compete with investors (both in and out-of-town) who are just making money from renting to students. 312. Neighborhoods where people walk and know each other. 313. College students not living in the middle of single family neighborhoods. 314. No more high rise apartments. 315. More affordable family homes in nice neighborhoods. 316. Housing options for new professionals, low income earners. 317. Affordable. 318. Don't dump student apartments, housing in existing residential areas. 319. Quality!!! Not Aggie Shacks! 320. Less rent by room apartments and more family friendly places. 321. Spread it out. 322. Enforce current zoning laws. No more ag shacks. No more high rise apartments. 323. New neighborhoods of attractive inexpensive housing that has guaranteed maintenance. 324. Don't know. 325. 1 am afraid the city will become a slum with low end housing and no place for professionals to live. TAMU will not be able to attract talent to work at the university if there is no housing for them and their families. THe city is destroying nice neighborhoods with rezoning. 326. You need to work with the university, which keeps expanding enrollment, to get housing options for students near the university. The city also needs to learn to prioritize the needs of permanent residents over the needs of students who are only here for 4-6 years. Some neighborhoods are being destroyed with rental homes with multiple students. The permanent residents should come first. And stop raising property taxes. 327. A&M build More affordable dorms/apt for the students so that students are not taking all the affordable housing in the city. 328. Nothing good. The developers own the city/county government. 329. 1 would like my children to be able to afford housing here without being house poor. Wages have not kept up with housing prices or property tax increases. 330. 1 think the City is on the right track - encourage TAMU to build more on campus facilities and require Freshman to live on campus. 331. The traffic problems in Collee Station are affecting the housing situation. 332. Make the university invest in more student housing, either on- or off -campus. 333. Students living in dorms and apartments instead of taking up all of the affordable housing space. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 97 Page 274 of 379 334. Slow housing growth. Make things city wide more energy efficient. 335. Hopefully not all cheap student housing. 336. Neighborhood integrity, with A&M taking the lead on providing affordable on -campus housing, and contributing to city infrastructure to help provide housing options for their junior staff. 337. 1 is to expensive for me to live in this City with HOA's & Taxes. 338. Neighborhoods with greater variety in options so people who are different are living as one community, rather than separate. 339. A city that enforces zoning codes for different economic levels. 340. Create separate neighborhoods for students, and provide new neighborhoods for senior living. 341. Student and family lifestyles don't mix. We need neighborhoods for one or the other, not both. 342. Lots with mature trees, native bushes and plants, creative planning. 343. Maintain quality housing standards by builders in both low and high price point homes. 344. Locate students close(r) to A&M in higher -density buildings/complexes, demolish low-income apartment complexes (such as along Harvey Road) and replace with "downtown" type development similar to Century Square, add new construction in the $300-$500 range that has 1 acre lots (instead of squeezing as many houses into new developments as possible). 345. More affordable. The city in general, is thriving off of students who relocate every year and limit options for residents who want to stay long term. 346. An affordable place for all people. 347. STUDENTS STUDENTS. 348. My hope is that it would not look cluttered but that we would be flexible in helping all age groups not just students. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 98 Page 275 of 379 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES General Survey Analysis and Responses to the Question "What is your vision for the future of housing in College Station?" 193 respondents gave an answer to the question "What is your vision for the future of housing in College Station?" (responses like "none" or "I don't know" were removed and not included) Here are the major trends in the responses: • 34 respondents suggested increasing housing density or creating more mixed use housing. • 18 respondents suggested that Texas A&M University become more involved providing housing for students and employees. • 15 respondents expressed how expensive housing currently is. • 13 respondents suggested creating small or tiny home communities. • 12 respondents suggested revitalizing existing neighborhoods and focusing on neighborhood integrity. • 12 respondents suggested creating homebuyer assistance opportunities. • 12 respondents suggested improving transportation as a way to address housing issues. • 12 respondents suggested providing incentives and/or help to developers to create housing. • 10 respondents suggested creating affordable rental housing. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 99 Page 276 of 379 All we need now is land... We don't need power, we can use solar, we don't need water if there is a natural well. We don't need sewage we can use septic systems. The septic systems will take care of yard watering. But maybe instead of building apartments, we build something better. Multiple single fam houses on a large swath of land that is used as communal. I don't know a single person who wouldn't rather live in the country and see the stars than 6 ft from the 400k dollar house I just bought to the one right next to me. Took me 25 years to save up and get this first home too. And I may not be able to keep it one day. I would like to help though, I am a troubleshooter and have a great many ideas that may be useful. Just no way to implement. 2. No. Just let the free market work! As soon as homes start becoming harder to sell, prices will fall. 3. Lower taxes via more frugal local public spending. 4. Stop raising taxes! I can afford my mortgage payment but the taxes are so high now it's a struggle to afford to live in CS. I can't sell either because there is no affordable housing elsewhere (not even to rent). 5. Smaller house neighborhoods (upper scale) to support downsizing and the elderly (retired) population. 6. Enforecement of reguations when people violate the rules. 7. Eliminate single-family zoning and allow middle housing to be built in any neighborhood (duplex, triplex, townhomes/condos, small apartments). Done in California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Maine and countless cities in the US. 8. Our daughter worked with the Human Resource Council in Missoula, MT. They are using some creative techniques to address housing needs. I've also been following Houston's attempts to address the same issue in Houston Chronicle articles. 9. 1 have seen the use of 3D printed homes reduce construction costs. 10. Limit how much rent can go up annually! Stop the landlord preference. Stop allowing slum lords to exist! 11. The city needs more parks that people can walk in - not parks that are just for sports. There are so many people living in apartments that don't have parks nearby to get outside safely. 12. Tax incentives for developers. Building fee reduction or forgiveness. Expedited review processes. 13. We need to increase property taxes for rental homeowners. The housing market is too competitive for first time homebuyers that get out -bid by multi -million dollar investors who want to make a quick buck off their rental properties. The city needs to prioritize local young professionals that are considering moving away from College Station because they can't afford to buy their first home. If there was less incentive for investors to buy houses and rent them out to students, more young professionals would be able to continue to work and live in College Station. 14. Stop allowing so many luxury student apartments. Everything is either super expensive or an unfit place to live. 15. 1 believe the Texas Ave/University plan is a great idea to encourage mix -use development with high -density of housing units, but there is no incentive for a developer to take that plan and run with it. Something that large would take one or two big developers to acquire all that property to have it work as intended, and there are too many barriers for anyone to attempt it. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 100 Page 277 of 379 16. Incentives to landlords to take housing vouchers (section 8). 17. Smaller lots and more density with larger, accessible common areas. Public transportation that eliminates the need for two -car households - that extra car payment can go to a house payment. 18. Tiny home communities for house less or low income/middle income. 19. Look at the programs in Houston and San Antonio. 20. 1 think you are creating "needs". We have dozens of new (last 10 years) apartment complexes, condos, new neighborhoods (midtown). Developers and bank lending drive this, the City could excel and providing excellent roads, utilities, parks, swimming pools (a lap pool would be excellent) since Bryan Aquatics is always packed and stay out of funding housing. We see where Fannie Mae got us. 21. Mixing young adults and elderly in living spaces: search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US885G0&p=elderly+living+with+young+adults 22. Designate districts in which students can reside/incentivize investors into specific areas and rezone some of them to allow for multi -tenant situations. You need to segregate family neighborhoods from student neighborhoods especially for lower -income families. 23. Affordable housing for faculty provided by or in collaboration with the university. 24. Yes, better mass transit. Bring back trolleys to move people around town. 25. 1 feel like the 4 room apartment complexes have jacked up normal apartment housing costs. 26. Move the students out of established residential areas. 27. Stop catering to investment companies. 28. Smaller master planned communities with variety in housing types and included commercial/retail amenities. 29. Mixed use walkable dense development, please! 30. Provide housing for people who have criminal histories w/out having to pay triple deposits and denied housing simply because of a past criminal history. 31. Universities typically provide lots of student housing. Build affordable housing further from campus and invest in stellar public transit to campus. 32. Parking hubs for public transport so that people live in suburbs/exterior and can more easily commute in. 33. Housing that can be purchased for the same amount that we pay for rent. 34. Assistance for property owners who rent to others. Allow homestead exemption. 35. Micro -apartments for low-income individuals or students. Oregon and Washington state have recently begun using these. 36. A&M needs to provide more "on campus" housing. 37. All apartments should be mixed incomes. 38. Caps on rent based on median income and caps on rent increases based on inflation. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 278 of 379 39. Rental discounts for employees. I worked in a school in Houston and I got a 15% discount on rent because of it. 40. If we had a better bus/transit system over all, less people would need cars, and people would have more income to cover rent. 41. Taxing properties and apartment units that sit vacant for a certain amount of time to artificially inflate pricing and keeping the demand high and the supply of houses low. It is a very common practice, especially for apartment rentals in College Station. 42. Tiny homes for low income. 43. 1 know some neighborhoods in College Station require that an owner live in the home, even if other rooms are rented out. So many of the starter homes are rented out year after year, completely trashed, then placed up for sale. First, we have to compete with investors who have more money. Then, if we do find a home we can afford, it is so trashed we can't afford repairs. 44. Work with the university to freeze the increase in admissions of students so the housing market is destroyed for the employees who make their education possible. The housing market is oversaturated with too many students and this attracts investors trying to turn a profit because students' parents will pay exorbitant rents. 45. Capping the allowable annual rent increase at a percentage of the existing rent; passing laws to prevent landlord collusion /price fixing (they all agree to increase the rent to something no one can afford); more condos/townhomes that can be rented or purchased; fewer HOAs - they're predatory and I refuse to pay into one, which seriously restricts my buying options. 46. Stop letting realtors buy up single family homes to rent to students instead of long-term residents. 47. 1 think there needs to more zoning areas for manufactured or modular homes. 48. Rental Caps. 49. Stop allowing per bedroom rentals of single family homes, limit the number of short term rentals (air bnb etc) in neighborhoods. 50. A bad strategy from Provo, UT (BYU): They have many small homes, 3-6 bedrooms, where students rent out a room. Extremely inefficient and causes massive parking issues with 3-5 cars per home. I see this beginning to happen in my neighborhood. In general, the biggest gap I see is affordable places for those who have recently graduated college (i.e. working their first job, graduate students, oftentimes trying to start families). Or just places for college students whose parents don't pay their rent. Almost every affordable place requires having at least one roommate which is not ideal for people trying to start their lives (and maybe a family) in college station. 51. More options to have affordable modular homes on land. 52. Strong incentives for infill development and redevelopment rather than sprawl, i.e., encouraging densificiation and providing more housing options at the same time. 53. Tiny Homes. 54. UBI has already showed results in areas of Texas. It improves quality of life and goes to mostly rent and bills, you'd have less stressed out workers and students, able to do more good in their lives, meaning more good can be done for our community too. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 102 Page 279 of 379 55. Less homes that rent by the room which seem to be eveywhere. 56. Rent to own would help out a lot of people. 57. 1 got assistance buying my first home and it set me on my way to more wealth. It was an older fixer upper and I got a low interest loan from the county to rehab the house thus adding value and desirability. The houses on glade street are tired for instance. Don't let developers tear them down giver first time homebuyers a chance to buy low and rehab. We need to get students back on campus and families back in college station homes. Discourage football houses! 58. Get rid of zoning. Let the market decide. Central planning has a terrible track record we are living with now. 59. Don't allow or remove Residential Occupancy Overlays that decrease the number of people allowed to rent/live in a house, thus driving up the cost of rentals. 60. Support for staff working in k-12 schools. 61. Allow tiny homes; have better (more) public transportation. 62. Improve walk/bike access to grocery stores. 63. Right now growth of the university outpaces available housing. Landlords have also gotten greedy and prices to rent an apartment have gone up astronomically in the last few years. I've actually considered moving to Magnolia because it's cheaper and because I don't have to deal with the absolutely strange rental market because of all of the college students and summer rentals. I work at the university, but to move from my current Bryan apartment to a duplex in College Station, the College Station duplex is will require 150 days notice if I don't want to renew my lease. It's ridiculous. At this point, I would like for the university to build housing for faculty and staff, which is done in other places that are usually considered high cost of living. It's getting unafforable to live here. We also need more on campus or close to campus housing for students that is affordable. We need something similar to the Barracks, but for faculty and staff. There's no way I would live there as a non -student, but the idea is nice. 64. Mixed use zoning in high density areas so businesses can exist on ground foor of >3 story apartments. 65. Introduce legislation or city ordinance to ban private equity firms from buying single family homes and renting them at an exorbitant cost. 66. Middle housing options other than large student houses in neighborhoods. 67. No, I just want to be able to afford to live where I work AND afford a family. 68. Reduction of debt carried by the city would allow more tax revenue to be used to assist the citizens of BCS. 69. Incentivize redevelopment of the run down areas, stop letting pockets of crime areas spread and chase the crime out, not the middle class. This town needs more quality of life focus in its development and redevelopment, notjust money grabs and a push for growth, growth, and more growth. 70. No more apartments. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 103 Page 280 of 379 71. Yes stop catering to the students and realize other people live here too that make a middle income with little to no options for housing!! Make it make sense!! 72. Look at living on the outskirts of town. 73. Convert vacant office buildings to housing. 74. 1 think a tiny home village like the one in Willis/Conroe area would be nice to have here. 75. Expand out to rural area to build more apartment to give people more options rather than having to live in the city. 76. Tiny or small (2 bedroom or less) home neighborhoods. 77. Raise property tax rates along with homestead exemption amounts to discourage absentee owners and encourage owner -occupants. 78. Tenants rights organizations have cropped up across the country lately and the most important work has been to protect tenants from landlords and rental agencies exploiting them. We should work to prevent landlords and rental agencies in the city from raising rent arbitrarily and refusing to meet living standards. 79. Mixed -use developments with shops on bottom and apartments on top are very successful. Removing parking mandates allows for densification and better public transit. Developers should be incentivized to have mixed -income developments and reserve units for affordable housing and to accept Section 8. 80. Mixed use developments, 4 over 1 style apartments (4 levels of apartments over 1 level of shops). 81. Improved public transportation helps housing that is farther away from shops/work feel closer. It some cities, they have light rails which connect neighborhoods with areas to shop and/or work. Buses would work too. They just have to run often enough that you can get places relatively quickly. When traveling, distance is measured in time. Another idea might be to restrict short-term rentals, like Airbnbs. Some cities impose the same tax rates on vacation property owners that hotels are subject to. This increases tax revenue for the city, while discouraging short-term rental properties. Other cities require the host to love in the unit they're renting out. These restrictions would open up housing availability and lower housing costs for residents looking for homes to purchase. 82. Implement a Land Value Tax. 83. Smaller units for less people in relatively dense, walkable areas. Instead of creating luxury living locations around campus to entice the students of wealthy families and donors, the living areas around campus should be kept at lower prices to maintain the college station's viability for medium and low income renters/homeowners. Instead of keeping competitive, large complexes around campus raise prices after arguing demand, but that just isn't sustainable if you're considering the community trying to move into this town - mostly broke college students. 84. Keep neighborhood integrity. 85. 1 would like to see items already on the books enforced. Neighborhood integrity absolutely depends upon homeowners and renters. If the homeowner is renting it out, keeping up maintenance and attractiveness of each dwelling place whether it be a house, and apartment, or a duplex. Letting people get away with having trash in the yards unkempt yards, and obvious more than allowable people living in a place should be actively enforced and fined. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 104 Page 281 of 379 86. Yes, STOP THE AGGIE SHACKS... you are destroying our neighborhoods. 87. Adapting old, vacant buildings into multi -family residences - for instance, old malls developed into senior residences, especially ones in the Netherlands which are contained cities that allow people with dementia to have a semblance of normal life. 88. Virtually all other college towns with out student ratio limit occupancy of ALL single family housing to 2-unrelated so that working class families can compete. That may not be the answer, but the sharp contrast with our attitudes toward working class families make the point that we are not even having an honest conversation about root causes - and don't plan to. The lack of affordable housing for lower income is due to "student gentrification". We only have 24,000 single family homes. The university has operated on a for -profit model for almost 2 decades and their profit is maximized by taking more family neighborhoods rather than plan and invest in appropriate, higher density housing (4-5 story apartments). We don't necessarily want them to own this housing, but we do need them to find ways to incentivize it. Other university towns have. 89. 1 do not believe the city should be involved in this activity. 90. Let the market decide - the government should stay out of it! 91. Priortize the needs of the poor. 92. 1 attended the University of Alabama, they had "University Housing Zoning" that allowed up to 5 unrelated in a single family home, but the rest of town was strictly enforced to no more than 2 unrelated. It worked well. 93. Married student housing and No More that 2 unrelated zoning. 94. Having housing units above retail spaces. 95. Master communities with amenities. 96. Limit houses used for temporary rentals such as Air Bnbs. 97. Underground living options. 98. Mixed use spaces. 99. Rent is just too high for single moms. 100. Rental options is not the option. People could afford a mortgage if they weren't paying $1500/month in rent that does not allow them to save for a home down payment. 101. Less taxes means more people can afford to own their own home versus renting. 102. All I can say is Texas A&M should realize it coexists with BCS and get involved in this strategic action plan in a meaningful and constructive way (which also includes spending money)! 103. If the need is more affordable housing then areas of new development should be developed. This survey will provide information only if you get it to the people who actually need more affordable housing. Not sure how you are doing that. 104. Mixed use residential/commercial. 105. Redevelop the mall into a mix -used planned community. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 105 Page 282 of 379 106. CAP THE RENT before CS is infested with homelessness!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CS has so many Californians Moving here and making our homes unreachable for Texans!!! 107. Spreading out the assistance to different areas instead of concentrating it in small areas (like affordable housing apartment buildings). 108. Yes ... in Chicago, and in San Francisco. 109. We need to put a stop to the slums and dilapidated houses from being rented. We need to mandate all rental properties are to undergo a thorough inspection from an independent licensed home inspector for safety and serviceability every 3-5 years. We need to demand that companies and property owners are mandated by law to maintain homes for safety and serviceability. We need to mandate properties be built with extra insulation and in an energy efficient manner, especially for mobile and modular homes. 110. 1 have personally seen the problem of short-term rental companies coming and buying up all the affordable housing leaving nothing left for the people who live and work in the local area. Because they are a company and have more loans and financial leverage, etc., they are able to place the highest bids on houses which push out the regular everyday people who live and work here. Regular families aren't able to compete with corporations, LLC's, etc. Because they are short term rental, they can earn 2-3's the amount of long term rentals. It's just completely unfair. 111. Tiny home villages. Theres also a dementia village built in the Netherlands that may be a good idea for elderly persons as a model set up. 112. No building student housing or apartments near family residences and schools. 113. Advanced transportation between apt complexes,the university and grocery store. Incentivize apt dwelling with amazing transportation. 114. Mixed -use housing with commercial space on the 1st floor. 115. Bigger lots. 116. Give existing homeowners the ability to gently upzone their properties by right. City-wide, single step, by -right upzoning. If you have a single family neighborhood, allow ADUs/duplexes. If neighborhood is duplexes, allow triplexes. And so on. Use gov't funding and other incentives to focus on lower income existing homeowners so they can afford to do the renovations/building needed to create the additional housing on their land. Focus on homeowners creating rental opportunities. 117. Support existing zoning and opposed rezoning of already planned neighborhoods. 118. Incentivize developers to build 6OOsgft -1,100 sqft patio homes perfect for downsizing, first homes, affordability, great for seniors too, and low maintenance. Not everyone wants or needs a huge house and the financial burden. Provide small but quality, energy efficient homes with small private yards, covered back porch and garage/covered carport off-street parking. These patio home neighborhoods can provide common green spaces/parks and walking trails/sidewalks. 119. There are many aspects that go into creating an affordable community including walkable amenities, good mass transit, and bikes as a means of transportation. Affordable housing also depends on developers paying their fair share so that existing housing is not subsidizing new sprawl development. 120. Innovative ADUs to take advantage of leftover land, parcels. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 106 Page 283 of 379 121. East Austin homeless housing project. 122. Reducing the regulations/restrictions to reduce barriers to development. 123. Incentives for accessory dwelling units. 124. Allow shared housing in all multi family districts. 125. Strong partnership with habitat for humanity. 126. Force developers to make wider streets in newer neighborhoods so parking is allowed on the street. 127. Student housing should be kept near campus or Highways only. NOT single family neighborhoods. 128. Yes! Tiny Homes aka Pocket Neighborhoods. 129. Less "builder" homes and more normal homes. 130. Allow developers with affordable housing community ideas to build new developments that include whole foods. 131. See notes above; I've been watching the housing developments in Hempstead and Montgomery for the past seven years. The homes are two bedroom "tiny homes" but bigger than 500 sq ft/ less than 1000 sq ft. Modern amenities, small yard footprint, cheaper/affordable for small "professional" families. Or building more townhome/condos specifically for the same type of family. Specifically for families and not student -driven. 132. There was once discussion of using existing TAMU land to house students. The issue for residents of the city, especially single moms, is that most rental properties charge per room. This makes sense with college students but for a single mom with multiple kids - that is untenable. If we could creatively house a majority of students on existing TAMU land, rental and mortgage prices would fall allowing working residents an opportunity to live a more healthy, sustainable life. 133. Generational homes. 134. Addressing/discouraging crime in less expensive neighborhoods. While more affordable, these neighborhoods tend to have high crime rates. It seems like the "safest" neighborhoods are most often the most expensive. 135. Let the market dictate what housing prices are and what types need to be built. 136. Cut regulations and zoning that limits what people can do with their properties. The free market is more nimble than gov and will resolve any need that is there!! 137. Incentivize developers with tax breaks, recruit companies to move to CS so students stay after graduation. 138. Use of high-rise multi -family housing in city center. 139. Austin - bond issue for funding low income repairs. 140. High-rise buildings are a very good solution, as long as there is ample parking and the City can support the utility and roadwork needs of the community. 141. Making laws about residency. So many homes are being purchased by people who don't live here but are using the properties as AirBnBs for gamedays. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 107 Page 284 of 379 142. Repurposing existing, empty commercial buildings to apartment complexes. 143. A program like Habitat to humanity they help people Built homes. 144. Convert vacant motels into affordable housing for low income or homeless people. 145. A city/county that is not jacking up debt constantly. 146. Evaluate what is truly necessary in what is required for developers to provide finished lots, and the code requirements for builders. 147. Tiny village home community. 148. Teacher housing grants/loans. 149. Abolish CSAN. 150. Incentivize Builders and developers to build small affordable homes on smaller lots by waiving permit and impact fees and other costly requirements. 151. No. CS's housing problems could somewhat be addressed by the university controlling their population. A&M knows they don't have the infrastructure, nor do Bryan/CS to handle the ever increasing student population. 152. Yes: stop erecting new restrictions. No more than two unrelated for housing adjacent to Texas A&M... decreasing density and increasing the amount of commuters trying to get to campus daily? -please abandon these policies which only increase traffic problems and exacerbate housing affordability. 153. Block no more than four ordinance. 154. Incentivize to build instead of adding to cost with regulatory fees. 155. Abolish No More Than Four. 156. Stop over -regulating. You already had to repeal the STIR regulations. You should repeal the ADU regulations as well. Allow residents to have more options and flexibility. 157. 1 see the same sized homes/plans from builders in Houston, building here and the prices here are $1OOk+ more than the Houston area. Start with speaking to the builders about why. Is it purchasing land, infrastructure, utilities? What is making CS so expensive to buy com-pared to municipalities that are around our size? Ex.) Gehan Homes. 158. 1 would like to see grants to remodel/repair older homes in stable neighborhoods so that buying an existing home isn't as daunting for low-income families. 159. Shift the Property Tax to a Land Value Tax, or a split rate tax. 160. Not that I can think of. 161. You have two separate issues: 1-creating student housing and 2-creating affordable housing. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. For students, updating old structures/buildings to create apartments/condos. For affordable housing, Tucson, AZ updated the downtown barrio area without displacing residents. 162. Group homes for elderly with altzhiemers 163. Eliminate parking minimums. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 108 Page 285 of 379 164. Universal Basic Income. 165. The city should not have restricted duplexes and fourplexes in south College Station as the town was growing. Allowing those on the edges of newer neighborhoods would help. 166. You might try working with developers to see what land is available and let us have some input. Some of us deal with raw land and others are good at infill. 167. Houses made from shipping containers for low income population. 168. Probably but I can't remember yet. I'll have to email later. 169. Current apartment complexes designating a number of units to be rented at lower cost for low income families; tony home neighborhoods for low income or homeless (can be used as a transition housing accompanied with other programs); churches building affordable housing on their unused property. 170. Tiny home communities for the homeless. 171. Prevent renting by the bedroom in established neighborhoods, make A&M provide more student housing. 172. Venice Community housing - intensive case management; wealthy donors. 173. Tiny home communities, master planned townhouses off of Wellborn. 174. No but it's way too expensive here and I will have to move if nothing gets done. 175. Keep government out of homebuyers business. 176. More single level patio home communities for seniors not ready for senior retirement housing. 177. 1 don't care but stop raising my taxes or I won't be able to live here either. 178. No. I've run a non-profit affordable housing company, and I think what is important to the citizens that don't need affordable housing is that the affordable housing that is built, stick built, manufactured, whatever, is that it, and all the property it sits on, will always be well maintained, lawns mowed, flower beds clean, etc. There needs to be something similar to the permanent maintenance trust established for cemeteries, with strong enforcement provisions. Plus, of course, assurance that police enforcement will be strict. In summary, the problem most affluent folks have with affordable housing is how it's going to look years down the road, and will it create social issues. The actual type of housing is not the real issue. 179. There should be private/public partnerships to build housing near the campus. The City should not rezone and destroy neighborhoods where people already live with the expectation of single family housing. Students would be safer in dorms/apartments on campus. 180. Stop raising property taxes. 181. Tiny Hope Village in Hearne, TX. 182. A&M needs to build apartment complexes run by university that are affordable. No more stealth dorms. No airbnb in neighborhoods. No more students buying family homes. 183. Permanent housing for the homeless seems to work best for homelessness issues. It provides an address, which then allows the individual to apply for assistance programs that they need. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 109 Page 286 of 379 184. Universities should build affordable housing on campus. 185. More financial and retirement planning education. 186. Keep housing affordable for single families. 187. Other Texas cities spend much more wisely. 188. High rise student housing. 189. Preserving existing neighborhoods. 190. Do not destroy the older neighborhoods. 191. Allow remodeling only if it matches the existing character of the neighborhood. 192. Provide more dorm options for university students so you avoid having to displace students who live in limited non related households. 193. Annex areas around the city to provide more affordable housing. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 110 Page 287 of 379 File - : 4 I STUDENT SURVEY SURVEY RESULTS QI - Where is your residence? Answered 1,637 Skipped. 0 College Station Bryan Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES College Station Bryan Other (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 86.32% 13.13% 0.55% 1,413 215 9 1,637 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 111 Page 288 of 379 Q2 - Which institution do you attend? (check all that apply) Answered:1,636 Skipped.1 Texas A&M University Blinn College Texas A&M RELLIS Sam Houston State University Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Texas A&M University 99.63% 1,630 Blinn College 1.53% 25 Texas A&M RELLIS 1.71% 28 Sam Houston State University 0.06% 1 Other (please specify) 0.24% 4 TOTAL 1,636 Q3 -Are you an undergraduate or graduatelprofessional student? Answered:1,635 Skipped:2 Undergraduate Graduate or professional student 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60', 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES ' RESPONSES Undergraduate 74.07% 1,211 Graduate or professional student 25.93% 424 TOTAL 1,635 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 112 Page 289 of 379 Q4 - Are you married? Yes 0 M Answered:1,636 Skipped:1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Yes No TOTAL RESPONSES 5.87% 94.13% Q5 - Do you have dependent children? Yes No Answered 1,637 Skipped 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 1.95% No 98.05% TOTAL 96 1,540 1,636 32 1,605 1,637 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 113 Page 290 of 379 Q6 - Are you a full-time or part-time student at your institution? Answered 1,636 Skipped:1 Full-time Part-time 0°% 10% 20% 30% 40°% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Full-time 96.09% 1,572 3.91% TOTAL 1,636 Q7 - Have you applied for and been deemed eligible to receive a Pell Grant? A Pell Grant is a need -based federal aid for students in college or other post -secondary education to help low-income student pays for college costs. Answered:1,634 Skipped:3 Yes No Not Sure 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70°% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 20.20% 330 No 72.71% 1,188 Not Sure 7.10% 116 TOTAL 1,634 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 114 Page 291 of 379 Q8 - Are you a first generation student? The Higher Education Act of 1965 and 1998 defines a first -generation college student as "a student both of whose parents did not compete a bachelor's degree, or in the case of students who live with and are supported by only one parent, a student whose only such parent did not complete a bachelor's degree." Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Answered:1,635 Skipped:2 0% 10% 20% 30°% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 22.26% 76.45% 364 1,250 Not Sure 1.28% 21 TOTAL � 1,635 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 115 Page 292 of 379 Q9 - Which option best describes your residence? Answered:1,634 Skipped:3 University residence hall/dormitory University owned apartment Private rental apartment Private rental — single family home (rented with other students) Private rental — single family home Private rental — duplex, triplex, condo, town home, or accessory dwelling unit Sorority/Fraternity House Personally owned residence - house, condo, townhouse, duplex No stable residence Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES University residence hall/dormitory 11.44% 187 University owned apartment 2.63% 43 Private rental apartment 41.00% 670 Private rental — single family home (rented with other students) 20.99% 343 Private rental — single family home (renting space from non -student who also lives there) 1.59% 26 Private rental — duplex, triplex, condo, town home, or accessory dwelling unit Sorority/Fraternity House 15.06% 1.71% 246 28 Personally owned residence - house, condo, townhouse, duplex. 4.10% 67 No stable residence 0.18% 3 Other (please specify) 1.29% 21 TOTAL 1,634 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 116 Page 293 of 379 Q10 - What are your most important factors when searching for potential housing? Choose your top five. Answered 1,637 Skipped 0 Price Proximity to campus/academic buildings Access to transit to campus Property amenities (pool, free coffee, gym, etc) Proximity to public amenities (gym, bars, restaurants, parks, etc) Safety Proximity to work Size of space Physical condition/modernity of space Living around other students Proximity to grocery stores Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Mw-RESPONSES Price 97.25% 1,592 Proximity to campus/academic buildings 85.52% 1,400 Access to transit to campus 48.44% 793 Property amenities (pool, free coffee, gym, etc...) 21.01% 344 Proximity to public amenities (gym, bars, restaurants, parks, etc...) 19.30% 316 Safety 72.51% 1,187 Proximity to work 20.16% 330 Size of space 55.71% 912 Physical condition/modernity of space 65.97% 1,080 Living around other students 27.12% 444 Proximity to grocery stores 31.15% 510 Other (please specify) 7.27% 119 TOTAL 1,637 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 117 Page 294 of 379 Q11 - What is a deal breaker that would prevent you from selecting a certain housing accommodation? (Select all that apply) Sharing a bedroom Sharing a bathroom Sharing a unit (but not a bedroom) No kitchen No laundry facilities in unit/on premises Not within walking distance of campus Not within biking/skateboarding/ hoverboarding/scooter distance to campus Housing being on-campus/university owned No easy access to grocery stores Lack of high speed internet Lack of electronic capabilities Neighborhood looks old and run down Lack of adequate security None of the above are dealbreakers Other (please specify) Answered 1,635 Skipped:2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 118 Page 295 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Sharing a bedroom 67.22% 1,099 Sharing a bathroom 35.84% 586 Sharing a unit (but not a bedroom) 6.67% 109 No kitchen 83.67% 1,368 No laundry facilities in unit/on premises 83.12% 1,359 Not within walking distance of campus 14.01% 229 Not within biking/skateboard ing/hoverboarding/scooter distance to 19.69% 322 campus Housing being on-campus/university owned 14.56% 238 No easy access to grocery stores 27.95% 457 Lack of high speed internet 68.50% 1,120 Lack of electronic capabilities (able to control lights, sound, temperature, 23.98% 392 locks with cell phone) Neighborhood looks old and run down (buildings or streets in disrepair, 50.95% 833 paint peeling, poorly tended vegetation, etc...) Lack of adequate security 61.65% 1,008 None of the above are dealbreakers 0.43% 7 Other (please specify) 5.87% 96 TOTAL 1,635 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 119 Page 296 of 379 Q12 - On a scale from I to 9, where 9 means very interested and I is not at all interested, how interested would you be in living in this type of housing? University -owned residence hall Answered 1,624 Skipped:13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% University owned apartment/suite 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 120 Page 297 of 379 University partnership with an off -campus apartment complex 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private apartment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80°% 90% 100% Private single-family house 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 298 of 379 Private duplex 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private rowhome/town home Private accessory dwelling unit (a smaller unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 122 Page 299 of 379 .1 .2 .3 .4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 ■9 ANSWER 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL CHOICES University -owned 40.95% 13.18% 11.33% 6.65% 9.54% 5.42% 4.25% 3.57% 5.11% 1,624 residence hall 665 214 184 108 155 88 69 58 83 University owned 20.33% 9.61% 10.72% 9.43% 13.12% 10.54% 10.78% 7.02% 8.44% 1,623 apartment/suite 330 156 174 153 213 171 175 114 137 University 13.13% 4.25% 7.58% 8.51% 12.02% 14.00% 16.52% 10.48% 13.50% 1,622 partnership with 213 69 123 138 195 227 268 170 219 an off -campus apartment complex 3.21% 1.11% 2.16% 4.50% 8.32% 10.05% 17.76% 18.87% 34.03% 1,622 Private apartment 52 18 35 73 135 163 288 306 552 Private single- 5.75% 2.04% 3.46% 3.09% 6.18% 7.05% 11.56% 14.35% 46.51% 1,617 family house 93 33 56 50 100 114 187 232 752 5.44% 2.35% 2.84% 5.07% 9.70% 11.06% 17.61% 16.93% 28.99% 1,618 Private duplex 88 38 46 82 157 179 285 274 469 Private rowhome/ 4.88% 1.61% 2.90% 4.45% 7.91% 9.57% 17.36% 17.79% 33.54% 1,619 townhome 79 26 47 72 128 155 281 288 543 Private accessory 15.54% 7.31% 10.65% 11.27% 13.25% 10.90% 11.02% 7.24% 12.82% 1,615 dwelling unit ( 251 118 172 182 214 176 178 117 207 a smaller unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home.) CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 123 Page 300 of 379 Q13 - How often do you worry about affording rent or housing? Answered:1,631 Skipped:6 a. Never b. Rarely c. Sometimes d. Often ja e. All the time ME 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES a. Never b. Rarely c. Sometimes d. Often e. All the time TOTAL Im- RESPONSES 12.63% 14.59% 31.09% 25.08% 16.62% 206 238 507 409 271 1,631 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 124 Page 301 of 379 Q14 - What types of rental assistance programs would you be interested in? Answered.1,126 Skipped.511 Programs that provide affordable rental options Education programs to minimize existing expenses (home repair, energy savings, etc.) Tenant protections like rent increase notices and longer eviction notice terms Assistance for making properties more energy efficient Employer assisted housing programs Programs to match students with local senior citizens who want to rent a room in their house to a student on= 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Programs that provide affordable rental options 92.90% 1,046 Education programs to minimize existing expenses (home repair, energy 44.14% 497 savings, etc...) Tenant protections like rent increase notices and longer eviction notice 1.15% 13 terms Assistance for making properties more energy efficient 35.35% 398 Employer assisted housing programs 26.47% 298 Programs to match students with local senior citizens who want to rent a 21.76% 245 room in their house to a student TOTAL 1,126 Q15 - Do you have any additional thoughts about housing that you would life to share? Answered:602 Skipped:1,035 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 125 Page 302 of 379 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES Student Survey Analysis and Responses to the Question "Do you have any additional thoughts about housing you would like to share?" 460 respondents gave an answer to the question "Do you have any additional thoughts about housing you would like to share?" (responses like "no" or "not at this time" were removed and not included). Here are the major trends in the responses: • 160 respondents mentioned housing or rent being too expensive. ■ 13 of these stated that there should be rent control measures ■ 14 of these mentioned that their fixed income (mostly graduate student) was not enough to pay for housing. • 115 respondents mentioned the no more than four unrelated occupancy restrictions negatively, requesting the rule be abolished or changed. ■ 5 respondents mentioned the no more than four unrelated occupancy restrictions in a favorable light. • 63 respondents mentioned transportation related issues, siting issues with traffic, walkability, public transportation (including bus routes), parking, and affording a vehicle. • 38 respondents mentioned difficulties with landlords and property management companies. Issues with maintenance, responsiveness, and general fairness were noted. Some stated the need for tenant protections. • 34 respondents stated that density should be increased, specifically around campus. ■ 11 respondents made comments that were opposed to increased density, stating concerns with loosing the character of places like specific neighborhoods or areas like Northgate. • 30 respondents expressed a desire to live close to campus. • 21 respondents mentioned the desire for certain amenities like recycling/compost, space for pets, pools, gyms, community space, etc. • 16 respondents mentioned safety concerns, especially in areas where housing is affordable. • 15 mentioned issues with leases, mostly that lease terms do not match academic semesters. • 14 respondents stated that older, more affordable housing is undesirable because of it's condition. • 10 responded that it is difficult for international students to navigate the housing system. • 10 graduate students responded that it is difficult for them to find housing that meets their needs. • 6 students with families responded that it is difficult for them to find housing that meets their needs. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 126 Page 303 of 379 1. As a Student looking for affordable and safe place to live. 2. BCS is already over built and yet housing prices keep increasing. There needs to be a halt on building more housing and have the current ones re-newed. We are forced to pay for the expensive apartments because the cheaper ones are sketchy and most likely infested with something. We are already in debt from paying tuition, we shouldn't be forced to pay $1,000/month for a decent room. 3. The rent is super high in CS N Bryan. With the on going recession it is hard to live with the cost and rent. It would be easier if the rent can be managed under 500 for a single family apartment. 4. No enough cooking place. 5. Build more missing middle housing, densify around campus in existing single-family neighborhoods, build protected bicycle lanes. 6. Want to live close to campus. Please allow me to live close by sharing a house with my friends! 7. The more free the market, the easier it'd be to alleviate this issue. 8. The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek is horrid and should be shut down. 9. Rent has gone pretty high. It should be regulated. 10. Leasing contracts are for a complete year, not for the months during which the apartment is used. Also, subleasing is not easy to achieve. 11. 1 think there should be more housing real estate close to campus so people can walk and easily transport. 12. Having low noise level areas, close to nature, only 1 roommate. 13. 1 think more freshman -only dorms should be constructed, to ensure that incoming fresh -man who want the full on -campus experience get the chance to partake in it. 14. Need one semester leases. Off campus housing is too expensive, paper cheques are used for deposits. Need to provide info to international students without guarantors. 15. Things are getting expensive and i am just so stressed. 16. Don't be afraid to exercise eminent domain and purchase houses from homeowners (mainly seniors) in order to best serve the community. Awkwardly placed homes and suburbia is a massive factor on why the United States rates badly in terms of walkability compared to places in Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc. 17. Housing/Apartment expenses are rising everywhere. It is becoming difficult to be a full time student who has a part time job trying to pay rent. 18. Affordability is the top priority for me and I think everything else can be managed. 19. Please eliminate "me + 3" too many students are suffering as a result of this. 20. Students cannot afford the increase in prices that is happening everywhere for no apparent reason. My apartment increased rent by 100$ for next year all because "everyone is doing it". It is unfair. 21. There needs to be a lot more student housing close to campus. The no -more -then -four policy is harmful to students, who make College Station what it is. Car ownership is prohibitively expensive and not an option for many students, and bike lanes and walkability needs to be improved all around campus. Lower speeds and mixed use development along George Bush Dr would encourage a healthy level of development in this area. College Station has the opportunity to benefit from the 70,000 students that attend A&M. Making the city more livable and affordable for students and young adults is a smart way to capitalize on College Station's greatest asset. 22. The price of housing continues to rise and has pushed me out of college station. Because tamu doesn't pay enough and there's been no cost of living adjustments made. 23. Existing off -campus student apartments need to be inspected for mold and leaks, and property owners required to fix these issues. 24. Allowing companies to tear down cheaper housing in order to build student housing close to campus is not the answer. 25. I'm not opposed to living around high-rise apartments or single family homes, but I prefer living in mid -rise housing. In my personal, subjective perspective, I perceive high rise apartments as demeaning the individual overly much while single family homes and other low density housing options prioritize the individual too much at the cost of a vibrant public/social life. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 127 Page 304 of 379 26. The college station housing mafia is an absolute pain in the ass. The best thing the city could do is prevent corporate ownership of housing communities. Ever since I moved into an apartment with an actual landlord that I could hold accountable (instead of some "community director"), my renting experience has improved DRASTICALLY. The four -bedroom apartment I just moved out of hiked its rent by about 80% over the course of three years. I found a privately owned SINGLE -BEDROOM place for a little above half that price. 27. 1 believe there should be more places that offer housing opportunities further away from campus, but at lower prices. Currently, most private apartment places have similar prices regardless on their location. 28. While we are seeing a large amount of complexes being built, all of these units are unaffordable. Low Income Students have to take out loans or work a ridiculous amount of hours to pay for housing. 29. More high rise apartment buildings and removal of amenities is not the answer. Rent price control is. 30. College isn't just for 20 year olds anymore, needs should be fix more around 30-50 year olds who are finishing up. 31. There is a large international student community in College Station, programs to help them find affordable housing, understanding and signing lease terms and understanding overall costs associated will help. 32. Not a big fan of car dependency. 33. Housing is overpriced in CS and Bryan. Crazy how Reveille rd has so many vendors to live there. 34. College station is a city that is growing fast. With this growth I think we need to prioritize housing. I am in favor of creating more density, especially near and around campus. When it comes to the Northgate area, I believe a plan similar to the one that was layed out for West Campus in Austin would be great for Northgate. That plan has been a resounding success and been a boom for the local area while promoting housing and restaurants. For the other areas surrounding campus, such as east of Texas and south of George Bush, we need to promote density. Far too much of this area is R1 zoned. This is some of the most valuable land in the city and building denser housing should be legal and easy. These areas don't need to be consumed by 5 over 1 apartments, but even something like making large areas near campus available to build duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and ADUs. I also believe infusing amenities into these areas, (allowing through zoning), will make these areas more vibrant and exciting for students. If we can increase the student population near campus, we can increase the amount of students biking and walking to campus. This will be a great benefit to a city who sees its traffic volumes increasing every year. Additionally, if we keep college students near campus, we will keep college students from "infiltrating" family areas which I know many locals do not like. Additionally, if we upzone areas near campus that are high student population, there should hopefully be little resistance because students who are renters don't care about their "neighborhood character" being destroyed. To sum up my beliefs in one sentence, I believe the key to housing in College Station is abundant housing and housing that is dense and centrally located around cam -pus. (Sorry for spelling and typing errors. This small text box is not easy.) 35. Better bike infrastructure to in from campus would solve the transportation solution to campus 36. 1 am an exchange student. There needs to be more options that are only 4 monthly leases not 6 monthly I will be leaving the country but will have to pay a further $2,000 on rent. Also the bond situation and payments are difficult, there should be ability for bonds to re -turn to international accounts. The amenities have been amazing making up for the high cost. but $1,100 just to live close to campus is very high. 37. Safety of a resident is my top priority, if there is not security 24/7 there it can be very scary, there has been times that I have been walking to go to work at 5am and there are people on campus that do not look as they belong and it is scary. I want to feel safe. ALSO remember traditions. 38. 1 would like more properties to offer recycling and composting. 39. Some of the landlords at apartments around campus are super sketch. Students have no other choice but to live in these places since there doesn't seem to be enough housing. They also don't seem to have the resources to do anything when the landlords don't hold up their side of the lease. Part of the issue with housing actually revolves around traffic. I currently live a mile from the bush school and it takes 20 minutes to get there depending on when I leave because of the traffic crossing harvey mitchell. I'd be willing to live farther away if getting to campus was easier (or bike friendly). 40. No more than 4 makes it extremely difficult to afford a private house. Safe, nice, wonderful homes that have been able to be lived in by college students, will be unaffordable in the future. 41. Please stop putting such huge high rise apartment complexes around campus, it takes away from what makes college station the beautiful city it is. Please have concerns about the fact that many affordable housing options for students are in areas with recent shootings. Please focus on affordable but well built housing, a lot of options available (whether marketed as luxury or affordable) are poorly constructed and will not stand the test of time. This will only cause further problems to the city down the line when the cardboard houses and complexes have to be torn down and rebuilt far too soon. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 128 Page 305 of 379 42. Don't get rid of NorthGate. You'll lose students. 43. Most of the leases seem to be fixed term, which is far from optimal as I will be moving out in early May and lease ends at the end of July, so I have 2,5 months of unspent housing. My visa (I'm an exchange student) does not even allow me to stay in the country that long. The housing process to my current private townhome apartment was also difficult, as I did not have any US -based information, such as social security number or even phone number before getting here. In addition, the housing complex seem to prefer phone calls over emails, which is again not good if you're living across the world. The housing costs are also major, distinctively higher than in my home country, compared to the level of accommodation. 44. Access to housing and how nice the apartment is very important. 45. Maybe there could be a policy to prevent that all houses in College Station become rentals. I think some management companies are taking over and not leaving affordable housing, not only for students but also young couples who want to start a family -like myself and my fiance! 46. 1 find it problematic how much parking we set aside without considering that the space used would have been better used. Parking lots for the apartments take up significant space making them un-walkable. 47. Covered parking is certainly something I think many students consider and would appreciate having access too. 48. My major concerns with housing are affordability (graduate students, especially in the humanities, do NOT get a large stipend), safety, but also a quiet situation so I can do work at home. It's VERY hard to find housing that meets all three of these criteria in the BCS area, which is shocking considering the amount of graduate students likely looking for something similar. 49. In the last few years, rent has gone up a lot, but graduate student stipends have not kept up. 50. Housing is becoming pretty expensive from past few years. As a graduate student with very limited par -time salary it is tough to manage expenses. 51. 1 want a space with the freedom to cook, play music and participate in my recreational activities that fit my life style. 52. Yes swimming pool and work out. 53. Affordable price. 54. Landlords in College Station take advantage of the students who lease from them. 55. Utilities are very expensive:( 56. In apartments, make sure to leave some nice walkable space outside where I can walk around, chill, sit, and look at nature. 57. More than 4 people should be able to live in a house. 58. College stations tendency to push away it's homeless problem to Bryan and erase visibility of its poverty without effectively addressing the causes of its poverty. I volunteered at a local homeless shelter and learned just how difficult it is for non students to not only rent in the college station area but how vicious the system is to the underprivileged. If you lust have a eviction on your record it can be almost impossible to get a lease or a landlord to help you. There seems to be little to no rent control which causes rent to increase just for the fact that other complexes charge higher values with no genuine competition in the market. the majority of rental properties from what I've seen are not locally owned but corporate owned which leads to a investment attitude towards the living situation of students which doesn't always align with the well being of the community. 59. Rent is beginning to get way too high. 60. Housing sucks here. 61. 1 am very disappointed that the city is taking actions that are hostile to students (no more than 4) rather than developing actual solutions to a growing population. Road conditions are also a contributing factor to housing selections, BCS has poor road quality. 62. Maybe get rid of non family rental restrictions. 63. It would help a lot with rent to be able to live with more than 4 people. 64. 1 think more should be done by the city to protect students from predatory housing/apartment management agencies. 65. All private apartments price gauge and don't really provide anything in return. 66. 1 have seen the costs of my unit alone rise $250 over the 4 years I've been in college. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 129 Page 306 of 379 67. The "no more than 4 rule" makes it extremely hard for us students to get housing close to campus at a decent price while also mitigating traffic congestion around the BCS area. Many houses are made with more than 4 bedrooms in college station and they can be used. The housing problems will only get worse if the "no more than 4" rule is enforced any longer. 68. High rise apartments on Northgate are ridiculous and not a solution!! 69. Prevent the large overseas rental companies from coming in and massively overcharging rent thereby artificially inflating the entire bcs rental market. 70. It would be a good idea to set up some dirt cheap areas; not very pleasant but helps people like me who aren't super picky with housing and don't have a lot of money. 71. College Station should repeal the rule that only allows four unrelated students to live together. This is a pointless restriction that drives up the cost of rent for students at the lowest income level. 72. Less luxury house and more affordable housing please.:) 73. Get rid of No More Than 4 rule. 74. With the lack of housing close to campus, why is enforcing the 'no more than 3 unrelated people living together' rule so important? 75. This city is doing an alright job. 76. The maximum number of unrelated people in one house being 4 people is counterproductive, makes housing more expensive, and is not practical for a college town with 70,000 students. 77. Keep/make it cheap. 78. Regulate these apartment management more and have them stop taking advantage of students. 79. Inexpensive but also still good quality. 80. 1 think the on campus housing (dorms) need to be updated as many of them are quite old. Additionally, because the number of on -campus housing available is less than the number of students attending Texas A&M, I think the city/ university should inform incoming first year students of the available options to them. This is especially helpful for those who cannot afford on campus housing. As the years go by I have noticed on -campus housing as well as housing options right outside of campus increase rent prices dramatically each year. I think the city should think about putting a rent ceiling on apartments near Texas A&M's campus as it is getting to a point where it might be impossible for self -funded students or single parent students to pay those high prices. 81. Housing is becoming extremely expensive, and students have to rent. Apartments are taking advantage of this need. 82. Discourage the destruction of College Station landmarks for poorly built high -density housing. RIP Hurricane Harry's 83. 1 understand that housing is cheaper when 4/5 people live in a 4/5 bedroom house. But, even though college station is a student town, there are families here, older people, the city needs to consider the consequences of building all this student accommodation which may not be used for families. Additionally, no one wants to live in a town were every second building is a dorm, or student filled apartment complex, or the huge skyscrapers that are now towering over Kylie Field. Keep the town small and quaint -that's why people love it. 84. It feels like housing is a race to secure a location/finding something at an affordable price. It is hard to know who to trust and if pricing is going to be consistent across years. 85. It is insane that if we want to live within a walking distance of campus we have to pay as much as the rent is. This is not fair to those who cannot afford it or cannot commute to campus without accessible transportation or walking distance. Just because them hey don't have $500+ extra money to put towards rent. 86. Housing in Bryan/College Station is a huge mess and costs a lot for students and families living here or trying to live here. 87. I'd like a good -landlord certification system. 88. Activities in the housing community. 89. It is getting so expensive, and my parents already pay for my college. I don't have to pay for my housing, but for those who do it's such a stressor. My parents can't afford all of this. It is a college town, and I feel that the college students should be prioritized. 90. The house law for only 4 really targets students and is not fair. 91. Access to food and cheap college meals, more dining halls or places to eat open at later times for students. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 130 Page 307 of 379 92. This country at large is facing a huge housing shortage, and I see it right here in College Station too. I fully support and policies that build more housing, especially higher -density or affordable housing over single- family homes. 93. Please stop building over behind northgate the traffic is horrible and it's just too expensive. Focus on building far enough away where it can be a little more affordable. 94. No more apartments, tell A&M to stop letting so many students in. 95. The rule against no more than four unrelated tenants in a house should not exists. 96. No more new townhomes! The college student housing market is pushing out the socioeconomically disadvantaged families of the BCS area. 97. Limits on how many people can stay at a house. 98. 1 would prefer single parent families in the area to still be able to afford housing and not be pushed out. 99. 1 think there should be more options for college students with pets. So many properties either don't have backyards or do have backyards and do not allow pets. They also love to charge many unreasonable and hidden fees to college students not realizing some of us pay for everything ourselves. 100. Don't add rules and regulations like California. Don't get in the way of private industry. Government involvement has a 99% statistical correlation to price increases in goods and services. If you want cheaper housing then lower the bar to entry for building new private residences. Do not subsidize. Do not regulate. Do not be California. Thanks Gig'em! 101. Build more apartments near campus such as Rise and Aspire along University Dr. 102. Hope apartments don't run out the bars/restaurants near university dr. 103. Rent costs in town have skyrocketed. The government could cap Rental prices for certain units. 104. 1 just housing near campus that doesn't cost thousands per month without including parking and utilities. I don't get how the prices are as high as back in Austin but every place pays less. 105. Eliminate the No More than Four Ordinance. It's a legitimate burden on low-income students. 106. Affordability is definitely the biggest concern, especially among graduate students (that I've talked to) - this is mainly dealt with through multi -student households and rentals, so having units available is crucial for us, especially something close enough to campus to commute easily without driving. 107. Being able to walk to class and host groups is very important to me. 108. I've been a graduate student for 7 years and I've noticed that rental prices are decreasing yet our graduate stipends are staying the same and are below the living wage threshold in BCS. If possible, BCS government should advocate for livable wages among TAMU graduate students and staff, so that they can afford to live in the area. 109. Top building more apartment buildings that end up increasing rent everywhere. If I was not about to graduate in the next year I would be extremely concerned about finding a safe place I could afford. 110. If northgate is redeveloped, keep the first and maybe second floors of these buildings as bars. 111. 1 appreciate that the local leadership has continued to approve the construction of many new apartment buildings near campus. This has helped keep the cost of living down to a degree and gives students great housing options. That said, the cost of housing near campus has grown exponentially each of the last five years I have lived here. Any measures that Bryan -College Station leadership can take to keep housing costs near campus low would be hugely important to students. 112. 1 think student should be able to live with more than 4 non related family members. 113. My housing preferences have changed from undergrad to grad; as an undergrad, I liked living near other college students and being closer to campus. 114. Walkability and mixed use zoning are most important. 115. Rent has been steadily increasing each year and does not match wages in the area. It feels as though agencies and landlords are exploiting college -age renters by making them pay more, especially those without credit. If you do not have a stellar credit score at this age, you likely have to pay twice the price of the deposit. 116. No more than four is an abomination and produces great burden on tenants, land -lords, and the area as a whole. 117. Too expensive for something nice and safe. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 308 of 379 118. Yes- housing prices in College Station are absolutely ridiculous, especially for the quality of housing that is available. The provision that only allows four unrelated tenants on a lease is also ridiculous, especially given the amount of five bedroom homes in college station. If we were able to have more than four people on our lease, people in my house could share bedrooms and ease renting and utility costs for all of us. 119. The four only rule is tyrannical. 120. Currently student on campus in corps, upon graduation intend to move to Bryan. 121. Biggest issue is affordability and availability. I feel as though more students should live on campus in their underclassmen years rather than jumping straight into on campus living. It provides the true college experience and teaches one how to respect the space of others. 122. One challenge I see is that the 'affordable' options are not really suitable for students as they are generally further away from both grocery stores and campus. I would love to see some densification of areas near campus and expansion of bus system(s) to get from dense housing areas to grocery stores and around points in town. Being able to walk or bike to friends' houses would make a huge difference. 123. Housing is crazy expensive for the quality that you get from most apartments and rental houses. 124. Install rent controls. 125. I wish there were more summer housing options. 126. I'm born and raised here in BCS and feel like rental housing prices are incredibly high. As someone who doesn't live at home and pays for school and housing myself I feel there should be more affordable options around town. Anything that is semi affordable looks tore up from the floor up. It would be nice to see newer rental properties or recently renovated properties with more reasonable prices. 127. Parking situation; most apartment complexes have little parking options and hardly any visitor parking. Too many people. 128. 1 wish the city, property rental, agencies, and property developers would get on the same page about regulations. I don't understand how there is a no more than 4 rule but there are streets like Dominik with 5bedroom duplexes advertised to students as rent cost/5. I think the housing problem could find some relief if cstat/bryan was more bike/walk friendly. While some areas are not a long commute from campus, it's an extremely daunting commute on bike which deters students from choosing to live there. 129. 1 think we need an International House ( a lot of cities with big US universities do), since finding a place in BCS while international is a disaster (no accountability when it comes to deposit returns, extra fees for non- US residents, and generally a lot of owners take advantage of this quite unprotected group of people who have no support system or family in the US and know little about BCS upon arrival). 130. Provide different public transportation options to areas further away from campus (i.e. south College Station, etc.), like park and ride. 131. There needs to be regulated apartment prices, the price of small apartments are out of control and more than a mortgage on a $400k home boughtjust four years ago. 132. 1 think it is more important to ensure housing prices do not continue to skyrocket than developing new housing. Traffic is already such a major issue in this city and adding more apartment complexes especially is making it more and more difficult to get around the BCS area. 133. We don't need more "luxury" apartments that no one can afford. Graduate and professional student most often do not/cannot rely on their parents' money for housing. We desperately need more affordable and decent housing within the budget of TAMU graduate students. 134. 1 am a grad student who also works full-time and is married with no children. Finding a rental in this town for a married couple is outrageous. We do not have the capability (even though we both work at A&M full time) to afford $2,000+ in rent for two people when most of these rentals are meant for 4-5 college students to split the rent cost. We pay it all ourselves and have been very limited on rental housing options in the College Station area. 135. The rule forbidding more than 4 unrelated people living in the same house needs to be amended, as I have friends that have a 5 bed 5.5 house that was clearly built to accommodate students, and they can only have 4 leasers. This rule is gyping landlords and students. 136. We need more housing, and we NEED parking near the housing. 137. Middle housing doesn't exist due to 5 tenant law, doesn't make sense with projected growth. Plan mentions missing middle housing and this is the direct cause. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 132 Page 309 of 379 138. Housing for married students with no children that are full-time students and part-time workers is virtually non-existent. Many of the apartment complexes that are in campus proximity are rented by bedroom per unit versus entire units, severely limiting the options to students who make less than or equal to $2500/month. The only other option are areas that are unsafe/old in which rent ends up being more than 50% of monthly income. 139. There should be more "SAFE" affordable housing for college students. 140. 1 feel that housing companies are exploiting students, especially at move -out with unreasonably high charges. Some sort of an organization is needed to protect tenants (if already existing, more awareness should be raised among students). 141. Build more dense walkable mixed -use infrastructure please! And better public transit! 142. With the increasing size in student population, inflation, and increasing rent prices, it is absolutely absurd that the historic neighborhood only allows 4 students to a lease. Ghost leasing should not be a problem because it should not even exist. To have this 4-person house rule still in effect is outrageous and creates a housing crisis where property owners can continue to raise the rent even when it is already $1400/month. Not to mention, I was someone who was first on the list for a house, and for years they had offered it first come first serve, but they changed it my year to a private bidding war. Absolutely ridiculous. You want to keep costs down for students? Allow more than four to a property. 143. Texas A&M University could partner with homeowners to regulate prices and offer fair rates to students. Discounts on utilities for students living in single-family neighborhoods could be explored. 144. The "No more than four" rule. Needs to go. It forces rent up since students cannot share the rent among more tenants. 145. Housing in college station is way too expense and needs to be more affordable. 146. It costs too damn much. Rent is more than 80% my income. 147. Allowing more than four girls to be roommates. 148. New student housing that is close to campus seems to have insanely high prices that I'm not sure most students could afford. 149. 1 considered rescinding my acceptance to A&M because they didn't have a spot for me in the dorms. I will never forget the hell I went through trying to secure a living situation off campus. 150. Stop eroding affordable housing options for low income families in College Station. Southgate Villas seems to be the last remaining place that the families I volunteer with can live, because all the apartments and homes that used to be affordable are now student housing, because the university won't create enough housing for the amount of students it accepts. 151. The "no more than four" law makes it very difficult for college students to legally afford houses. This promotes the building of apartments instead of houses. 152. Remove the no more than 4 law. 153. There should be more than four tenants allowed in a home. 154. Making things cheaper would make things more available. 155. Having the no more than four rule makes housing expensive when students should be able to live in houses near campus that have more than 4 bedrooms. Rule makes no sense. 156. Get rid of the no more than four rule. 157. My worry with university owned housing is the potential added costs and lack of sufficient maintenance. Which is similar to current private apartments. My family bought a house in a close neighborhood because the monthly note is the same as rent for a good apartment but I have almost guaranteed high speed wifi in my area and maintenance people only require finding a reputable company. I've lived in dorms and apartments where maintenance requests were ignored for weeks or months or wifi was nonexistent during crucial test hours. I look forward to seeing a solution for students that can be reliable and affordable. 158. Everything decent is just so so expensive. Would love more 1 bedroom options. 159. Encourage more town home/rowhouse style housing over typical apartment complexes. Even better if parking and utilities are in an alley behind buildings. 160. The city should develop improved transportation infrastructure before adding much more housing. Also, more grocery markets are desperately needed. 161. 1 would be interested in more on campus housing options however I am not willing to pay for anything that is super expensive. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 133 Page 310 of 379 162. More accessible EV chargers in College Station. 163. The biggest concern I have with housing is the affordability of housing off campus. There isn't a lot of affordable options to be able to live on campus let alone live by yourself. Anything that is remotely "affordable" is very run down, deemed not safe, and have many cons such as utilities not being included, or not being near campus, and even being in a neighborhood deemed not safe for a college student to live in by themselves. Having to find a place to live is very difficult as a first generation student because my mom can't financially support me like other parents when it comes to housing. I have to pay my own rent and expenses by working minimum wage jobs and still being a full time student. I love College Station and the Bryan area it is just really hard to find a safe, convenient, and affordable place to live. 164. Repeal the "No more than 4" bill in the Bryan -College Station area. 165. Make it more affordable. 166. The price of rent is increase around town by several hundred dollars a month even though you pay for your own utilities and they don't make any updates to your apartment. 167. Student housing should prioritize having roadways that are safe for both pedestrians and non motorized/ micromobility. 168. Agg shacks should be illegal. 169. Biggest need is a bus route close to the housing to campus. 170. Housing prices have risen quite a bit recently, I live in Aggie Station and my rent has gone from 690 to 840 in one year. 171. Energy standards for existing rental properties. We couldn't get our place above 60 degrees during the cold freeze. 172. Offer more on -campus residence halls or open registration for them later. 173. If university can have a partnership with housing and can provide affordable housing that will be great. 174. HOA's are stupid. 175. Lower prices. 176. PARKING! Building apartment complexes is great but not in areas with no parking options. 177. There are too many clang people at this school, stop making college station over -crowded 178. Townhomes are cool! 179. College apartment housing has a serious lack of respect for the students who live there. The ownership of the property changes frequently making things change hands too often; things end up falling through the cracks. The maintenance teams are not large enough as they maintain multiple complexes and are often not even on the property for multiple days. This leads to students living without basic necessities in this climate: air conditioning and running water. I personally look forward to living in a real apartment whose management respects those who pay rent to live there. 180. Some more affordable housing options should be built in the $1600-$2000 per month for 4 people as this is affordable. 181. Stop expanding the school, build the infrastructure first. 182. End no more than 4! 183. It is too expensive for what is being offered. 184. If anything new is built, it should be built in a traditional architectural style. 185. More police supervision of apartments would be appreciated. Some of the places in town are sketchy and have crime rate and having the police roll through at night would be appreciated. 186. Housing needs to seriously consider the financial capabilities of students AND families. Many students who have to afford college on their own are significantly impacted negatively by the growing cost of rent and houses. In my opinion as a public health student, a majority of mental health problems within students stems from financial capabilities resulting from affording college and rent. 187. Don't ruin Northgate. 188. Parking! 189. Rent it too high for college students in general. 190. The rent is exorbitant and students have to secure housing a year in advance which is ridiculous. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 134 Page 311 of 379 191. Renting from a REAL PERSON I could actually have a conversation with- NOT a rental management company employed to obfuscate & frustrate tenants- is an absolute top priority for me in the future. This would be doubly so if there were any meaningful tenant protections laws here, which unfortunately there don't seem to be. Instead, local (& state etc) laws STRONGLY favor landlords, which is expected in Texas but disappointing in a town essentially comprised of and economically powered by students. Though the biggest problem with a model like this town is the transience of most students, who will be affected by unfair housing laws here, then probably move before being able to change local laws affecting student renters. I am very concerned about the rising costs of housing. I rent from an infuriating, useless, and faceless "property management company" and even though I'm the ideal renter (quiet, on -time payments, take great care of property), I am paying 200$ more per month than when I first signed (my late 70's unit continues to deteriorate). It's very expensive to move, and companies/landlords alike will exploit tenants desire to avoid moving every time; they hold ALL the cards and I have absolutely no leverage to plead for them not to raise monthly rent (or for example, just raise it in accordance with actual inflation since they claim that's why they HAVE NO CHOICE but to raise rent... yearly housing inflation is NOT 6.3% last I checked) when I resign. I've been motivated for a long time to fight for local housing protection for renters, and moving here to witness and be a part of this system designed entirely to benefit property owners off the backs of students has made me even more progressive in this regard. 192. Get rid of the four person to a house maximum limit. The rule only hurts students living in a college town. If you are an adult living in a college neighborhood, you should understand the neighborhood you are in before choosing to live there. More students to a house improves affordability. 193. We want more than 4. 194. Not city owned. 195. 1 think most people want an affordable little spot for themselves that is close to campus. 196. 1 want to inquire regarding the "no more than four" housing rule. Is this still in -effect, if so, what kind of houses do they apply to? Does it apply to houses in a certain area of college station? Lastly, would it apply to a 5 or 6 bedroom house? 197. While the cost of living in Bryan/College Station is especially cheap compared to the rest of Texas and the rest of the United States, BCS is not exclude from the pressures of inflation, limited wage growth, and rising tuition rates. I've been living in my current housing situation for the 2nd year in a row; my rent went up by nearly 7% while I received a pay increase of only 3%. Students need affordable housing. 198. Almost all of my peers have issues with a lack of cleanliness no matter the type of housing they live in or how clean and tidy they keep their space. Almost every apartment and townhome complex I know of is known to have bug infestations of some sort and does nothing to resolve it. 199. 1 live in Bryan but a huge issue is access to any other public or university transport. Many international students/employees do not have access to a car. This limits where they can reside based off of transportation options alone. 200. There shouldn't be a limit on a number of people per house. 201. As a homeowner and student, I'd like to rent out a room or two in my own home and think there should be programs to better facilitate that other than posting on Face -book 202. Rent is rising everywhere ): 203. Stop letting corporations and "investors" buy family housing as financial assets here. Additionally, preventing private apartment complexes from claiming they have luxury apartments without any definitions or criteria with inspections of what that is and thus charging 2-3x more than the apartment is actually valued at should be stopped. 204. 1 think the city should put more effort into expanding public transportation which would include stopping by apartment complexes/neighborhoods. 205. The rental prices here are insanely expensive compared to other cities in the sur-rounding areas. College station has not even 1/3 of the entertainment available that Houston does and yet Houston prices are much more affordable. The cost of living in this city is ridiculous and takes advantage of college students. 206. Please develop the area around campus in a denser way. Campus is surrounded by large high traffic roads and the George Bush Rd side has single family homes immediately off campus. That area ought to be multi- use developments, more similar to Northgate area. College station is not a big enough town to justify urban sprawl. More walking, less driving would be nice. Better for people's health, and the option of non car transit would reduce traffic. 207. Student apartments in college station are incredibly expensive for the poor quality we get. A 4x4, 3x3, or 2x2 should not cost more than $810 do live in no matter how close it is to campus. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 135 Page 312 of 379 208. To continue to make college station/Bryan more updated and nice. 209. Build more student apartments - no reason why its a fight to the death for housing in March (when future students haven't even been able to try and secure housing yet). 210. Housing is becoming increasingly more expensive as the number of students in college station rapidly grows. With No -more -than -four, it is extremely difficult to afford any housing- even if your parents assist financially. There needs to be a cap on the amount of students. This City was not built for 75,000 students at TAMU alone, not taking into account Blinn and Rellis. 211. Renters rights education for student. 212. Just make sure no illegal immigrants are renting or buying housing. 213. There are far too many apartment complexes that are taking advantage of the young age of students and allowing them to be treated inhumanely. I have experienced management here that will completely disregard students complaints about even the most concerning issues. I would love if A&M could provide more services to assist this, especially a student rated housing site. 214. I'd love more townhomes and quadplexes near the university. 215. 1 like the options of living in a house and having my own space. A large backyard and good driveway make it nice. Also living in a home is nice and private. I would not like the homes to be taken over by apartments because the space a home provides is ideal. Especially with families around with kids. 216. Properties to offer more short term leases for graduating seniors. 217. Housing prices near campus for any contracts above $2000 per month per person seem unreasonable. 218. The limit of 4 people in single housing is bad. 219. It would be nice to have further development in the bus system as well as more dedicated bike lanes. 220. College station needs more low income housing for full time students who have to work to afford rent and food. 221. The price of rent for my son and I near Wolf Pen, access to Aggie Busses for us both, is about $700 per room. I have a two bedroom two bath with no amenities. Rent keep rising. I feel like I am being priced out if the "student zone" where parents typically pay rent. 222. This didn't seem very helpful. There needs to be a cap on rental prices. They are out of control and rental properties can increase rent whenever they want and by however much they want. My pay, as a full-time teacher, could never afford an apartment on my own. A studio. That's bonkers. 223. Get rid of no more than 4. 224. It is very difficult to find an affordable apartment in decent condition in the BCS area. I work two jobs and am a full-time student and still struggle to make rent. The dorms on campus are entirely too expensive. 225. Better maintenance, at a cheaper cost. 226. Public transportation and or sidewalks are lacking. 227. Most apartments in College Station are either quite run down or extremely expensive. 228. There are many graduate students looking for that affordable independence with -out reliance on renting a house with three other roommates. Single family homes here seem to assume that we have multiple people to split the rent with, making finding a good, affordable family home (or even a decent home for a single graduate student), difficult. 229. University living would see higher levels of enthusiasm if dorms had more living spaces revolving around common rooms. The "best" setup I have personally seen is 5 rooms. 2 Students to a room + common room that connects the 8 students, and a bath -room shared for each room. Basically a 44 but with two people to a room. 230. Transit is the most important factor when considering housing. If there's not a bus route nearby it makes life more complicated for many students (and heavily increases the traffic). 231. The no more than four rule is scary because I'm afraid that I will have to pay more for rent since I pay for it myself. And I've made friends in college and I want to be able to make memories with more of my friends. 232. The city of college station is entirely opposed to student interest by restricting high occupancy housing. So much of the culture of A&M is in the historic district and many houses are inaccessible when split between 4 people instead of 5 or 6. 233. Please abolish the No More Than 4 law. 234. End no more than four. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 136 Page 313 of 379 235. Please stop accepting so many college students. We have overcrowding and traffic. 236. Campus housing at Texas A&M is currently overly priced with respect to the quality and the size of the rooms. Plus, the school is constantly raising the rate ever since 2019 when I got here. I don't feel like the on -campus apartment is the comfortable place for students except the proximity. Campus apartment has become too much marketized. It should be fixed cost so that it is affordable to students. 237. More affordable housing would be great. 238. By providing the ability for developers to build property with more units that allows for prices to decrease as the rental market is flooded with supply. By limiting where renters can go or the amount of renters (such as limiting number of non -related renters) it hurts renting. More areas around the already big apartment towers should be made into similar designs, this would allow for max rental units with minimal impact on remaining parts of town. Commercial areas that aren't occupied should also be converted into residential zones to allow for more properties to be made. I would also think that many parts of south college station are under utilized due to construction and distance from campus, I would be interested in moving that way if there was some method of cheap high speed transit that went near campus (train). 239. City of College Station needs to more heavily enforce their 4 roommate/house rule. I know many people who are benefitting illegally from housing more people than on their lease and adding more than 4 roommates into a space. 240. 1 think the city of college station/bryan needs to change the law on 5 girls in 1 house. It is inconvenient and provides less housing opportunities for women who need more roommates for more affordability. 241. Dropping the "no more than 4" rule would be the most helpful thing the city can do for college students searching for affordable housing. 242. Housing seems to be perfect in college station compared to many other college towns in US. 243. End the 4 person to a dwelling rule. It is nothing short of tyranny and government overreach. 244. More multi -unit to keep students close to campus and reduce rush hour traffic. 245. Please reduce the utilities cost and need a grocery store in Northgate. 246. There are not enough housing options in walking distance to campus that are non-luxury/affordable. 247. Modernity of housing is very important to me. 248. Make rent more affordable everywhere its too expensive for students, and not only for the really bad run down apartments but for the nicer ones too! update more run down living spaces instead of throwing money into new complexes. 249. Raising taxes is causing my landlord to raise my rent. 250. 1 think that housing should be very much more affordable. As a student who did not receive any financial aid, it is hard for my parents to pay my tuition and hard for them to make ends meet just because of me. University housing is very expensive therefore it should be noted that housing around campus and student housing should be much more affordable. I come from Lubbock, TX. Lubbock is twice the size of College Station, yet housing around is much more affordable for students and single families. 251. More single family homes that are affordable. So often students get stuck in a noisy apartment. We need a quiet place to study and SO many of us have pets in college station. We deserve a good home that we can live and thrive in. 252. The university should provide subsidy for student housing rentals. 253. As a renter, I'm curious about if the apartment can show us the rent increase rate annually. 254. There should be more affordable housing for all sorts of students, not just those who are able to live with a group of friends. Some need a one bedroom and those are super pricey and or the condition of the space does not warrant the price. 255. Rent should be lower for students. 256. On campus housing needs to be cheaper and easier to apply for. There needs to be more security on and off campus to avoid incidences. Frat houses need to be away from residences because of noise and trash. 257. The increase in rent is scaring me as I will soon not being able to stay were I currently am. 258. More mixed zoning available would fix the housing problem. As well as eliminating minimum parking mandates. 259. No more than 4 is a restrictive policy and disrupts the lives of many students. 260. We need to take away the ban of not allowing 5 or more non family members for live in a house together. This is a college campus and people need a place to live. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 137 Page 314 of 379 261. There are virtually ZERO places for students with children/families. 262. Rent shouldn't be over 1000 dollars. It's college station texas, not new York city. 263. Shelter is an essential need and therefore an accessibility requirement for all students, faculty and staff. a hands -off approach to housing on the university's behalf is inequitable and causes low income students to suffer. 264. 1 think roommates should be at the discretion of the owner of the house. Not limited or regulated by an exterior entity. Housing is expensive as is, and finding people to reduce the cost of living should be available to everyone. 265. The massive 5bed/5bath new builds are probably great for undergraduates (and the landlords), but the replacement of more reasonably sized single -family -homes makes it increasingly difficult for graduate/ professional students with families to find affordable, appropriate housing that's relatively near campus; we can't afford (to rent or buy) a lot of the newer subdivisions and don't want to live in apartment complexes with a bunch of undergraduate students either, especially those of us with pets and children. 266. 1 am really excited to live in a house next year and hopefully for the next few years. I do not want to live in an apartment or dorm or anything like that. I would like to have a place that is easy to invite people over to and I value that a lot. 267. Too many high priced private student housing complexes that charged around $1,000 a bedroom space in a 4x4 unit (Rev, Auto, Aspire) and the older ones trend to charge just below them (Northpoint Crossing, The Rise, The Standard) so when new private student housing properties open up with high rates for being new, the older properties also continue to raise rates. 268. The 4 person lease rule is crazy. 269. Graduate student specific housing offered by the university would be a helpful option. 270. Get rid of "no more than 4" it's an absurd rule that needs to be done with. 271. More than four students should be allowed to live in single-family residences or townhomes. Rent has become very unaffordable in College Station and often times still too expensive even when split between 4 students. 272. 1 just want rent to be cheaper. 273. We like the zoning laws that put businesses on the first floor and apartments above. 274. Housing with included garages, that are big enough to actually fit the number of vehicles expected (i.e. a 2 car garage should fit 2 cars and still close door and get in and out of vehicles). 275. 1 am tired of these slum lords taking advantage of college student who don't know better. They charge an exorbitant amount of money for apartments that are barely livable, it take them 6 months to make a simple fix (if they even get around to it). The city needs to do more to protect students from these people. And don't get me started on Optimum/SuddenLink. 276. The housing in college station has gotten bad. It's either a torn up house that is within a normal budget or a houses/apartments that way to expensive because they were newly built. There is not enough middle ground for students who support themselves to afford housing, groceries, and utilities all by themselves while feeling secured in the place you're renting. 277. As housing prices soar, I wonder why competitive options are not more available. The general opinion of those I've spoken with is that nobody lives where they want - rather, they search for the "least terrible" option. If employers in the city can't be coaxed into increasing wages, then housing companies need to focus less on buying more land, otherwise housing will continue to bleed people dry and drive them away from college station. I know of 6 people that have moved in with their parents or left the state entirely explicitly because of housing prices. 278. Many current apartments private and university affiliated, engage in predatory and often illegal practices. 279. 1 suggest the city of College Station should stick to what Texas seems to do better than a lot of other states: allow the building of housing units (houses, apartments, etc.) as much as possible (within reason) which results in cheaper housing leaving more people with a higher disposable income. 280. We need more affordable housing that isn't student living. I've lived here my whole life and apartments are being targeted more and more towards students so if you don't want to live with roommates, you are out of luck. 281. College station housing should not be rivaling Austin, Texas pricing. Over a grand a person in a 6bd 6ba apartment in college station is criminal and honestly is just taking advantage of college students. My rent in lust a one year span jumped 30% pricing me out. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 138 Page 315 of 379 282. 1 would like to have flexible lease terms to accommodate the transient nature of college life. Also, some green initiatives, e.g., recycling in all apartment complexes. 283. Amending the bill that doesn't allow more than 4 residents (that are not related) sharing a home. 284. Parking is another important factor I consider when finding housing. 285. I think the trend we will see over the next few decades is the densification of living. We need mazed zoning which allow for small groceries, pharmacies, bakeries, butchers restaurant within walking/cycling/bus from residential area. Housing is no longer accessible to the majority of people under 40. Cars are more expensive than ever, and more people are dying from car related fatalities than ever. Building a robust public transit system where necessary amenities are within walking distance would reduce obesity rates, drunk driving fatalities and disease from environmental pollution which will save a lot of money, so from a financial perspective, this is the only reasonable choice. 286. 4 per house may be limiting student housing options. 287. Make it more affordable and end housing requirements. 288. The max 4 person per dwelling rule is so stupid. 289. The bill introduced last year barring more than 4 unrelated students from residing in a single family home together placed significant burden on many students who were forced to find new housing that often times was not as affordable. 290. Let students live with as many people as they want! 291. It's way too expensive. 292. The house rent is too high to afford in college station now. for a graduate student, specially a female with kids (single mother) it is overwhelming. 293. Ghost tenants shouldn't be punished. 294. Rents in BCS have gone up significantly. As an international student with a very limited income, it has become unbearable for me to handle the rent and utility cost. If you're able, please do something a ok this. 295. No more than 4 makes college housing so much more difficult and is not fair to students. 296. 1 wish there were more options for just my dog and I- a single occupant with a small yard for. 297. The ability to walk and use transit to get to businesses, the university, and other desirable areas makes housing much better. 298. Get rid of the ordinance banning more than four residents to a house. It only furthers wealth inequality, and apartment complexes have dramatically raised rates since this ordinance has been put in place. 299. Prices are going up with properties getting worse and worse. Please consider new buildings from builders who actually take time to create good housing! 300. 1 hate the cap on the number of non -familial renters living in the same house/unit. Limiting rentals to only 4 unrelated rentals is frustrating. 301. Too much housing owned by private companies taking advantage of college students in Bryan/College Station. 302. 4200 for a dorm is too much. 303. The barrier that the property managements do not allow a family of 2 adult with 3 kids in 2 bed apartments are a big program that should be addressed. There is need for down payment grant assistant program for first time home buyers with lower income. 304. 1 know multiple people who cannot afford to rent in houses that abide by the "No more than four" rule and have to break it in order to afford rent. 305. 1 believe there is too much demand for too little apt. near the university and prices are out of control. 306. 1 just wish housing was more affordable. I currently pay $600 for a single bedroom, renting both bedrooms in my unit ($1200) costs the same or less than a studio or 1bd/1bth in most complexes. After graduation, I don't believe I will be able to move out to even a studio smaller than my unit because I will not be able to afford it 307. Provide assistance for international students with housing options when they are coming for the first time. 308. It's just so pricey even terrible quality apartments are expensive. 309. Housing is too expensive in College Station. 310. Stop accepting more students than the university can handle. 311. Your utilities are a ripoff. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 139 Page 316 of 379 312. Get rid of the dumb no more than 5 to a house rule. 313. Enable more cheaper and affordable housing. 314. Need more dense housing close to campus. 315. Being able to bike to campus/work is a game changer for me. It's cheaper, and better for my physical/mental health than driving. 316. Rent control, prices are skyrocketing. 317. Wish they stopped increasing the rent by $50 each lease without upgrading anything. 318. Rent for college apartments are getting way too expensive. 319. The 3+ me rule excludes affordable housing for many students who fall in the middle class. 320. Make rent cheaper for close to campus apartments. 321. Rent in college station has been increasing, but the quality and value of the properties keeps diminishing. How do you expect us student to afford to live here? 322. When looking for a 1 bedroom apartment I found it hard to find a non -rundown complex that was affordable. I found that most places are older and affordable or new and super expensive. I wish there were more options that were newer or updated and affordable. 323. When I lived in a house with other students, the current law only allowing 4 unrelated students to live in one place made it incredibly hard to find housing, even further, find affordable housing. The City needs to consider that with the expanding student population and limited affordable housing, without doing so will only further students living in large groups. 324. Lots of roaches here in college station. 325. 1 do think its a good idea to improve the housing situation for students in the area for all of the local universities that provide a huge benefit to the College Station economy. Unfortunately, the infrastructure does not provide this with an easy task. Much of the infrastructure focuses primarily on the access for cars to travel and less for pedestrian and other commute types (like bike and scooter). Many roads are unsafe for students to commute to work as much of the time the roadway is the only method of travel. I hope this helps! 326. Allow more than 4 people. 327. The corps dorms are ridiculously overpriced for the space, amenities, and quality of the dorms. It is ridiculous that we have no other options given the state of the quad. 328. No. 329. As the prices of rent rises it is not feasible for only 4 student to rent a home and it becomes to expensive and out of reach for many students. 330. The higher the rent in the newly built high rises, the higher other apartments think they can charge. My last apartment was updated in the 60s, had faulty electrical, and cocroach problems. The owner wanted to increase my rent to 850 per month while there was still cocroach feces in the kitchen cupboards. There is nothing here demanding clean standards and properties will charge the same prices as lavish updated/ modern options. 331. There should be more affordable options for students with non student family members such as those with partners they are not married to, or who may be caretakers for a loved one. 332. Programs that help with rental assistance for families. 333. Need more bus routes 334. 1 think this survey misses the key issue that faces college station today regarding housing. The infrastructure network in this town is awful, and is unable to handle the amount of people currently living here. Investments in public transit, protected bike lanes, and walkable communities should be a priority. Why is there no grocery store on campus or in Northgate? When looking to the future, housing should be built with non -car - dependency in mind. 335. Stop raising the rates in every apartment and house in college station. Paying for college and unsafe and horrible living conditions is not right. Do better, stop screwing college students over and sacrificing their safety because they cannot afford "nicer" housing. 336. People only have certain real requirements of living safety and security, a space that is their own. 337. Possibly provide education/assistance with the leasing process. Most leasing groups here in college station take advantage of students and try to sneak around leasing agreements and up prices. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 140 Page 317 of 379 338. No more than four needs to be removed. 339. Rent is single-handedly killing students financially. There is no reason rent should go up if these apartments are outdated, not being properly cleaned or cared for, or unsafe. There are predatory practices here in College Station. 340. University owned housing is incredibly undesirable due to the price so much could be improved with city rent control. 341. Build more high rise apartments and buildings densely and zone for things like grocery stores and other amenities. Also make college station in general more walkable by redirecting traffic on university blvd. 342. Housing is ridiculously expensive. I am an older, single student so staying with students 15+ years younger than me is not an option. Single housing is a MUST. 343. The no more than four rule should be overturned. It is outdated and unfair. 344. 1 think the best option for new student housing would be apartments that are within walking distance of affordable grocery stores and are located on the campus bus routes with more focus on quality and affordability but without focus on extraneous amenities like gyms and pools. 345. No more rule of 4 involving students in the same house. 346. The skyrocketing prices for renting places and utilities are totally draining our wallets !!! 347. End no more than four. 348. Pet friendly. 349. You should be able to live with 4 other people that are t related to you. 350. Living in a college student only area helps promote community & positive mental health. Make housing where it's easier for us to make friends in common spaces. 351. Current housing is too expensive. 352. Being limited to only 3 roommates is ridiculous and makes housing more difficult. 353. 1 support limiting number of adults living in a single residence. Too often, there is no room for emergency vehicles to go down the street because there are so many cars parked in the street. Homes must have parking for the vehicles living at that home and parking should not be allowed when streets are too narrow for traffic to flow. 354. 1 wish the bike lanes were safer and more noticeable, especially at night. I think a primary bus lane/moped/ motorcycle lane should be used as a barrier to protect the bikers from average car drivers. 355. Make it so 5 people can live together! 356. Private rental apartments are increasing the rent drastically, while the quality of service (maintenance, products, etc.) are same or degrade. Accessibility to campus by multiple bus routes is one of the driving factors for students while choosing housing. 357. Ensuring more safety aongst student housing and reducing the cross housing between residents and students of cstat/bryan. 358. Get rid of the predatory property managers. Almost all the apartments in B/CS are ran by predators who prey on young college students that don't know any better and waste their limited funds on poorly kept apartments and duplexes and high rental rates. You need to impose serious restrictions on these property companies to cap rates and prevent them from taking advantage of students and young people. Even as a graduate student, it's extremely difficult to find housing in this area that does not have a terrible landlord/ property manager. Something needs to change because it is abhorrent what these property owners and managers are doing. 359. Just want to live somewhere affordable and safe. I don't need new things, 4 walls a roof, don't be modly or roachy, no crime. 360. The rent jumps significantly from year to year and the timing in which you must find a lease before it becomes unaffordable is ridiculous. This is especially unfair for transfer and international students. Most of the on campus housing is taken by freshman, meaning everyone else must find housing off campus. As a student at Texas A&M you are literally trapped in an environment that takes advantage of your needs. 361. There is not enough housing to meet the demands of students, but the housing that does get built is charging higher and higher rates -some of these apartments are charging the same rates my sister pays in downtown Austin, which seems excessive. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 141 Page 318 of 379 362. Why would you take the option of living in a single family dwelling away from students? Drop the 5 person law and leave us alone! 363. The law that says no more than 4 people can be on a lease is insane. 364. The no more than four evidence is the most insane thing to exist in a college town and is the main cause of all of my housing issues. This needs to be done away with. 365. Rent needs to be affordable compared to the average salary of a graduate student. Everywhere is too expensive to afford. 366. As an architecture student studying sustainability, what should be considered is the preservation of college stations historic elements while also meeting the growing need for housing. This means updating old homes instead of tearing them down. Adaptive -reuse of space to maintain the cultural value while also accommodating a population that is predicted to continue growing. 367. Need more modern housing, and more housing that has less bedrooms (not 5-7 bedroom houses). 368. 1 believe that the city of college station should allow more dense infill by the university. Having single family homes across the street from one of the biggest universities in the country is not the best use of valuable land that could be put to better use. For me personally, being in walking or biking distance of the university is extremely important, and all of that dense development being forced into one neighborhood (Northgate) makes the quantity of those type of prime location apartments limited. This could also have the effect on reducing traffic near the university, as less students would need to drive in order to get to campus. 369. There should be more options that are within a college students' reasonable budget. My roommates and I had a budget of $600/month for each of us and we only found 2 apartments complexes that are decent and within that price range. 370. 1 think if a house has a certain number of bedrooms then at least that many people should be allowed to live there. It does not make sense to have a 5 bedroom home that only 4 people can live in because of the me +3 rule. 371. There needs to be more maintenance workers for all of the housing. 372. College Station is a college town. I know Bryan and college station residents complain about so many students but I makes no sense to me when they choose to live in/near a college town. That's going to happen. I think a revamp needs to happen in the actual neighborhoods and not focus on extremely expensive high rise buildings. They're destroying the love for historic college station along with the new business developments taking out historical businesses such as Hurricane Harry's. Fix Post Oak Mall first and make it safe for female students. I've been walked to my car multiple times because someone was following me throughout the mall and to my car. 373. There needs to be some regulation on the landlords because I have had a rent increase without any change in quality of my residence. 374. The pricing has gotten out of hand essentially near north gate I think that there should be some price limits because over $2000 a month for a 1x1 is insane. 375. New student houses, and homes in general need to be built that are affordable. There is already too many expensive houses that no one wants to live in. 376. The four person limit in dwellings is ridiculous and inconvenient for a college town. 377. If housing has for than 4 bedrooms than they should let people fill the bedroom. 378. The Legacy Point project must be stopped or college station will lose all of the things that make it a place where students want to come. 379. Housing should be more pet friendly, I'm personally a student 1300 miles away from my family and childhood friends and my two dogs are my only sense of security and safety. 380. Allow 5 unrelated to live together. 381. Many students I know do not have a car, which can be a major issue for the lifestyle in College Station. The campus buses are not always enough and do not run frequently after 8pm which is not reasonable for someone without a car. I would encourage looking at the adjacent areas and services to try and find something with a closeness to necessary goods and activities. 382. 1 prefer having secure basics (working A/C, laundry, appliances) than anything fancy ("Smart" homes or TVs in each room are not a draw). CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 142 Page 319 of 379 383. The "no more than four" rule does more harm than good. Students live with more than 4 people in a private home because the rent is more affordable. Having that rule doesn't do anything but make it more difficult for students to find affordable housing. 384. Let people have as many people in their house as there are bedrooms. You are not God; you work in local government. Your salary is paid by the people. Stay out of our business and let us decide our own housing arrangements. I will never understand how not allowing more than 4 makes any sense. Serve the people, stop creating rules when there is no need for them in the first place. I could go on for hours, but you probably understand what I'm getting at. 385. The cost of on campus living or university owned housing has spiked and become unaffordable. 386. This town has gotten absolutely ridiculous for rent. I had to find a place for one semester because I was in internship and every option was close to $1,000. 387. Hard to find affordable one bedroom private apartments. Much more affordable when there are roommates. Although some of the rent by room, not by unit, even with roommates is still pretty steep in price. On campus housing is a lot more expensive than private apartments if you look at the monthly average and include that you can't live there year round. 388. Texas A&M should provide affordable housing for graduate students like other research universities do. The campus owned Gardens apartment is crazily expensive, which should be at least 50% cheaper to control the rental market in College Station. 389. Not enough affordable housing. 390. Take away no more than four. 391. If rent and expenses are increasing, also consider increasing wages in order for net living to be sustainable. 392. Foreign students friendly is important. 393. Private rental property rates keep rising because "if they'll pay that price next door then they'd pay that price here." 394. Students don't need luxury housing. they need affordable housing. 395. There is no substantial improvement in the conditions of the apartment but rent increases exponentially every year with no explanation or limit. Also, a lot of housing has no walkable space even within the complex. Some form of control over how much rent can increase at once, and some accommodation to walk inside the apartment is required. 396. In addition to "safety" the walker/bicyclist friendly nature of the area. Areas that are cheaper tend to not have well lit roads and sidewalks. Maybe you can match these data to the data being collected by the transport department in their GIS survey. 397. Living in college station has been extremely stressful. Not having cheap options and requiring a parent cosigner was challenging. Every single apartment here requires parents to cosign but what about students whose parents cannot cosign for them? This was my situation, and I went through unnecessary stress and ended up in a situation where 100% of my monthly stipend went to rent. Making 3x the amount of rent was the option I had to go with but this put me in a horrible place financially. 398. Need to density around campus (multifamily -apartments, townhomes, etc.). Allow duplexes in ALL suburban zoned neighborhoods minimum, consider eliminating single-family zoning. Protected bicycle lanes on major roads. Bus shelters at bus stops. 399. Don't make college even more inaccessible than it already is! Get rid of the "no more than four" policy and allow students to have affordable housing. 400. Corps dorms need to be cheaper someone went through the math and found we are paying around $9/ sgft a month which is ridiculous. I just went on zillow and looked at New York the first apartment I clicked on overlooks central park, is over twice the size of my dorm and costs $7/sgft. 401. Get rid of no more than 4!!!!! 402. Get rid of no more than 4. More density. More pedestrian infrastructure from complexes to campus. 403. Better management. Currently have had several tickets docked for repair to back yard deck that has loose boards and screws that aren't all the way in. Not allowed to do repair work ourselves. 404. Get rid of no more than 4. 405. Me plus 3 makes an already expensive housing situation in a&m more expensive and harms students. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 143 Page 320 of 379 406. College Station is a great college town to live in. I would love off campus, but am a meme we of the Corps of Cadets and cannot. 407. The ordinance of "The occupancy of a typical dwelling unit in College Station is limited to not more than four (4) unrelated persons." is silly. It artificially reduces the housing availability for students and makes the housing search more difficult. We were only able to rent a house with four people because of it. 408. 1 think reducing the cost for rental property owners (i.e. property taxes, or other business related cost imposed by government regulation) for student housing is the best way to reduce cost of rent for students. 409. No more No More Than Four. 410. Work needs to be done to make more efficient use of housing space (e.g. increasing the number of students that existing infrastructure can house) so that students do not keep getting pushed further from campus while keeping rent manageable. 411. The no more than 4 rule is making housing that was built for students less accessible to them. It is raising the price of rentals, instead of financially burdening or punishing companies owners as they build 5 person houses for college students, it fines the students themselves, that cannot afford those houses (located around other students and near campus) unless they fill all bedrooms (because 5 bedroom houses have higher rental prices than 4 bedroom ones). The students, who are already burdened financially in college, should not be punished for a problem they did not create. Stop new 5 bedroom houses from being built instead, & also make reasonable rental prices a priority for students. These people make up a huge population of college station, and should not be ignored or not prioritized simply because of their age. 412. 1 feel like you could change the number of students in one dwelling from 4 to 5. 413. Making it 4 to a home will not only make rent prices higher than they already are but, with make housing even harder to find as it is already fairly scarce while the university proceeds to accept more and more students every year. I work for the residential life department for TAMU and know First hand that there already isn't enough rooms on campus for students as is. It's idiotic that they are trying to limit when there isn't a problem at hand. How about instead of worrying about this you fix Harvey Mitchell and be done with it. ITS BEEN YEARS. 414. The No More Than Four rule makes it extremely difficult for students to afford off campus private homes, or fill houses with 5 or more bedrooms. This is emphasized in neighborhoods with predominantly students that are close to campus. 415. It's ridiculous to have housing options limited to 4 people. Most houses have more than 4 bedrooms in historic district and even those with 4 bedrooms require more than 4 students to live in them to make the rent affordable to students. 416. 1 think more than 4 non -related students should be able to live in a house together. 417. 1 would prefer it if more roofed parking was available. 418. Just build some decent units and the rental market becomes more rational. Right now it seems like tenants are not satisfied until they withdraw the very last cent in your bank account. 419. Demand that apartment management companies abolish their registration fees and other hidden charges, such as mandatory monthly packages, which are nothing short of a scam. It is imperative that these exploitative practices be brought to an end immediately. 420. Stop scamming college students. 421. 1 think that housing is such a big issue in both Bryan and College Station right now. My apartment complex just increased their rent prices by over a 100 a month. The did this because it is a trend from every other apartment complex in the area to increase prices. They know that college students need to live somewhere, so they will try to take advantage of them through this. Even when a complex is actually affordable, it may not be easy to get onto campus. One factor that is the same across all apartment complex's is that they are all very low quality compared to the prices they make students pay. I think that if we are going to be paying as much as we are, the quality should at least be up to the same standard. 422. Build more housing new campus and more transit connections - this town is absolutely awful for traffic from everyone driving their cars to campus. 423. Limiting residents to four a house prevents valuable housing space from being utilized and pushes more unnecessary development. Many of the current apartment buildings being thrown up are of cheap quality. 424. More options below $1000 a month within walking distance to campus. It should be cheaper to live off campus than on but in many cases it is not right now unless you have 3 or more roommates. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 144 Page 321 of 379 425. College Station/Bryan has exploded in population within the last ten years. The infrastructure is simply not holding up. Traffic is consistently awful and poorly managed. Same with parking. The housing market is so competitive that even extremely worn down apartments with cheap management and predatory landlords cost significantly more than they should. Unless more affordable housing is built or the number of admitted students is reduced, a housing crisis seems probable. 426. The northgate apartment buildings are collectively raising rates while decreasing the standard of living. It's become much more difficult to get good maintenance service when things break, and the new management at Lark Northgate is more than okay with lying to residents and the public about the conditions of the building. 427. If rent could be lowered in the Northgate Area, that would be greatly appreciated. 428. Make housing cheaper and better pest control and standards. 429. There should be no rule regarding maximum number or residents in a house. This is an egregious infringement on property rights. 430. 1 have to live on campus because I'm in the corps. I'd love for more affordable housing or assistance with these costs. 431. Rent is just too high. It takes up over 90% of my graduate stipend which leaves barely $140 a month for groceries and gas to drive to work. 432. The prices of housing near campus (especially north gate) are just becoming crazy. 433. The increase of rent every single year. A unit starts of as affordable and then quickly becomes unaffordable. Leases tend to be strictly one year when in our graduation year sometimes we only need either a semester or half a years worth. 434. No more than 4 is ruining the safety and affordability of housing. 435. Take away the 4 roommates or less rule. unrealistic and is hurting students! people are moving to Bryan to have more than 4 roommates. Support us as students please! and stop making it impossible to live here. 436. 1 think a big part of housing for me is the price. Price was the biggest consideration for me when choosing where to live after living in the on campus dorms. On campus housing is much too expensive. I also wanted to have my own bedroom. I live in a spot close to campus and right by a bus stop which is also a plus. 437. It would help if more than 4 students could live in a house together. When you can have more people in a house, then rent is cheaper. 438. The no more than 4 rule is drowning students and bolstering the market unfairly! 439. The no more than 4 rule is absurd! We are college students at the end of the day and want affordable housing options, this means lower rent (since our rent is astronomically high compared to other areas) and getting rid of the insane ruling of having no more than 4 residents in a household! 440. 1 think there's a limit of 4 students/house that a lot of landlords don't follow, and if they get in trouble the students are the ones who get fined even though it was more the landlord! I'm not 100% sure though as I've never experienced this. 441. Houses near campus should allow 6-8 student renters. 442. Rent stabilized 1 bedroom that is under 1k. 443. 4 to a unit is a stupid rule please get rid of it. 444. The rental prices in this area are being gouged by owners and students are being taken advantage of in the current state. 445. Housing near campus should be more affordable than being close to $1000 a semester. 446. Good management is also something that is important to me. 447. Rent is too expensive in College Station. 448. As a struggling college student, the rent is way too high. I cannot afford to live in a convenient location right now. 449. Don't let them turn historic district into century square. One of the worst things you could do to a neighborhood and the culture of the student life. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 145 Page 322 of 379 450. The college station rule of unrelated tenants is driving rent through the roof. Many of my peers would happily share a 5 bedroom 3000 square foot house with ease. I can understand not having more than 2 per bedroom, but for university housing to be allowed to store students like sardines in a 130 sq foot room is ironic because the city is fighting letting students do that within a half mile of campus because the student would save thousands of dollars per year. 451. Higher density housing centrally located to campus would be good for many students. 452. There should be more tamu bus routes that go into Bryan. 453. No more than four hurts students and makes housing more expensive. 454. Stop letting residents bully and harass students who live close to campus. 455. LOWER RENT!! Better Maintenance service and close proximity to TAMU. 456. Students with children are at a double disadvantage, we can pile inro a regular house with 5 of our friend, but we don't have the income for a home near the CS schools. 457. Get rid of the me plus 3 rule. 458. Texas A&M has a lot of students, and those students need affordable places to live. Students should not have to compromise health and safety to achieve affordability. 459. Get rid of the 4 tenets to a house rule, it benefits nobody. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 146 Page 323 of 379 EMPLOYER SURVEY QI - Select the establishment type that most closely describes your business or entity Hotel, Hospitality Industry Restaurant or bar Retail store or service provider Other tourism or recreation business Healthcare or health services provider Construction business Manufacturer Business and Professional Services. finance, insurance, IT, engineering, marketing, etc. Government, public sector Non-profit organization Other Answered:53 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 147 Page 324 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Hotel, Hospitality Industry 5.66% 3 Restaurant or bar 9.43% 5 Retail store or service provider 13.21% 7 Other tourism or recreation business 1.89% 1 Healthcare or health services provider 5.66% 3 Construction business 7.55% 4 Manufacturer 0.00% 0 Business and Professional Services: finance, insurance, IT, engineering, 26.42% 14 marketing, etc. Government, public sector 3.77% 2 Non-profit organization 9.43% 5 Other (please specify) 16.98% 9 TOTAL 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 148 Page 325 of 379 Q2 - In what zip code is your business or organization located? Answered:53 Skipped:0 Q3 - How many employees (full and part time does your business or organization employ? Answered:53 Skipped:0 Q4 - Considering your 2023 workers, please indicate the approximate percentage that lived in each of the following locations during the time they were employed: Answered:53 Skipped:0 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES College Station 98.11% Outside College Station but within Brazos County 88.68% Outside Brazos County 67.92% Yes M Unsure Answered:53 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 52 47 36 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 149 Page 326 of 379 Q5 - Do your employees have problems finding affordable housing? ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 69.81% 37 No 20.75% 11 Unsure 9.43% 5 TOTAL 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 150 Page 327 of 379 Q6 - Was housing affordability or availability a factor in losing one or more employees? Answered: 53 Skipped:0 Yes No I don't know 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6096 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Yes No I don't know TOTAL RESPONSES 24.53% 13 49.06% 26 26.42% 14 53 Q7 - Between 2020 — 2023, were you unable to hire one or more employee applicants largely because of housing issues? Yes Me I don't know ANSWER CHOICES Yes No I don't know TOTAL Answered: 53 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 26.42% 54.72% 18.87% 14 29 10 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 328 of 379 Q8 - To what extent, if any, do you feel the issue of housing has impacted your businesslorganization's efforts to recruit and retain staff? Answered:53 Skipped:0 A. A major impact B. A moderate impact C. A minor impact D. No impact at all E. Don't know/Not relevant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES A. A major impact 15.09% 8 B. A moderate impact 26.42% 14 C. A minor impact 24.53% 13 D. No impact at all 28.30% 15 E. Don't know/Not relevant 5.66% 3 TOTAL 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 152 Page 329 of 379 Q9 - What housing issues have your candidates or employees encountered? Please check all that apply. Answered:53 Skipped:0 Couldn't find affordable housing Couldn't find anything they liked that was available to purchase Couldn't find housing to meet the needs of their family Were renting but landlord is now selling Were renting but owner is converting dwelling into a short term rental None I don't know/not relevant Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Couldn't find affordable housing 58.49% 31 Couldn't find anything they liked that was available to purchase 20.75% 11 Couldn't find housing to meet the needs of their family 22.64% 12 Were renting but landlord is now selling 16.98% 9 Were renting but owner is converting dwelling into a short term rental 1.89% 1 None 18.87% 10 I don't know / not relevant 9.43% 5 Other (please specify) 11.32% 6 TOTAL 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 153 Page 330 of 379 Q10 - If your employees are impacted by d f culties finding housing, please select the appropriate boxes below to indicate the salary levels that are impacted. Select all that apply. My employees were not impacted by difficulties finding housing Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $40,000 $40,000 to $55,000 $55,000 to $70,000 $70,000 to $85,000 $85,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $125,000 $125,000 to $175,000 175,000 to $225,000 225,000 or more I know they had a problem, but I don't know the approximate amount Answered:53 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 154 Page 331 of 379 ANSWER CHOICES My employees were not impacted by difficulties finding housing Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $40,000 $40,000 to $55,000 $55,000 to $70,000 $70,000 to $85,000 $85,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $125,000 $125,000 to $175,000 175,000 to $225,000 225,000 or more I know they had a problem, but I don't know the approximate amount TOTAL RESPONSES 15.09% 33.96% 47.17% 43.40% 24.53% 11.32% 1.89% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.21% 8 18 25 23 13 6 1 1 0 0 0 7 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 155 Page 332 of 379 Q11 - What level of priority do you place the housing shortagelaffordability issue in comparison with the many other concerns you face as an ownerl employer? Answered:53 Skipped:0 Top priority Top three priorities Mid -range priority Bottom of my priorities It is not on my priority list as the issue feels too big to tackle I don't consider housing an issue 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICESInnow- RESPONSES �= Top priority 3.77% 2 Top three priorities 26.42% 14 Mid -range priority 33.96% 18 Bottom of my priorities 20.75% 11 It is not on my priority list as the issue feels too big to tackle 5.66% 3 1 don't consider housing an issue 9.43% 5 TOTAL 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 156 Page 333 of 379 Q12 - As an employer, do you have ideas for creating workforce housing (housing for working households) (even if you are unsure how to implement)? Answered:53 Skipped:0 Yes No Yes (please specify) AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Yes (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 0.00% 0 69.81% 37 30.19% Tel 53 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 157 Page 334 of 379 Q13 - As an employer, have you considered or do you already provide any of the following for your workforce? Already Provide Have Considered Providing I am not Interested inProviding Answered:53 Skipped:0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% . Free Housing . Moving Allowance . Housing Supplements FREE HOUSING Already Provide 0.00% 0 Have Considered Providing 13.33% 2 62% 1 am not Interested in Providing 97.41 MOVING HOUSING TOTAL ALLOWANCE SUPPLEMENTS RESPONDENTS 100.00% 11.11% 9 9 1 73.33% 33.33% 15 11 5 71.43% 88.10% 42 30 37 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 158 Page 335 of 379 Q14 - Select the types of housing that you thinly are needed in the area to better accommodate your employees. Select up to three. A. Housing that is currently available meets the needs of my employees B. Single family houses to rent C. Single family houses to buy D. Townhouses and condos to rent E. Townhouses and condos to buy F. Apartments to rent G. Dormitory style, short term seasonal worker housing 0% Answered:52 Skipped:1 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES A. Housing that is currently available meets the needs of my employees 19.23% 10 B. Single family houses to rent 59.62% 31 C. Single family houses to buy 69.23% 36 D. Townhouses and condos to rent 38.46% 20 E. Townhouses and condos to buy 28.85% 15 F. Apartments to rent 34.62% 18 G. Dormitory style, short term seasonal worker housing 5.77% 3 TOTAL 52 Q15 - Is there anything else you would life us to know about how housing issues affect your businesslorganization? Answered:26 Skipped:27 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 159 Page 336 of 379 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES Employer Survey Responses to the Question "Is there anything else you would like us to know about how housing issues affect your business/organization?" 14 respondents gave an answer to the question "Is there anything else you would like us to know about how housing issues affect your business/organization?" (responses like "no" or "none" were removed and not included). 1. This seems like bs to me. 2. My employees are not unhappy living outside of College Station even though they frequently work in College Station. For the much lower prices for the places they live outside of Brazos county, they have much more land or bigger lots, less taxes, and feel safe. None of them express a desire to live in this town because their options here are renting instead of owning, spending so much more that they are priced out, or living amongst crime in a high density area. They have a better quality of life than College Station cares to provide. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 160 Page 337 of 379 3. House rentals to college students are not overseen by HOAs. HOAs contact the owners only, not the tenants. College students are unaware of HOA rules and do not take into account the other non - college student renters in the neighborhood. 4. The increase in prices, taxes and interest rates have added financial burden to most over the past few years. 5. Get regulation out of the way. Stop passing rules limiting who can live where and let the market determine what is needed. 6. Rent is still very high despite what I thought is an over saturation in multi until dwellings in B/CS? 7. No different than a larger city which expands out into the suburbs, the "inner city areas" start to decline. while we have the university which provides great value, we are still experiencing run down housing and retail closer to campus then in the outer areas of the city. 8. More regulation = bad. 9. Some high deposits make it hard for someone who is getting on their feet to begin renting. 10. Forcing 3 answers on the previous question biases the results of the question invalidating the entire process. 11. Housing it is the main thing that people leave or stay, if they cannot afford their living, they will be always looking for better rates. 12. It's hard to keep staff because staff have to have family help or a second/ third job to afford to live in college station. When I first moved here in 2014 1 paid $425 for a ry spot on an ry park. In 2016 1 moved to an apartment and paid $750. We are now in a 3/2 house (moved last year) for $1600. And we're lucky the house across from ours is a 4/2 and rents for nearly 4k. Even with roommates that is unaffordable for 90% of people. 13. Due to the increased rent across the board it makes it harder to find willing staff for a fair rate. 14. It effects members of the congregation. 15. Doing business in Bryan is much easier, more convenient and less expensive than doing business in College Station. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 338 of 379 PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK Homeownership Affordability and Availability — What could the City of College Station do to help make homeownership more attainable? 1. Condominiums and Townhouses -cluster around re -developed areas including mixed use. 2. TAMU has unfortunately not played its part here. The university should be held partially accountable and pay the city for improvements. 3. Reduce cost of development fee. 4. Increase townhome and condo development. 5. Continue down payment assistance. 6. Low cost loans based on income for refurbishment. 7. Get ownership and fixed up properties. 8. Reconsider the impacts that 4 unrelated has had on crushing neighborhoods and disincentivizing proper student housing. It's incredibly destructive. 9. Build apartments for students and restrict more neighborhoods to 2 unrelated. 10. Work to bring employers that pay what is needed for affordable homes. 11. Incentives for developers and businesses to contribute to housing to make it more affordable to citizens. 12. Explore options that would decrease the cost of constructing housing units. 13. Consider a Dallas -style local downpayment assistance program and existing federal program. 14. "Homeownership" is not the issue. Unhoused people are seeking housing of any and all kinds. Apartment units are skyrocketing in price and there must be something done to make these housing options more affordable. Graduate students make -2K a month. Unhoused people can't work to afford a house. Temporary housing (shelters, coops, missions, etc.) must be invested in and property managers must be reigned in to lower the cost of apartment and HUD rentals. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 162 Page 339 of 379 Innovative Ideas — What innovative ideas do you have to help address housing needs in the City of College Station? Make housing a little bit cheaper. 2. Incentivize high paying jobs to town. 3. Making the housing we already have affordable, stop trying to expand so quickly. 4. Electric trolleys between TAMU or downtown Bryan, etc. 5. Stop trying to make more houses and try to make the ones more affordable. 6. Restrict all single family housing built prior to 1970 to no more than 2 unrelated to provide "starter homes" for townies. 7. With world -class Construction Science Programs, consider 3D options and other lower cost methods aesthetically pleasing. 8. First, I think three groups have three different needs: permanent residents, students -affordable housing and residents -affordable housing. Ideas for students: Middle/shared housing — done. No more than 4 keeps pricing reasonable. Partner with TAMU for student housing. Give subsidies/incentives to apartment buildings on Anderson and Harvey. UT is pitching in for affordable housing in Austin, why can't TAMU do that in conjunction with the City helping incentivize renewal in areas near campus (south). All along Texas Avenue, build mixed -use. (Brown's Shoes strip center, Barnes & Noble strip center). Again, have TAMU give affordable housing vouchers. Students can rent for about $500 a month if 4 in a place. Students need bike lanes along Holleman, Anderson and Texas Ave. and Dexter — affordables no car. Ideas for residents: Fix the duplexes, townhomes and apartments we have. Don't do more shared housing. No more than 2 because prices come down. Rental inspections to ensure quality affordable housing. CDBG campaign to where you knock on businesses doors and talk to rental (apartments, ect.) owners to use this incentive. 9. You have to address this issue -students and affordable. 10. We live in a university town. Students want more per house. Affordable wants family housing. 11. Instead of renew, don't do build to rent. We already have middle housing. 12. Learn from others who have been through this in other cities. 13. More collaboration between the City of Bryan and the City of College Station in order to see how our workforce could be integrated back into College Station. 14. More temporary/low-cost single occupancy apartments where low-income folks can prioritize saving money for a home. A significant percentage of your population is students for whom homeownership is not an option and who are exploited by "homeowners" for rent. Regulate the rent!! Not the residents! CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 163 Page 340 of 379 15. More mission and shelter options & emergency rental assistance for folks who receive unexpected rent hikes. 16. Concerning the limitations of unrelated people within one house, the city should regulate occupants per room rather than total occupants per house. 17. There are lots of businesses I think we make housing more affordable by involving corporations. 18. Capping enrollment at the university would help slow down the demand for housing so more units can be built. 19. Housing types and availability are driven by the makeup of the community. When A&M decided to grow, College Station had no plan-1990-1993 all directed to students. So we were on a catch up 20. Restrict occupancy to no more than 2 per bedroom per HUD guidelines. 21. The property tax should be shifted to a land value tax or a split rate tax that takes the land at a higher rate than structures keeping total revenue the same. This encourages more dense development in high value areas & discourages absentee landlordism to not punish people for improving their house. 22. Turn the Texas A&M golf course into a high density mixed -use affordable housing. I think we should turn Post Oak Mall into a mixed -use high density affordable housing. 23. Utilize zoning to get rid of unnecessary centralized businesses like UHaul on Texas Ave & University and make affordable housing. Housing Unit Production and Variety — What could the City of College Station do to facilitate the production of more housing units and more housing types? 1. Capture and reuse construction materials instead of going to landfill. 2. Low-cost loans for single families for refurbishing in blighted areas. 3. Re -develop areas along Harvey, Anderson, Texas Ave, etc. Go vertical with mixed use. 4. Be careful about copying Austin. The ADU's have ruined areas of town due to parking making streets impassible. 5. Look into project uprooted at UT to learn more about their anti -gentrification projects/tools. 6. There's enough development planned. Prioritize low-cost rental projects. Encourage builders to prioritize single occupant, affordable apartment units and work with the student population to show interest. Apply for HUD grants and regulate how much developers are doing to invest in existing residents, not future families. 7. Develop a suitable and economic plan that suits the majority. 8. ADU's (Accessory dwelling units), duplexes and townhomes — the down payment assistance for infill development of this. Also deal with the NIMBY problem. (not in my backyard) 9. Removing lot and parking requirements would spark more innovation and production in the housing market. 10. Reduce minimum lot size, increase maximum lot coverage and reduce building setback requirements. 11. 1 would like to see more small homes being built like 2-bedroom cottages or bungalows. Good for young working adults or for retirees. 12. No low -density zoning within 2 miles of campus. 13. Quality modular homes. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 164 Page 341 of 379 Affordability and Availability of Rental Units — What could the City of College Station do to help with rental affordability and availability? 1. Place parking garages out into the community in strategic locations to reduce transit traffic into TAMU and disperse acceptable living locations. 2. Incentive mixed use re -development along Harvey, Anderson and other areas adjacent to campus in proximity to Texas Ave. 3. Consider trolley systems in conjunction with TAMU for easy on/off & quicker transit times. 4. TAMU should be a better citizen vs head in the sand approach. 5. Build more rental units that are affordable on the edge of College Station. 6. Deregulate occupancy to increase potential occupancy within existing supply. 7. Allow rental units to be bigger, remove floor limits. Severely lax it. 8. Incentivize complexes accepting HUD housing vouchers. 9. Figure out a way to incentivize non -investment housing. 10. Cap the rent for affordable housing and refuse to allow private equity to continue purchasing affordable housing options — like Southgate — for "revitalization." Threatening to displace all HUD residents there. If a firm want to develop apartment rentals, low-cost single occupancy units must be prioritized. Also, build more shelters! What Issue is most important to Address? — Please place your dot in the column of the issue you feel is most important for the City to address. 1. Households spending more than 30% of their monthly income on rent — 7 2. Households being unable to purchase a home —11 3. A lack of housing units and housing unit types — 5 4. Note that said "all of them" -1 Who needs help with Housing? — Please place your dot in the column of the person you feel most needs assistance with housing. 1. Households with no income — 2 2. Households making less than $20,000 annually — 8 3. Households making less than $50,000 annually — 7 4. Households making less than $80,000 annually — 2 5. Households making less than $120,000 annually — 2 6. Note that said "all of the income levels" -1 CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 165 Page 342 of 379 SURVEY GOALS/STRATEGIES/ACTIONS Please provide any comments or suggestions for the Goals l Strategies l Actions section of the Housing Action Plan 80 respondents gave an answer to this question, (responses like "NA" or "none" were removed and not included). 1. You have to get TAMU to put a cap on enrolment or the housing plan will never be effective. The city needs to coordinate this desire for affordable housing vs increase in property taxes along with school taxes. You cannot move in lower income people and expect them to meet the tax requirements of the city. Force on streets, police and fire for the next 3 years and see where you are. It is cheaper and faster(traffic wise) to come from Snook up HWY 60 than to come from south CS at 7:30 in the morning. I would move too but our house is paid off. 3. 1 hope things will be ok 4. Most of this is not necessary and will cost a lot to provide limited benefit. A great deal of effort to give the appearance of action that won't provide significant results. The answer is not always more government programs. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 166 Page 343 of 379 5. College Station is paralyzed by the reality that the majority of residents and property owners (investors and students) do not vote or involve themselves with government in large numbers. Other groups such was retired professors disproportionately vote and participate in government. All democracies primarily service the requests of those who participate in voting and government (not the majority of residents and property owners in our community). Therefore: our community shall continue to grow, conforming to those who participate in our democracy. In College Station: that tends to be servicing demands for decreased density in existing residential neighborhoods and increased density in Northgate and west of Wellborn Rd (more predominant student areas). Caught in the crossfire are starter families moving to BCS who are left with little housing options aside from buying homes further and further out from city center and commuting in. Our growth strategy is essentially a plan to exacerbate urban sprawl. 6. 1 think additional graduate student family housing at a discounted rate (especially for international students) should be a high priority. 7. 1 think it is a great start, but seems overly simplified. 8. Housing around campus, if rentals, need enforcement of number of individuals and vehicles allowed. Trash around housing near downtown CS is awful. 9. Include an action item to support international students for affordable housing in partnership with Texas A&M as public funds cannot limit the benefit for International students. The reason is, international students on non-immigrant visas pay higher tax dollars annually on their grad stipends. 10. Affordable and sustainable housing should be a priority. Especially as we see extreme weather increasing, houses should be constructed in ways that maximize heat and cold retention, cooling, and good use of energy. 11. Stop targeting students and allow more density around campus as is already noted in the comp plan. Then maybe focus on the rest of the city instead of being held hostage by three neighborhoods. 12. The reasons why local home prices are so high is too many out-of-town investors. Raise property taxes AND counter them with increased homestead exemptions for local voter residents. This shifts the tax burden from voters to non -voters. When no longer a good investment, properties will shift back to residents. Best long term solution, and an easy one to sell. 13. 1 grew up here but moved away after getting married. Fast forward 10+ years and we moved back to BCS. We decided to rent while looking for a house to buy. There were not many selections. Either a fixer upper in a run down neighborhood, expensive house in a private gated neighborhood or be the only family (with children) among rows of houses aimed for students. Very disappointed! 14. too much to read 15. This housing plan, as written, will not help house lower -income folks. Because of inflated valuations and tax rates, only high-rise condominiums will help, provided they are marketed to lower -income people who aren't planning to use their cheap-ish housing as an Airbnb, or some other "investment" scheme. Property valuations , along with tax rates, have gotten out of control -- a small house, bought about 30 years ago and located well over 3 miles from the university, has increased in imaginary value by some 525%. Pity that wages haven't done the same in order to make the tax bill more affordable. This plan wants to increase density in certain neighborhoods, but doesn't say which neighborhoods will have their character destroyed by the city. Those living in areas designated "single-family residential" aren't interested in more cut -through traffic, noise, or flooding. And lower -income folks living in cheap-ish duplexes or four-plexes aren't "helped" by having to find other, less affordable, housing when their homes get redeveloped. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 167 Page 344 of 379 16. 1 like the strategies but I am concerned that developers will want to keep the cost of housing high and the supply scarce. 17. City planners want to destroy the existing home developments by putting highways through residential areas, destroying subdivisions and neighborhoods! To say nothing about the financial impact on the value of homes for existing residents! 18. In College Station, there needs to be explicit zoning and definitions of how many individuals can live in a residence in each zone area. The area I live, off of University Oaks Blvd, has experienced a major influx of AgShacks in a neighborhood area. This has resulted in increased noise, traffic and late night partying. Density should not come at the cost of family neighborhoods and must be supported by road and, specifically, parking infrastructure. Where I live, if the current trend continues, will be practically unlivable in terms of quality if the trends over the past few years continue. The city needs to value the living of year round, non -student households that are essential for both the university and local businesses. As of now, I do not believe we are well supported in terms of housing. Best. 19. This is an ambitious (and exciting) plan! I trust that capacity has been assessed to ensure it is a realistic plan. 20. Cheap housing and control over the increase of rent by the properties. Every housing complex is increasing the rent every year by 30-50% without providing any additional benefits or improving the housing. 21. Addressing leasing times throughout the years - International students and other students are often without housing in the summer due to the management. 22. Difficult to legally affect market pressured rents. 23. The action plan is so very non-specific it could apply to anything or nothing. My biggest disappointment is the total disregard of A&M's part in our city's housing issues. 24. Stop the government overreach and let people live with who they want to 25. Many options are presented in this but there doesn't seem to be a clear plan for moving forward. Instead it seems like a lot will be left up to the discretion of whoever, guided by realities unknown at present. Too similar to Midtown - which turned out to be significantly "less than" the grand possibilities initially presented. Isn't it sometimes better to have a real plan, with areas chosen for higher density that don't negatively affect established neighborhoods . Keep zoning instead of making it so malleable (wasn't that the reasoning for MH and HOO areas?). Don't eliminate parking restrictions for goodness sake unless you have a magic way to mandate residents in certain areas only use public transport. 26. 1 think that one of the biggest problems facing our community is the lack of affordable housing. Recognizing that this is a tough problem to solve, I applaud the City for its efforts. 27. Increasing density in existing areas hurts people living nearby with extra traffic and noise. Renters in units to be torn down will be displaced, and face increased rents. This plan creates too many programs, either increasing staff workload, or increasing taxes to pay for new staffers. 28. Assumes there is far too little housing available when reality is that occupancy of existing stock is moderate. Assumes the City is responsible to "create" housing. Way too much government overreach, and way too little respect for existing and long term owners. How about enforcing existing zoning and deed restrictions? 29. Create space for high -density housing for students and address on -street parking. 30. Need to protect family neighborhoods from being infiltrated by Airbnb's & student rentals. 31. Strategy 7 would incorporate using HCV program with landlords to help guarantee payments and to increase diversification and Deconcentration of poverty in the city housing. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 168 Page 345 of 379 32. 1 don't feel the city cares or listens. 33. Its not a plan, its a list of ideas. They aren't bad ideas, just not concrete. 34. Need to have homeowners assoc. decide if your area is open to options 35. 1 can't afford to live in College Station making a teacher salary. Your housing market is out of control and we continually look to move outside the city limits. The rental market is also out of control with no regulation or accountability with rental owners. Our rent increases every year regardless. When we move (because we have to about every three years), I would like more required transparency on ownership of rental property so we know specifically who we are renting from. I've learned to avoid a few owners due to their inability to manage the property well. Also, when you raise the property values to extraordinarily uneconomical levels, it also affects the rental cost. Not to mention they are building houses on top of each other with no consideration of privacy. So the only new builds aren't great for families. I've also noticed that the builders in the area build really poor residential construction. There needs to be accountability for the number of complaints against owners. 36. Quality of life issues are not being addressed. It's just more of the same - pack people in, crowd them in, smaller lot sizes, etc. Our roads were not designed for such high density. Traffic is already an issue. More growth at the expense of quality of life, at the expense of things that make a quality life like trails, parks, ponds, and shared green spaces. It's so frustrating to see another plan to pack it dense and collect more taxes while the glaring density problems are made worse. 37. Unless measures are taken to significantly reduce investor purchased housing, the home values will always be artificially high, preventing lower income or new buyers from purchasing homes. The Plan should focus not only on the housing quantity crunch, but also the ability to lure resident buyers into purchasing. Resident buyers will care about the integrity of neighborhoods and add to the community value. While rental property is scarce, allowing outside investors to purchase prime real estate and demolish to build "Ag Shacks" is detrimental to College Station in the long run. 38. the data in the report shows significant growth in retirement age population which generally is choosing to come live here due to Aggieland and has $$. The second point I would make is the data for average income and income vs rent costs needs to be normalized for the 70,000 students that are not trying to earn money, and based on the amenities and fancy high rises being built it doesn't seem rent is a major issue for them. Having a student that attended A&M and Texas, it was still much cheaper in BCS vs Austin. 39. Concerned about the mechanism being created turning into a tax burden on other citizens 40. The main goal within the action that majority of the residents within the Bryan/College Station community will be to make housing affordable. The town is a small community and with not many job opportunities especially those with a high pay. The town also is mainly consisting of college aged students from the ages of 18-25. This age range is focusing on school and cannot afford certain places, especially above the amount of $1100 a month. These prices will cause Bryan/College Station to become a town of nothing of these prices continue to soar. 41. 1 don't know the goals or proposed strategies. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 169 Page 346 of 379 42. The comprehensive housing plan developed by the City staff is, without a doubt, carefully considered, meticulous and robust. Population growth in the twin Cities and increasing student enrollment at Texas A & M have created housing challenges that will take collaborative and sustained efforts short and long term. I believe the inter -generational home share program is a particularly strong proposition in allowing residents who may be on a fixed income to leverage the equity in their homes, while also creating affordable options for the student population! Similarly, the creation of a Municipal Housing Authority is an excellent idea, as a centralized resource for citizens. An interesting point to explore would be partnerships with local real estate agents who are at the forefront of search efforts for clients across the entire income spectrum. I also appreciate the homestead exemption campaign as an additional and valuable tool to increase affordability for existing and prospective homeowners. All in all, a strong plan that involves multiple stakeholders, offers creative and realistic solutions and achievable goals. 43. Proposed actions appear sound and aspirational, but outsized pressure from the development community directed at elected and appointed city leadership cannot be allowed to thwart this important endeavor. 44. More affordable housing. Rent for housing near campus is ridiculously expensive given we're all students and many pay for rent and utilities on their own. 45. 1 believe making housing more affordable for the lower income families will definitely help with housing. I also think there needs to be more done to fight criminal behavior, child abuse, etc. I don't make enough money to become a home owner, I would like to be one. However, I can't find anything in my budget 46. 1 doubt the ability of ANY governmental organization to do quality, economically sound (for the community) work. Someone will make tons and tons of money while the average tax payer will get slammed with additional fees, taxes, and wasted spending. 47. Allow more than four non -related residents to live together for the sake of affordable housing. College is the only time in our lives that we can put 7-8 girls in a house together and make memories that will last a lifetime. 48. 1 do not know the housing plan... 49. Rental assistance programs for single family homes. A low income community of homes out on the country side. Come up with an individualized monthly rent payment based off of income. 50. The Housing Action Plan is enthusiastic and hopeful. It lacks information regarding the limits behind occupancy in residences close to campus. Thanks for taking action towards helping out the community and the students that keep it thriving. 51. Who's paying for this action aid? Does this involve federal aid or federal oversight? Will Texas a&m be donating the land for the student portion of this agenda? Will there be tax rewards for existing homeowners currently acting in success yet needing updated affordable services? 52. You need to link the document???? How are we supposed to read it! 53. I've not seen the plan so I can't say if it'll be helpful or not. You need to be focusing on lowering taxes!!!! 54. A vague city-planner-ese gobbledygook wish list. No limitations or direction on WHERE anything happens. No specific mention of neighborhood protection or student housing. Really??? CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 170 Page 347 of 379 55. There needs to be some direct language surrounding creating policies or innovative solutions for young families. There are so few options to become homeowners here for young families because investors pay full asking price and then rent to us at spectacular rates. Especially for those of us who have young children in daycare and do not want to be house -poor, where are our options? How are we represented in this plan moving forward. Good on those who bought before the pandemic at reasonable interest rates. I feel like so many of us will rent forever, which means that rich investors who do not live here will continue to collect my rent as long as I choose to work and live in BCS. 56. Find ways to make housing more affordable for residents with families that are not attending TAMU or Blinn, but are hardworking families that desire to live in decent housing and nice neighborhoods. 57. The city is wasting our resources & time with this focus. 58. My family loves College Station, we have to rent cause houses that are in our price range get bought out by landlords. Our rent goes up average $100 + per year. We can't compete with landlords renting out houses with 3+ individuals and renting out per room. It's becoming harder and harder to find places to afford to rent. The housing market is way to high for the middle class families. 59. More affordable housing for middle class citizens. More utility options for citizens. 60. We need housing for avg income families not college students 61. Unsure of what the action plan is intended for and how it will be helpful. 62. This looks a lot like what happened in Austin. What they omitted in their attempts to provide housing for all coming to the area, was quality of life for current residents. They rushed things, cramming more people into areas with inadequate infrastructure. This, regardless of no space for parking, multi -story housing right up to property lines. It was not done carefully or with any consideration of existing neighborhoods. An out of town visitor commented recently about the car wash next to the cemetery. It's because they could do it. CS needs to grow in a way we can be proud of years from now, not how fast we can throw something together. 63. Focus is needed on wheelchair accessible rental housing options for low to moderate income disabled persons. HC accessible is frequently woefully inadequate when it comes to wheelchair accessibility needs. I do not see this addressed anywhere in the plan. 64. A whole lot less multifamily/student housing, and more focus on medium level income, housing. Neighborhoods for mid -level people like teachers. Streets that will accommodate traffic going both ways, and neighborhood parks. 65. 1 am concerned with deed restricting neighborhoods by using income criteria. I feel that this could potentially be viewed as steering and could violate protected classes. Also, restricting resale value would prevent these lower income families from benefiting from the gained equity in their home over time. I believe that higher density and less development restrictions are needed throughout the Brazos Valley. It makes me happy to see that College Station is taking the initiative to engage developers and builders to aid in this matter. Many cities across the nation are implementing similar programs and they are successful. 66. Stop punishing the mouth that feeds you. The students make up a large population that keeps this city running and brings a lot of money to the economy. Stop this punishment and restricting who can live where. With out the Students and TAMU then the city would not be here. People should be able to choose how they use their property. There are areas already in place where people can live and not be near/around students. 67. CS does not now and has never demonstrated enforcement of documented construction, zoning and land use planning and we have zero confidence in improvements with this plan. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN Page 348 of 379 68. Eliminate Occupancy Restrictions 69. 1 really appreciated all the thought given to how we can help those in need in College Station. I especially appreciated the idea of promoting inter -generational housing opportunities as well as alternative and energy -efficient homes. Really great stuff! 70. Y'all are going to be in a constant tug of war with A&M and the seasonal students. This isn't really a place I plan to settle down in as I have no ties to the University. 71. You are definitely on the right track. You need to consider impact fee waivers for affordable housing as well. The impact fees from CoCS and Wellborn water are affordability killers... 72. Pricing control is a must. My apartment has gone up over $300 in 2 years 73. In Goal 1 Action 3 regarding sustainability, I suggest including a plan for conservation or restoration of biodiversity to promote a healthy ecosystem where housing will be developed. Environmental impact reports may address this. 74. 1 think the Housing Action Plan is a great idea that can be used to make houses more affordable and available for everyone. 75. With the cost of construction over the past 10years more than doubling and the rental market not able to keep up in proportion with construction costs there would have to be more incentive to developers I. *IOI 1 NFTit liT.7[:RRI,l, •'TTiT-M 76. More affordable housing options in CS will be important for local families 77. Not a fan of deed restrictions or property tax exemptions 78. Increasing housing density leads to unfavorable conditions for existing homeowners who enjoy the peace and quiet. What the hell are you thinking!!! How about reducing the property tax by 50% so people can afford the homes they already have!!! 79. Can't provide affordable housing (purchase or rent) with high property taxes. Not a good business for people that wants to invest, due to very low rate of return. 80. You can't make affordable housing in cs at this point. Growth is expensive. Land is expensive. Why not have the city buy apartment buildings, renovate them and have rent control. Trying to have someone buy a house that isn't affordable doesn't make sense. CSTX.GOV I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION HOUSING ACTION PLAN 172 Page 349 of 379 "Advise on and male recommendations for the City of College Station Housing Action Plan in order to present a unified vision for the future, and to recommend for approval a final plan that reflects the community's vision for housing action and initiatives." The Committee worked with staff since November 2023 to review existing conditions and citizen and stakeholder feedback, to assess tools available for addressing housing issues, and to help create the recommendations in the draft Goals, Strategies, and Actions Report. Housing Action Plan Steering Committee Members POSITION 1 - GERALYN NOLAN POSITION 2 - BLANCHE BRICK - CO-CHAIR POSITION 3 - TIONA BPOUSSAPD POSITION 4 - FPED DUPPIEST POSITION 5 - MIKE ALAN HOLMGPEEN POSITION 6 - BLAKE JENNINGS POSITION 7 - CAPLA POBINSON POSITION 8 - CHAPLES LANE BAPP POSITION 9 - KATHEPINE NICHOLE FLYNN POSITION 10 - DELIA PEPEZ-NUNEZ POSITION 11 - DIANA MAPIE WOOD POSITION 12 - JODI WARNER - CHAIR POSITION 13 - SUZANNE DPOLESKEY 1-fit, Page 350 of 379 (*40'CITY OF COLLEGE STATION rHome of Texas AeTM University® CStX. gov Page 351 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE HOUSE ACTION PLAN AS A MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the "Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan" is hereby amended by adding new Subsection `B.12." of Exhibit "A" thereto as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. PART 2: That if any provisions of any section of this Ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this Ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. PART 3: That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this day of , 2024. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney Page 352 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 6 That Ordinance No. 4303 adopting the "Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan" as amended, is hereby amended by adding Subsection "B.12." to Exhibit "A" of said plan for Exhibit "A" to read in its entirety as follows: A. Comprehensive Plan The Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4303) is hereby adopted and consists of the following: 1. Plan Foundation; 2. Distinctive Places; 3. Strong Neighborhoods; 4. A Prosperous Economy; 5. Engaging Spaces; 6. Integrated Mobility; 7. Exceptional Services; 8. Managed Growth; 9. Collaborative Partnerships; and 10. Plan Implementation B. Master Plans The following Master Plans are hereby adopted and made a part of the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan: 1. The Northgate Redevelopment Plan dated November 1996; 2. The Revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan dated 1998; 3. Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan dated July 2003; 4. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan dated January 2010; 5. Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces Master Plan dated July 2011; 6. Medical District Master Plan dated October 2012; 7. Economic Development Master Plan dated May 2020; 8. The Water System Master Plan dated April 2017; 9. The Wastewater System Master Plan dated April 2017; 10. Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan dated September 2023; 11. Wellborn District Plan dated October 2023; and 12. Housing Action Plan dated September 2024. Page 353 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. C. Master Plan Amendments Page 3 of 6 The following Master Plan Amendments to the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 1. Expiring the East College Station Transportation Study dated May 2005 — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. 2. Expiring the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan dated June 2010 — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. 3. Expiring the Eastgate Neighborhood Plan dated June 2011 — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. 4. Expiring the Southside Area Neighborhood Plan dated August 2012 — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. 5. Expiring the South Knoll Neighborhood Plan dated September 2013 — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. 6. Amended as shown in the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan for Map 5.4 Proposed Bicycle Facilities and Map 5.5 Proposed Pedestrian Facilities within the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan — Ordinance 4470, dated September 28, 2023. 7. Amended as shown in the Wellborn District Plan for Map 5.4 Proposed Bicycle Facilities and Map 5.5 Proposed Pedestrian Facilities within the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan — Ordinance 4474, dated October 12, 2023. D. Text Amendments The following Text Amendments to the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 1. Text Amendments: a. Chapter 2. Distinctive Places by amending the text regarding the Neighborhood Center future land use description, intent, and generally appropriate zoning districts — Ordinance 4351, dated April 28, 2022. b. Chapter 2. Distinctive Places by amending the text regarding the Planning Areas description to remove expired plans — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. c. Chapter 2. Distinctive Places by amending the text regarding the Planning Areas description to rename the Texas Avenue & University Drive (FM 60) Page 354 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 of 6 Redevelopment Area to the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan — Ordinance 4470, dated September 28, 2023. d. Chapter 2. Distinctive Places by amending the text regarding the Planning Areas description to update it to the Wellborn District Plan, to revise the Future Land Use & Character descriptions to remove the Wellborn future land use and incorporate it and the Wellborn -specific zoning districts into the Neighborhood Commercial, Suburban Residential, and Estate Residential future land use descriptions and generally appropriate zoning districts — Ordinance 4474, dated October 12, 2023. E. Map Amendments The following Map Amendments to the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 1. Future Land Use & Character Map: a. Approximately 5 acres of land generally located at 2354 Barron Road from Suburban Residential to Neighborhood Commercial — Ordinance 4365, dated June 23, 2022. b. Approximately 17 acres of land generally located at 400 Double Mountain Road from Medical to Urban Residential — Ordinance 4378, dated August 11, 2022. c. Approximately 0.19 acres of land generally located at 106 Southland Street from Suburban Residential to Neighborhood Commercial — Ordinance 4388, dated September 8, 2022. d. Approximately 2.611 acres of land, generally located at 100 - 170 Graham Road from Business Center to Neighborhood Commercial — Ordinance 4435, dated May 15, 2023. e. Amended as shown in the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan — Ordinance 4470, dated September 28, 2023.. f. Amended as shown in the Wellborn District Plan — Ordinance 4474, dated October 12, 2023. g. Approximately 3.25 acres of land generally located west of the intersection of Nantucket Drive and State Highway 6 S from Suburban Residential and Natural and Open Areas to Neighborhood Commercial and Natural and Open Areas — Ordinance 4520, dated May 23, 2024. h. Approximately 3 acres of land generally located at located at 116 and 120 Morgans Lane from Urban Residential to General Commercial — Ordinance 4525, dated June 27, 2024. 2. Planning Areas Map: Page 355 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 5 of 6 a. Removing the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, Eastgate Neighborhood Plan, Southside Area Neighborhood Plan, and South Knoll Neighborhood Plan — Ordinance 4404, dated November 10, 2022. b. Renaming the Texas Avenue & University Drive (FM 60) Redevelopment Area to the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan — Ordinance 4470, dated September 28, 2023. c. Renaming the Wellborn Community Plan to the Wellborn District Plan — Ordinance 4474, dated October 12, 2023. 3. Functional Classification & Context Class Map: a. Amended as shown in the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan — Ordinance 4470, dated September 28, 2023. b. Amended as shown in the Wellborn District Plan — Ordinance 4474, dated October 12, 2023. F. General 1. Conflict. All parts of the Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto shall be harmonized where possible to give effect to all. Only in the event of an irreconcilable conflict shall the later adopted ordinance prevail and then only to the extent necessary to avoid such conflict. Ordinances adopted at the same city council meeting without reference to another such ordinance shall be harmonized, if possible, so that effect may be given to each. 2. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide for growth and development for the entire City and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ("ETJ"). The Comprehensive Plan depicts generalized locations of proposed future land uses, including thoroughfares, bicycle and pedestrian ways, parks, greenways, and waterlines, and sewer lines that are subject to modification by the City to fit local conditions and budget constraints. 3. General nature of Future Land Use. The Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Future Land Use & Character Map and any adopted amendments thereto, shall not be, nor be considered, a zoning map, shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning boundaries, and shall not be site or parcel specific but shall be used to illustrate generalized locations. 4. General nature of College Station Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and any additions, amendments, master plans and subcategories thereto depict same in generalized terms including future locations; and are subject to modifications by the City to fit local conditions, budget constraints, cost participation, and right-of-way Page 356 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 6 of 6 availability that warrant further refinement as development occurs. Linear routes such as thoroughfares, bikeways, pedestrian ways, greenways, waterlines, and sewer lines that are a part of the Comprehensive Plan may be relocated by the City 1,000 feet from the locations shown in the Comprehensive Plan without being considered an amendment thereto. 5. Reference. The term College Station Comprehensive Plan includes all of the above in its entirety as if presented in full herein, and as same may from time to time be amended. Page 357 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.4. PRO Housing Grant Application Resolution Sponsor: Raney Whitwell, Community Development Analyst Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution authorizing the City of College Station to apply to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing Grant in the amount of $3,600,000. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financial Sustainability, Core Services & Infrastructure, Diverse & Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Summary: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a funding notification regarding the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing). The draft resolution will allow the City of College Station to submit an application for funding in the amount of $3,600,000. This grant aligns with the Housing Action Plan which specifies two goals: 1) Create more housing units and more diverse housing types, and 2) Produce and preserve housing that is affordable to current and future community members. The goal of the PRO Housing grant is to identify and remove barriers to affordable housing production and preservation. If awarded, Staff has identified 3 projects that will be addressed with the grant funds: 1) Density Bonus Study, 2) Housing Capacity Study, and 3) Acquisition & Disposition Housing Program for Rental and/or Homeownership. The resolution also identified matching funds from future Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program grant funds in the amount of $3,600,000 over the next five years. Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: Resolution - PRO Housing Grant Page 358 of 379 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF PATHWAYS TO REMOVING OBSTACLES TO HOUSING FROM THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for the FY24 Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing); and WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas has developed a Housing Action Plan with two goals: 1) Create more housing units and more diverse housing types and 2) Produce and preserve housing that is affordable to current and future community members; and WHEREAS, the goals identified align with the purpose of the PRO Housing grant, which is to identify and remove barriers to affordable housing production and preservation; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas, has identified three projects for the utilization of these funds: 1) Acquisition / Rehabilitation / Disposition Housing Program for either rental or homeownership, 2) Development of Density Bonus Program, and 3) Housing Capacity Study; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas will apply for funding in an amount of $3,600,000 with plans to match this amount with funds from future Community Development Block Grants; and WHEREAS, PRO Housing funds are required to be used to benefit low- and moderate -income (LMI) persons and 100% of funds should be used for projects that benefit LMI persons in College Station; now, therefore: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS: PART 1: That the City Council hereby approves a PRO Housing application for funding in the amount of $3,600,000.00. PART 2: That the City of College Station, Texas will commit Community Development Block Grant Funds in the amount of $3,600,000.00 from the future allocations. PART 3: That the City Council hereby authorizes and designates the City Manager Page 359 of 379 or his designee to sign all required applications, certifications, evaluations, and other forms required by HUD on behalf of the City of College Station. PART 4: That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this day of 2024. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney Mayor APPROVED: Page 360 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.5. Rezoning 151 Graham Rd Sponsor: Robin Macias, Land Development Review Administrator Reviewed By CBC: Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries from M-1 Light Industrial to CI Commercial Industrial on approximately 11 acres located in the University Industrial Center, more generally located at 151 Graham Road. Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Summary: This request is to rezone approximately 11 acres of land located at 151 Graham Rd. from M-1 Light Industrial to CI Commercial Industrial. The property is developed as an industrial complex but is currently vacant. A portion of the property is still undeveloped. The M-1 Light Industrial zoning district was retired in 2003 with the original adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance. This rezoning request would allow for the zoning to be updated to a current zoning district. The intent of the rezoning is to allow for different uses that are not allowed by right within the current zoning of M-1 Light Industrial. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item at the September 5, 2024 meeting and unanimously recommended approval (5-0). REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map designates the subject property as Business Center. The Comprehensive Plan generally describes the Business Center land use designation as follows: Areas that include office, research or industrial uses that may be planned and developed as a unified project. These areas need convenient access to arterial roadways. The intent of the district is to: • Accommodate a variety of large footprint buildings • Accommodate commercial and service uses within Business Centers The zoning districts that are generally appropriate within the Business Center land use include: BP Business Park and Cl Commercial Industrial The proposed zoning district of CI Commercial Industrial would be in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 361 of 379 2. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed zoning district will be appropriate in the context of the surrounding area: The property has frontage to FM 2154 and Graham Road. Adjacent properties are zoned R-4 Multi- family to the north, M-2 Heavy Industrial to the east and SC Suburban Commercial and M-2 Heavy Industrial to the south across Graham Road. The adjacent property to the north is developed as multi -family residential and the properties to the east are developed as commercial office space and a landscaping supply company. The properties across Graham Road are developed as a commercial daycare. The Cl Commercial Industrial zoning district is designed to provide a location for outlets offering goods and services to a limited segment of the general public. The allowed uses in this district generally serve other commercial and industrial enterprises. The proposed zoning district is appropriate for the surrounding area as it would allow for a variety of uses which would help serve the surrounding businesses. 3. Whether the property to be rezoned is physically suitable for the proposed zoning district: The size and location of the subject property is suitable for uses allowed within the proposed zoning district. The site has adequate space to meet the minimal dimensional standards for Cl Commercial Industrial. There is no floodplain on the property. 4. Whether there is available water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for uses permitted by the proposed zoning district: The existing water and wastewater infrastructure is adequate to support the needs of this development. Detention is required in accordance with the BCS guidelines. Drainage and any other infrastructure required with the site development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. The subject property has frontage to FM 2154 (Wellborn Road) and Graham Road. FM 2154 is designated as a 6-lane Major Arterial and Graham Road is designated as a 2-lane Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The property has existing driveway access to FM 2154 and Graham Road. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done for the rezoning request and studied 6 street intersections in the surrounding area and the 2 site driveways. The TIA identified mitigation is needed at the intersection of Graham Road and Victoria Avenue. If the proposed development generates more than 151 trips in the AM Peak or more than 121 trips in the PM peak then a single - lane roundabout will need to be constructed at that intersection to meet traffic demands. 5. The marketability of the property: The applicant has stated that the current M-1 Light Industrial zoning is not the highest and best use for the property. Rezoning the property from M-1 Light Industrial to Cl Commercial Industrial can provide additional development opportunity by allowing a greater variety of uses. The opportunity for an increased variety of uses will make the property more marketable. Page 362 of 379 Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Aerial and Small Area Map 2. Background Information 3. Existing Future Land Use Map 4. Rezoning Map 5. Applicant's Supporting Information 6. Rezoning Exhibit 7. Graham Rd. Rezoning Ordinance Page 363 of 379 *� City of College Station DEL S' ,' ES ES :•, EDELWEIS � f BUSINE GFN Ak 'BRA Apf)ITION f. .� `ar'� � . �; �• � - , '" pis .',,�. ��ii,��G , w,, •. '�IIRRrNTION D L 'r U F�SITY t BIND RIA y li PAR f.. G H 1 a\ / dp r� ELLI ��> �' �, > IS A ENs. , • JHW� ` 2 COMMERCI�`L.. /; /* 'pO DDITION EL 6lb' �° ♦ e �`• TENS z .4 lip _ . C L,� y� DI PH 2 AAW 0 205 410 NORTH iFeet 151 GRAHAM RD Case: REZ2024-000016 REZONING City of College Station •;•;:`::' '' '':'. • • �:apbrraor� : : M•::'2'.: EL IS - G S . 4AT�oN�' ' ::C :3'�.:: '::'• .. • r::.': : r•:.'' : r BUSIN S .. .. .. ' EL.'' '' ::..'' •' UNII TY' '•:r=Q �uvr`y '• :: IVI =•2�.• :wads IAL ... ESTATE$!PH. .. 'ARK• �J E L I; Cl ZONING DISTRICTS (In Grayscale) N `Sow .. :: ..' ':..:.•.; •: ' UNIVERSITY / E ISS :•''''- I USTRIA D �� G RTENS C TE J H 3 Q.OG G S Residential MH Middle Housing R Rural MF Multi -Family WE Wellborn Estate MU Mixed -Use E Estate MHP Manufactured Home Pk. WRS Wellborn Restricted Suburban RS Restricted Suburban GS General Suburban D Duplex T Townhome 0 275 550 N- Feet S� SC SC � \ Non -Residential NAP Natural Area Protected O Office SC Suburban Commercial WC Wellborn Commercial GC General Commercial Cl Commercial Industrial BP Business Park BPI Business Park Industrial C-U College and University Planned Districts P-MUD Planned Mixed -Use Dist. PDD Planned Develop. Dist. Desiqn Districts WPC Wolf Pen Creek Dev. Cor NG-1 Core Northgate NG-2 Transitional Northgate NG-3 Residential Northgate 151 GRAHAM RD S Is H 20OFT Notification" N%-E§dr/ \ \ XFi Overlay Districts Retired Districts OV Corridor Ovr. R-1 B Single Family Residential RDD Redevelopment District R-4 Multi -Family HOO High Occupancy Ovr. R-6 High Density Multi -Family ROO Restricted Occupancy Ovr. C-3 Light Commercial NPO Nbrhd. Prevailing Ovr. RD Research and Dev. NCO Nbrhd. Conservation Ovr. M-1 Light Industrial HP Historic Preservation Ovr. M-2 Heavy Industrial Case: REZONING REZ2024-000016 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date Advertised Council Hearing Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION September 5, 2024 September 26, 2024 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Edelweiss Gartens Edelweiss Estates Property owner notices mailed: 16 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning North Urban Residential R-4 Mutli-Family Neighborhood SC Suburban South Commercial and Commercial and M-2 Business Center Heavy Industrial East Business Center M-2 Heavy Industrial West Business Center R Rural DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: March 1992 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open (1992) M-1 Planned Industrial (1993) Renamed to M-1 Light Industrial (2003) Final Plat: University Industrial Center Site development: Commercial offices and Undeveloped Land Use Multi -Family Residential Graham Rd (2-lane major collector) Commercial Business FM 2154 (6-lane major arterial) Page 366 of 379 Suburban Residential y: Suburban Residential Center Neigh -or orh�o*od Je`' Suburban �o Commercial �� Re dential ti�1 General Suburban 1-o 1,10 7 floormoMmh er�cial o �, Duplex General Suburban General Suburban �o Mult, 1 Suburban*'.Wf Gommericial �o Duplex General Subur ;pan (*-REZONING APPLICATION CITY °FC° GFST^TI°N SUPPORTING INFORMATION Home ofTexarAbM University' Name of Project: 151 GRAHAM RD (REZ2024-000016) Address: 151 GRAHAM RD Legal Description: UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL CENTER, LOT 88.1, ACRES 8.2235 Total Acreage: 10.837 Applicant:: SCHULTZ ENGINEERING Property Owner: SIANTAR INVESTMENTS I LP List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. The demand for commercial industrial developments remains high, updating the M-1 Light Industrial zoning to Cl commercial Industrial will meet the demands for a more variety of uses. Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. The Commercial Industrial zoning will be compatible since the surrounding area includes Heavy Industrial, Commercial Industrial and Suburban Commercial. How will this zone change be compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood? The current zoning district is M-1 Light Industrial which is suitable for this property, however this district would be underutilized and would not be used for its highest and best use. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the rezoning district requested. The utility infrastructure is in place to support the requested zoning and the land characteristics such as vegetation and topography are suitable for the requested zoning. Page 1 of 2 Page 369 of 379 Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. The utility infrastructure is in place to support the requested zoning and the land characteristics such as vegetation and topography are suitable for the requested zoning. Explain the marketability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. The current zoning would limit the uses allowed and the marketability of the land. List any other reasons to support this zone change. The zoning request will update this property to a more marketable zoning district that fits well with the surrounding properties. Page 2 of 2 Page 370 of 379 Nk COCS GPS 1 MON 117 41 09, \ `9 •9r Z W j Q ;7 N C� 00 a = Wo 3 LLJ J m Q z Q N/F WOODS & VILLAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC JHW COMMERCIAL ADDN PH 2 BLOCK 1, LOT 4—A 18240/182 ZONED C-3 NOTES: 1. THE BEARINGS OF THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON THE TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, CENTRAL ZONE, NAD83(2011) EPOCH 2O10, AND BOUNDARY REFERENCED TO 1/2", 3/8", AND 5/8" IRON RODS AND MONUMENTS FOUND AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS RECORDED DEEDS. 2. SAID LOT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE UNDER THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON COMMUNITY PANEL NO.48041 C0310F EFFECTIVE DATE, APRIL 2, 2014. LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY — PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (P.U.E.) — EXISTING PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT (Pr.D.E.) — EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (P.U.E) EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (P.A.E.) O PROPERTY CORNER S4'r 55' 47V - 559.94' 10' EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT (VOL. 456, PAGE 249) N/F WOODS & VILLAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC JHW COMMERCIAL ADDN PH 2 BLOCK 1, LOT 4-13 18240/182 ZONED C-3 N/F WOODS & VILLAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC JHW COMMERCIAL ADDN BLOCK 1, LOT 3 13676/114 ZONED SC LINE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION L1 36.04' N83° 40' 15"W GRAHAM RD 67' PAVEMENT N/F WOODS & VILLAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC JHW COMMERCIAL ADDN, BLOCK 1, LOT 2 18368/157 ZONED M-2 Curve Table CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA TANGENT CHORD CHORD DIRECTION C1 98.42' 2153.38' 002°37'07" 49.22' 98.41' S40°22'35"W C2 89.98' 8048.96' 000°38'26" 44.99' 89.98' S43°33'49"W T N/F COTTAGES OF ROCK PRAIRIE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EDELWEISS ESTATES PH 5, BLOCK 14, LOT 1, ACRES 13.695 & ASSOCIATED BPP 2537/067 ZONED R-4 N4f 58' 31AE-1169.24' 10.837 AC. Existing Zoning: Light Industrial - M 1 Proposed Zoning: Commercial Industrial - CI C;1 S40° 27' 28V-101.71' cc N/F 9092 INVESTMENTS LLC JHW COMMERCIAL ADDN, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 13491/131 ZONED M-2 20' EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT N/F CME TESTING & ENGINEERING INC UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL CENTER LOT 88.9, ACRES 0.4909 8913/259 ZONED M-2 I NOT TO SCALE 847 00' 34V - 249.24' 10' EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT (VOL.456, PAGE 249) VICINITY MAP M 50' EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT (VOL. 148, PAGE 361 & VOL. 108, PAGE 406) N/F INNOVATE BCS PROPERTIES I LP DEUEL, BLOCK 1, LOT 2R, ACRES .5157 143994/061 ZONED M-2 84Z 52' 17V-101.51' C2 '�— N/F INNOVATE BCS PROPERTIES I LP ELLIOT, LOT 2, ACRES 1.1548 16662/150 ZONED M-2 GRAHAM RD 67' PAVEMENT N/F INNOVATE BCS PROPERTIES I LP DEUEL, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R, ACRES .4715 143994/061 ZONED M-2 N/F INNOVATE BCS PROPERTIES I LP ELLIOT LOT 1, ACRES 0.7859 18311/062 ZONED M-2 50 25 0 50 SCALE IN FEET N/F INNOVATE BCS PROPERTIES I LP UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK PH 2, LOT 1A, ACRES 0.4821 18311/062 ZONED M-2 ZONING MAP UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL CENTER 10.837 ACRES EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, M I PROPOSED ZONING - COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, CI COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS SCALE: I "=50' AUGUST 2024 OWNER/DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR: ENGINEER: $GuilEEngmeenng. U C SIANTAR INVESTMENTS LLC Adam Wallace, RPLS No. 6132 727 Graham Road ATM Surveying TBPE NO. 12327 P.O. Box 10313 911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E. College Station, TX 77845 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, TX 77840 4+4 (979) 399-7700 (979) 209-9291 (979)764-3900 Y OF Page 371 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE," ARTICLE 4 "ZONING DISTRICTS," SECTION 4.2, "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFFECTING APPROXIMATELY 10.84 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT 151 GRAHAM RD; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Appendix A "Unified Development Ordinance," Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes. PART 2: If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, the invalidity or unconstitutionality does not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance or the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. PART 3: That any person, corporation, organization, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association and any other legal entity violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty five dollars ($25.00) and not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for a violation of fire safety, zoning, or public health and sanitation ordinances, other than the dumping of refuse. Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. PART 4: This Ordinance is a penal ordinance and becomes effective ten (10) days after its date of passage by the City Council, as provided by City of College Station Charter Section 35. Ordinance Form 08-27-19 Page 372 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 of 5 PASSED, ADOPTED, and APPROVED this day of , 20. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor Ordinance Form 08-27-19 Page 373 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A That Appendix A "Unified Development Ordinance," Article 4 "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended as follows: The following property is rezoned from M-1 Light Industrial to Cl Commercial Industrial: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION Being a tract of land containing 10.84 acres, being the remainder of the University Industrial Center Phase 1, as recorded in Vol. 456, Page 249, ofthe Brazos County Deed Records, save and except the tract recorded in Vol. 4097, Page 177, ofthe Brazos County Official Records(B.C.O.R.), and save and except the tract recorded in Vol. 7812, Page 83, ofthe B.0 O.R., in the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas. All bearings of this survey are referenced to the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, Central Zone, NAD83(2011) Epoch 2010, and boundary referenced to 1/2", 3/8", and 5/8" iron rods found and referred to said previous recorded deeds, and as surveyed on the ground on October 21st, of 2021. This description is also referred to the plat prepared by ATM Surveying, Project No. 21-0489, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 3/8 iron rod found for the north corner of this tract, also being the north corner of said University Industrial Center, also being a point on the southeast line of the Cottages of Rock Prairie Limited Partnership, called Lot 1, Block 14, called 13.695 acres, being Edelweiss Estates Phase 5, as recorded in Vol. 2537, Page 67, ofthe B.C.O.R., also being the west corner ofthe Innovate BCS Properties I, LP called Lot 2R, Block 1, called 0.5157 acres, ofthe Deuel Addition, as recorded in Vol. 143994, Page 61, ofthe B C.O.R.; THENCE South 48°05'57" East, a distance of 395.36 feet along the common line between this tract and said Lot 2R to a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap marked "KERR 4502" for the east corner of this tract, also being the north corner of said save and except tract recorded in Vol. 4097, Page 177, of the B.C.O.R., also being the northwest line of Graham Road(Variable Width R.O. W.); THENCE along the common line between this tract and said Graham Road for the following calls: Around a curve to the right having a delta angle of 0098'26", an arc distance of 89.99 feet, a radius of 8048.96 feet, and a chord of South 43°33'49" West, a distance of 89.98 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for the end of curve; South 42°52' 17" West, a distance of 101.51 feet to a 5/8" iron rod found in concrete for a bend in this tract; South 42°00'34" West, a distance of 249.24 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for a bend in this tract; South 40°27'28" West, a distance of 101.71 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for the beginning of a curve; Around a curve to the right having a delta angle of 02°37'07", an arc distance of 98.42 feet, a radius of 2153.38 feet, and a chord of South 40°22'35" West, a distance of 98.41 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for the end of curve, South 41°55'47" West, a distance of 559.94 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for a south corner of this tract, also being the east corner of a said save Ordinance Form 08-27-19 Page 374 of 379 ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 of 5 and except tract recorded in Vol 7812, Page 83, of the B C.O R , THENCE along the common line between this tract and the northeast line of N Wellborn Road(100' R O W) for the following calls North 83°40' 15" West, a distance of 36 04 feet to a 1/2" iron rod with a maroon plastic cap marked "ATM SURV - RPLS 6132" set for a bend in this tract, North 39'59' 13" West, a distance of 371 38 feet to a''/," iron rod found with an aluminum cap marked TXDOT for the west comer of this tract, also being the south comer of said 13 695 acre tract, THENCE North 41°58'31" East, a distance of 1169 24 feet along the common line between this tract and said 13 695 acre tract to the PLACE OF BEGINNING containing 10 84 acres Adam Wallace Texas Registered Professional Land Surveyor No. 6132 - Firon rod foundM #101784-00 21-0489-Graham Road- 15 1 -legal doc 10/21/2021 Ordinance Form 08-27-19 Page 375 of 379 O V m w September 26, 2024 Item No. 9.6. BVSWMA Appointment Sponsor: Tanya Smith, City Secretary Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an appointment to the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. Board of Directors. Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Good Governance Recommendation(s): None Summary: Councilmember Mark Smith served as one of College Station's three appointees to the BVSWMA Board of Directors. Councilmember Smith's term expires September 30, 2024. A new appointment to the BVSWMA Board of Directors needs to be made. This can be an appointment for a new board member or renewal of a current board member with an expiring term. This will be a 3- year term when filled. Budget & Financial Summary: None Attachments: 1. Ltr CS BVSWMA BoD 2024 Page 377 of 379 11 WEST WEBB ALLBRITTON GENTRY August 16, 2024 Bryan Hanna Partner Registered Patent Attorney, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office bryan.hanna@westwebb.law Via Regular Mail and Email at afalco(&cstx.gov Adam Falco City Attorney, City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 Re: BVSWMA Board of Directors Dear Adam: As you are aware, the City of College Station and the City of Bryan each appoint three (3) directors to the seven (7) member board of directors for BVSWMA. Those six (6) City -appointed directors select the seventh (7th) director to complete the Board. I am writing to remind you of the need for appointing a new director or renewing the appointment of the current director with an expiring term from the City of College Station. Based on my review of BVSWMA records, the term of one (1) of the three (3) directors appointed by each City expires on September 30, 2024. According to my records, for the City of College Station, the term of Mark Smith is expiring this year. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this procedure. If you would please keep me up-to-date on your City's appointment, I would be appreciative. Sincerely, Bryan T. Hanna cc: Bryan Griesbach (via email at bariesbach(a)bvswma.com) Mike Gentry (via email) 1515 Emerald Plaza, College Station, TX 77845 1 979.694.7000 1 westwebb.law COLLEGE STATION I CENTRAL AUSTIN I WEST AUSTIN Page 378 of 379 September 26, 2024 Item No. 10.1. Council Reports on Committees, Boards, and Commissions Sponsor: City Council Reviewed By CBC: City Council Agenda Caption: Items of Community Interest and Council Calendar: The Council may discuss upcoming events and receive reports from a Council Member or City Staff about items of community interest for which notice has not been given, including: expressions of thanks, congratulations or condolence; information regarding holiday schedules; honorary or salutary recognitions of a public official, public employee, or other citizen; reminders of upcoming events organized or sponsored by the City of College Station; information about a social, ceremonial or community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the City of College Station that is scheduled to be attended by a Council Member, another city official or staff of the City of College Station; and announcements involving an imminent threat to the public health and safety of people in the City of College Station that has arisen after the posting of the agenda. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good Governance Recommendation(s): Review meetings attended. Summary: A current calendar of upcoming community events can be found in more detail at cstx.gov/calendar and official meetings or public notices are posted at cstx.gov/agendas. Meetings and events the week of September 27th thru October 7th: 30th — Bush Wellborn Crossing Workshop 1 st — Zoning Board of Adjustments Meeting (ZBA) 2nd — B/CS MPO Policy Board Meeting 2nd — Legislative Affairs Committee 3rd — Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting (P&Z) 3rd — Bush Wellborn Crossing Workshop 5th — Hometown Tailgate - Texas A&M vs Missouri 7th — Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) (date could change) 7th — City Council Meeting Budget & Financial Summary: None. Attachments: None Page 379 of 379