Loading...
09/08/2016 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 City Hall Council Chambers4:30 PMThursday, September 8, 2016 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed: Litigation a. Juliao v. City of College Station, Cause No. 14-002168-CV-272, In the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas b. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City of College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos County, Texas Legal Advice a.Issues related to the Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications System Interlocal Agreement b.Legal Issues Related to Proposed Road Maintenance Fee 3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session. 4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the partnership between the City of College Station and TAMU to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game. 16-05535. Sponsors:Rother Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016 September 8, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's written comments on the proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection and treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the process for possible implementation of water-wastewater impact fees. 16-05246. Sponsors:Coleman August 4 2016 Workshop (Draft) Commissioner Rektorik's Comments IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments IFAC Member Joseph's Comments 20 IFAC commts CIP & Land Use Thoughts on Water Attachments: 7. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events. 8.Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items and review of standing list of Council generated agenda items: A Council Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 9.Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS, Compensation and Benefits Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Design Review Board, Economic Development Committee, Texas Aggies Go to War, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Research Valley Technology Council, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister Cities Association, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, YMCA, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board). 10. Adjourn The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016 September 8, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. APPROVED _____________________ City Manager I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on September 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. _____________________ City Secretary 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 Handgun. "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." Codigo 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 3 College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0553 Name:Game Day Traffic Plan Update Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/31/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:9/8/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the partnership between the City of College Station and TAMU to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game. Sponsors:Troy Rother Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the partnership between the City of College Station and TAMU to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Core Services and Infrastructure ·Improving Mobility Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that Council receive the presentation. Summary: The City of College Station, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, and Texas A&M University have been working together for several years to efficiently move traffic away from Kyle Field after each TAMU football game. Pre- season traffic control plans that specify road closures and traffic direction on and off campus are developed. This information is packaged and shared with countless groups of people to insure that anyone who is interested can obtain the information. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: None College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0524 Name:Impact Fee Update - W/WW Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/19/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:9/8/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's written comments on the proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection and treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the process for possible implementation of water-wastewater impact fees. Sponsors:David Coleman Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:August 4 2016 Workshop (Draft) Commissioner Rektorik's Comments IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments IFAC Member Joseph's Comments 20 IFAC commts CIP & Land Use Thoughts on Water Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding receiving the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's written comments on the proposed water services impact fee and wastewater collection and treatment services impact fee and providing an update on the process for possible implementation of water-wastewater impact fees. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services & Infrastructure and Sustainable City Recommendation: Acknowledge receipt of written comments from the committee. Present for information. Summary:City Council directed staff to conduct an engineering study for possible implementation of water and wastewater impact fees. This presentation will provide an update on the following: •Schedule for actions completed and upcoming •Calculation of maximum allowable impact fees •Comments from Advisory Committee •Staff recommendation Please note that a public hearing and formal action are scheduled for the Regular City Council meeting on September 22, 2016. College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0524,Version:1 Budget & Financial Summary:None Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes. Attachments: •IFAC Comments on LUA and CIP • IFAC Comments on Fee Calculations • Written Comments from IFAC Members (4) College Station, TX Printed on 9/2/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting August 4, 2016 5:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jodi Warner, Casey Oldham, Jim Ross and Barry Moore COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jerome Rektorik, Johnny Burns IFAC MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy French IFAC MEMBERS ABSENT: Kirk Joseph, Don Hellriegel CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Berry, John Nichols, Steve Aldrich, Blanche Brick CITY STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Templin, Chuck Gilman, Jeff Kersten, Jeff Capps, Donald Harmon, David Coleman, Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Natalie Ruiz, Jennifer Prochazka, Carol Cotter, Danielle Singh, Kevin Ferrer, Mark Bombek, Jenifer Paz, Rachel Lazo, Carla Robinson, Kirk Price and Kristen Hejny 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairperson Kee Called the IFAC meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Advisory Committee reviewing and making a recommendation on Maximum Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees. Alan Gibbs, City Engineer, began his presentation by addressing questions raised by the IFAC at their last meeting. He also stated that the City Council will consider the Water/Wastewater Impact Fees on September 22, 2016, and the Roadway Impact Fees on November 10, 2016. Chairperson Kee asked how the new list of benchmark cities compared to College Station concerning growth rates and their time of Impact Fee adoption. City Engineer Gibbs stated that this data was not readily available, but could be presented to the IFAC at a later date. Commissioner Ross asked if the $150 million needed for infrastructure is inclusive of Transportation or only Water/Wastewater. Director of Water Services Coleman responded that this only includes Water/Wastewater over the next ten years. Commissioner Moore asked how the maximum impact fee was calculated and how Staff’s recommendation was concluded. August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 City Engineer Gibbs stated that state law defines that the maximum be calculated as the Eligible CIP (City Improvement Project) Cost, minus the Rate Credit, divided by projected growth. Commissioner Warner asked in regards to developable land, how much and/or what will be impacted by the impact fees. City Engineer Gibbs stated that Water/Wastewater, as proposed, will apply to portions of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and this enforcement will be done in tandem with annexation. Commissioner Kee asked, if adopted, how often would the impact fees be reviewed, and how would they be changed if needed. City Engineer Gibbs stated the fees would be reviewed at a minimum of five years, but could be reviewed more often if needed. Chairperson Kee asked how CIPs affect impact fees if fees are changed. Would reimbursement be granted if recalculated? City Engineer Gibbs stated that it is not anticipated that there will be a lack of CIP projects or a problem spending the impact fees. Commissioner Ross asked if the $3500 Water/Wastewater fee impact recommended by Staff, would apply to every new home, regardless of home size. City Manager Templin stated that the fee would be based upon the water meter size. Commissioner Ross asked if existing properties would pay into the impact fee. City Manager Templin stated that existing properties would not pay into the fee unless the meter size was increased or meters were added. Commissioner Ross expressed concern that the impact fee would drive up existing home prices. Commissioner Oldham asked why we haven’t been paying for current impact, and asked what other options the City has other than impact fees. City Manager Templin stated that impact fees are our best options, along with raising utility rates. Commissioner Oldham asked why the City has chosen to implement the impact fees over other funding options. Deputy City Manager Gilman stated that the City is trying to redistribute the burden of new growth to those causing the impacts and reduce the amount of rate increases by collecting impact fees up front. IFAC Member French asked, if the impact fee was not implemented, what the utility rate increase would have to be to fund the needed infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Ross asked what the tax rate would have to be, in order to fund the improvements, per single-family home. August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 Assistant City Manager Kersten responded that there would need to be an approximate utility rate increase of 30% or $150 a year on wastewater, and about 8%-9% or $90 a year for water on a typical single-family home. IFAC Member French asked when the execution of impact fees would begin, and when would the new water and wastewater lines be run to developments. Director of Water Services Coleman stated that the projects would be in line with the Wastewater Master Plan and it has to be in progress with the projects. Chairperson Kee asked what would happen, if after ten years, there are no more projects to be funded. Director of Water Services Coleman stated the impact fees would be reviewed at a minimum of every five years, so there should not be a loss of projects. Commissioner Oldham asked how the CIP projects would be funded by only utilizing 15% of the maximum impact fees. Assistant City Manager Kersten stated that there would also be an increase in utility rates to help fund the CIP projects. Commissioner Oldham stated that he did not feel comfortable in deciding an exact fee and would like to see an economic impact analysis. Chairperson Kee stated that to initiate a fee such as this, we need to look upon what the market can bare so that development will not be hindered. Ms. Kee stated that she hopes that council will look at revenue streams and keep in mind the goals and objectives outlined in the plan, annexation policy’s, economic development goals, and affordable housing so that there is not a detriment to growth and development. Ms. Kee also stated that she did not feel as though she has enough information to propose an exact dollar amount for the impact fee. Commissioner Oldham asked for different mechanisms of funding the growth and development, other than an impact fee. Mr. Oldham also stated that the fee should match the impact. IFAC Member French asked if the fees could slowly be increased over several years to help minimize the impact on the home builders. Commissioner Warner stated that she was not comfortable recommending a fee amount. Director of Water Services Coleman stated that there is an obligatory one-year waiting period before implementation of the fees. Commissioner Oldham if there was a problem with absorption on the developer’s end, how would this affect the City. Chairperson Kee summarized her comments stating that Water/Wastewater impact fees should be considered and she encouraged the City Council to look at all infrastructure funding options. Ms. Kee also stated she didn’t feel qualified to recommend a specific impact fee amount. Ms. Kee also recommended considering impact fees in light of the City’s adopted goals, objectives, and vision. August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Moore stated that he also believed that all funding options should be considered, including impact fees. He also stated that the City should be willing to listen to the private market. Commissioner Warner stated the City Council should look at all infrastructure funding options. She also stated she didn’t feel qualified to recommend a specific impact fee amount. Ms. Warner also favors impact fees in lieu of across-the-board utility rate increases. IFAC Member French stated that he would be in favor of Water/Wastewater impact fees. He also recommended that the proposed $3500 impact fee be tiered or cut in half to $1750, to minimize the impact on development. He would also like to see utility rates increased as well. Commissioner Ross stated that he would like to leave the overall decisions to the policy makers. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Roadway Impact Fee Advisory Committee reviewing and making a recommendation on the Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact Fees. Presentation and discussion on this item was deferred to a later meeting. 4. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. Commissioner Oldham stated that he would be abstaining from voting on Regular Agenda Items #7 & #8. 5. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev There was no discussion. 6. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff. *Final Plat ~ Minor Plat ~ Caprock Crossing Lot 1A-R and 4R, Block 3 ~ Case #FPCO2016-000004 (Thomas) *Final Plat ~ Minor Replat ~ Woodland Estates Lots 16-5RA and 15-5RB ~ Case #FP2016-000020 (Bullock) There was no discussion. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2016 P&Z Plan of Work. There was no discussion. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, August 11, 2016 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 4:30 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison – Kee) *Thursday, August 18, 2016 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:30 p.m. and Regular 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Kee reviewed upcoming meetings for the Planning & Zoning Commission. 9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items: August 4, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 *An Ordinance Amendment related to the creation of Wellborn Zoning Districts. Planning & Zoning heard this item on June 16, 2016, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. City Council heard this item on July 28, 2016, and voted (6-0) to approve the request. *A Rezoning on approximately six acres located at 5068 Raymond Stotzer Parkway from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on July 7, 2016, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on July 28, 2016, and voted (5-1-0) to approve the request. There was no discussion. 10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio Corridor Board. There was no discussion. 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion. 12. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairperson Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services Dear Alan: Please forward my remarks to all relevant parties prior to the meeting on Thursday. As previously communicated, I have a long standing commitment in Conroe on Thursday. In my opinion, the discussion and consideration of impact fees needs to be considered in the CONTEXT of the City Council Mission and the COMMUNITY VISION as articulated in the CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN -2016 UPDATE. [The entire document is readily available on the College Station website.]To me, a consideration of the mission and vision statements has been missing in the dialogue associated with the matter of suggesting or not suggesting impact fees-- and, if yes, how much and in what domains. Please note that I may want to revise these inputs prior to the packet with all inputs that will be submitted to City Council for consideration. CONTEXT: CITY COUNCIL MISSION “On behalf of the citizens of College Station, home of Texas A&M University, we will continue to promote and advance the community's QUALITY OF LIFE". [emphasis added] CONTEXT: COMMUNITY VISION "College Station will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based community that promotes the HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE by: [emphasis added] * Promoting safe, tranquil, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character. * Increasing and maintaining CITIZENS MOBILITY [emphasis added] through a well- planned and constructed intermodal Transportation system. * Promoting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environments. * Supporting HIGH QUALITY, [emphasis added] well-planned and sustainable growth. * Valuing and protecting our community's cultural and historical resources. * Developing and maintaining HIGH QUALITY [emphasis added] ,cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure and services that ensure a cohesive and connected city. * Proactively supporting economic and educational opportunities for all citizens. College Station will remain a friendly and responsive community and will be a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will forever be place where Texas and the world come to learn, live and conduct business". CONSIDERATIONS FOR ME 1. These vision and mission statements have been key ingredients [decision premises] as I have attempted to research and weigh the potential implications of adopting impact fees. To the extent possible, I do think that the city staff and the consultants have brought forth a rational, thoughtful, and extensive analysis, including assessment, of the design and features for the recommended impact fees related to water, waste water, and transportation CAPITAL requirements/needs consistent with the Council mission and community vision. 2. I had the opportunity to serve on the two previous citizen advisory capital committees. In both cases, it was disappointing that the VAST majority of the projected and available capital funds had to be allocated to core capital projects such as roads, fire stations, police station, and the like. These projects were required due to relatively high levels of community growth. Unfortunately, a number of QUALITY OF LIFE capital projects had to be eliminated even thought they were valued and recognized as desirable. 3. The plans for the new police station are based on a 35 year time horizon, not the 10 year time horizon required in the consideration of impact fees. The space requirements for the police station are based on a projection of College Station with a POPULATION OF OVER 300,000 by 2051. If this projection holds [and even if somewhat less], the CAPITAL requirements associated with new growth related to collector roads, water, and waste water will only increase. We are already behind in these domains. Of course, all forecasts are subject to error and revision. 4. I recognize and understand that the good and smart folks in the development/real estate community are likely to view the matter of impact fees different than me--and from that which has been proposed. It is understandable that there is a divergence in problem definition, divergence in goals, and divergence in solutions related to the domain of impact fees. 5. It is clearly set forth in law that impact fees, including those proposed, may only address a portion of the capital costs associated with the related growth over a ten year period. In my opinion, it is not feasible or legal for there to be a "slippery slope" related to impact fees. 6. Even with the proposed impact fees [or a version of them], I am of the opinion that there needs to an increase in tax rates and water/waste water fees IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT "PROMOTING AND ADVANCING THE QUALITY OF LFE". To me, we are falling behind even if it is not visible to some. 7. There is much evidence that the adoption of impact fees, such as those suggested by City Staff, will not have major adverse consequences. More likely, they will provide one of SEVERAL means to assist in having a "COMMUNITY THAT PROMOTES THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE". 8. Again, I appreciate that the proposed adoption of impact fees presents a situation where the parties [or some parties] have separate and different interests, goals, and values. I make no claim that I am right and others who view this situation differently are wrong. PAYING FOR PROGRESS I share an excerpt from the July 2007 issue of Tierra Grande [a publication of TAMU Real Estate Center], entitled "Impact Fees: Paying for Progress" by James P. Gaines and Judon Fambrough. "Debate over whether new development pays for itself has continued for decades. Expecting developers to pay for expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities, especially in areas of substantial and rapid growth, appears justifiable and equitable if properly implemented. Developers in high growth areas not only expect but may actually encourage and promote impact fees to ensure their developments are built." Best wishes to all, Don Hellriegel Kristen and Alan: Thank you for getting this to me, Kristen. I've been trying to figure a different way to get to the file but can't as it is too large for my email system. That said, I have read through things again and, based on my participation in the previous IFAC meetings and correspondence, I would like to add my perspective to be included in any comments to City Council. They echo much of what has been said, so will be brief. Simply stated, we were asked to assess and advise on the consideration of impact fees, no t taxes. That discussion is settled in my mind...they are impact fees. While they may have similar financial effects as a tax, we should use the terminology best describing the fee. Given the primary mission of the Commission, and the Council, of adv ancing the quality of life for College Station citizens and those within its ETJ, we must fulfill our responsibilities to first, I believe, protect that quality and then promote additional growth which should, if done well, raise that quality of life. Looking at the trajectory of our growth over the past 5-7 years, its unprecedented pressures on our existing systems must be addressed by utilizing the mechanisms we have at our disposal to ensure we do not put our current quality of life at risk, provide for future needs and address the financial and operational requirements of both. By implementing impact fees first, we can provide for future citizens their needs at a rate, or fee, that is related to their "entry" into the city's system. I believe imposing an impact fee, as recommended by City staff, new development will contribute to the additional resources needed while current citizens will similarly face an increase in utility rates. Both are required, and likely insufficient even, to address the needs facing us. We do not have the luxury of really sacrificing one over the other without all reducing a true risk to our expected levels of services. Therefore, my perspective is we move forward with the impact fees as recommended by staff even if it does impact new development temporarily. If we are able to maintain that "quality" for which we are volunteering (in our roles) to ensure, we will be able to prove the "quantity" (e.g., future development) will be in line with the goals of our City. While our comparisons to other cities is fair, we must ultimately look at our City and ETJ and decide what is best for this place at this time. Kirk Joseph Thoughts on Water/Wastewater Impact Fees From Johnny Burns; 8/22/16. I will try and keep my comments brief, as I don’t believe they differ much from the basic opinions of the rest of the IFAC Committee. In essence, my opinion is that impact fees in the W/WW area are a viable revenue source, and should be considered by the City going forward. Continued growth and infrastructure needs dictate that funds will be necessary for College Station to keep up with growth demands, not only in the future, but even today. What rates should be set, and how should they be applied as to commercial versus residential are of course things to be considered going forward, as well as any impact that such fees would have on the growth of the community and current needs for funding. In my limited experience on the IFAC, it seems pretty obvious that the need for funding of many projects is lacking at present, and tough decisions have to be made to address these situations. So, it seems to me that ruling out any possible mean s of funding at this time would not be prudent. In summary, I believe that water/wastewater impact fees should be seriously considered for implementation by the Council. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Johnny Burns