Loading...
10/13/2016 - 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 Chambers3:00 PMThursday, October 13, 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 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 Secretary b. City Attorney c. Internal Auditor Competitive Matters {Gov't Code Section 551.086); possible action: The City Council may deliberate, vote, or take final action on a competitive matter as that term is defined in Gov't Code Section 552.133 in closed session. The following is a general representation of the subject matter to be considered: a. Power Supply Real Estate {Gov't Code Section 551.072}; possible action The City Council may Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016 October 13, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final 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. Property located generally west of the intersection of Raymond Stotzer Pkwy (FM 60) and State Highway 47 in College Station, Texas. 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 relating to a legislative update and preview of the 85th Texas State Legislature. 16-06375. Sponsors:Nettles Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s written comments on the proposed Roadway Impact Fees for Services Areas A, B, C and D, and an update on the process for possible implementation of Roadway Impact Fees. 16-06466. Sponsors:Gibbs Roadway IFAC Meeting Minutes - LUA and CIP Roadway IFAC Meeting Minutes - fee calculation Commissioner Oldham's Comments Commissioner Rektorik's Comments IFAC Member French's Comments IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments 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 Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016 October 13, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final 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 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 October 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. 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 Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016 October 13, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final 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 4 College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0637 Name:Legislative update and preview of the 85th Texas State Legislative Session Status:Type:Minutes Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/28/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:10/13/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion relating to a legislative update and preview of the 85th Texas State Legislature. Sponsors:Aubrey Nettles Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion relating to a legislative update and preview of the 85th Texas State Legislature. Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply) ·Good Governance Recommendation(s): Summary: Legislative consultant Jennifer Rodriguez will provide a legislative update, as well as a preview of the upcoming legislative session. Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0646 Name:Roadway Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s Comments and Update Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/29/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:10/13/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s written comments on the proposed Roadway Impact Fees for Services Areas A, B, C and D, and an update on the process for possible implementation of Roadway Impact Fees. Sponsors:Alan Gibbs Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Roadway IFAC Meeting Minutes - LUA and CIP Roadway IFAC Meeting Minutes - fee calculation Commissioner Oldham's Comments Commissioner Rektorik's Comments IFAC Member French's Comments IFAC Member Hellriegel's Comments Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation,possible action,and discussion regarding the Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s written comments on the proposed Roadway Impact Fees for Services Areas A,B,C and D,and an update on the process for possible implementation of Roadway Impact Fees. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Good Governance ·Financially Sustainable City ·Core Services and Infrastructure ·Neighborhood Integrity ·Diverse Growing Economy ·Improving Mobility Recommendation(s): Acknowledge receipt of written comments from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and provide feedback and direction as desired. Summary:City Council directed staff to conduct an engineering study for possible implementation of roadway impact fees. This presentation will provide an update on the following: -Schedule for actions completed and upcoming College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0646,Version:1 -Calculation of maximum allowable fees -Comments from Advisory Committee -Staff Recommendation Please note that a public hearing and formal action has been advertised for the Regular City Council meeting on November 10, 2016. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1.IFAC Meeting Minutes - LUA and CIP 2.IFAC Meeting Minutes - Fee Calculations 3.Written Comments from IFAC Members College Station, TX Printed on 10/7/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ I will speak plainly. I don’t think we should have this transportation Impact fee and if it gets passed it should be accessed at zero dollars. I would like to see the other options that are "tools" in the shed used first before I would even think about supporting this in anyway. If you choose to have the transportation impact fee and you set any amount it will have a severe impact on your commercial growth. It will cost you precious sales tax dollars and it will have a negative effect. I believe it works against your efforts to grow economic development efforts in commercial. Companies and retailers will choose to do something else. (The End ) Casey M. Oldham | Chairman & CEO Oldham Goodwin Group, LLC Bryan/College Station | Houston | San Antonio 2800 South Texas Avenue, Suite 401 Bryan, Texas 77802 O: 979.268.2000 | C: 979.219.4562 www.OldhamGoodwin.com Impact Fee Discussion (Revised) for August 4, 2016 - Comments by Jerome Rektorik August 1, 2016 Any fee collected by the city from our citizens is a tax, regardless of what it is called. College Station citizens have enjoyed a comparatively low ad valorem tax rate for many years. (Our sales tax provides about 40% of our General Fund and sales taxes can vary with the overall economy.) Over time, we created the situation that we now face, and we either need to look at all options across the board or continue to struggle to build our city for the future. Regardless of the source of the tax being raised, no one option is going to solve all of our issues and all options must be considered. College Station has now reached “middle age” and we have many streets as well as utility systems that need to be repaired or upgraded. This does not include what we need to do for our transportation, water, and waste water systems to adequately provide for our future. As we look to our plans for the future, we need to consider all options available to fund all of our infrastructure systems. If we do not, then we are only fulfilling a small part of our responsibilities. We need to balance any increases in taxes and fees across all sectors of the community that provide overall benefits and balance to our city. We need to combine increasing ad valorem tax rates with establishing a transportation fee, and increasing any other taxes and fees that are available, including increasing sales tax, drainage fees, sewer fees, and water fees, along with creating impact fees. Any increase has to be fair across all sectors of the city, whether they be a new or existing household or business, as well as supporting the city’s long term vision for growth. The risk of instituting impact fees can create a “slippery slope” and unintended consequences. If new funding is necessary, and future councils do not have the political will to make across the board increases, and they only increase impact fees, there is a danger of driving up the cost of economic development to the point where the market can no longer bear the cost. If impact fees are instituted, we should start at the lower end of the spectrum. It should be remembered that even if the maximum impact fees were initiated, this would not pay for all new development. We should put a “sunset clause” on any and all impact fees. Additionally, it would have been helpful if an economic analysis on the effects of an impact fee to economic development would have been provided for all to consider. Impact Fees for Water and Waste Water: We should implement impact fees for water and waste water in conjunction with increasing the ad valorem tax rate, as well as sewer fees, drainage fees, and water fees. The impact fee should be about 10% to 15% of the maximum allowable. For Water, this should be $290 - $430 per single family home. For Waste Water, this should be $550 - $820 per single family home. Additionally, we need to immediately start increasing the ad valorem tax rate so that over time, it increases by 15% to 20% - i.e. to 52 cents – 54 cents per $100. This still puts the College Station ad valorem rate in the middle one-third of the comparison cities and about 9 cents to 11 cents below Bryan. Additionally, when necessary, this increases the city’s ability to borrow more money in the future. (A one cent increase in the ad valorem tax currently generates an additional $720,000.) Water and Waste Water Impact Fees should also apply to the ETJ. Impact Fees for Road: Again, we need to start increasing the ad valorem tax rate by 15% to 20% - i.e. to 52 cents – 54 cents per $100. Additionally, we should institute a transportation fee for all citizens, similar to what Bryan has done – $10 - $14 per month per household. (Assuming 25,000 households, a $10 fee would generate $3 million / year.) We should also consider an increase to the sales tax which would capture those people living outside of College Station who shop here and use our roads. Only when these are done, should impact fees be considered for roads. Again, the impact fee should be about 10% - 15% of the maximum allowable and should be uniform in all sectors of the city. Using road section “C” for a base for all roads, the impact fee should be $1,020 - $1,530 per single family home. This total for all three impact fees at these rates would be $1,860 - $2,780 per single family household. All type of residences, to include multi-family buildings should be included in any of the above fees (Water, Waste Water, and Roads) that are instituted. Commercial Development (GC, CI, BP, and BPI): Details for impact fees for commercial development were not discussed. However, the city is actively encouraging and actively engaged in creating more economic development. It is consistent to the city’s overall vision and therefore in the best interest of the city as a whole to exempt all commercial development (GC, CI, BP, and BPI), except residential multi-family buildings, from any and all impact fees. This includes all water, waste water, and road impact fees. Commercial businesses especially, look for the most economically advantageous places to grow. If there are additional fees, competition from other cities could prevent future commercial construction in College Station. Also new commercial businesses not only pay new taxes, they also increase roof-tops and retail operations which adds to the overall tax base. Rand French Comments re: IFAC September 9, 2016 Water and Waste Water: The City is behind in having mainly waste water and, secondly, water to areas that need to be developed. There are several tracks that are small (20-50 acres) that cannot afford to pay for a $2M sewer trunk line so these tracts remain undeveloped. As a builder, we have extremely limited areas to build (especially affordable) homes without extension of utilities. Water is not as important because Wellborn SUD covers so much of the ETJ and land to be developed. With reluctance, I agree to an impact fee if this will help get utilities to new areas. The $3,000 waste water and $500 water impact fees would be a shock to real estate prices in the short run—and it only represents 15% of the total cost. I feel if that is the amount agreed to them they should be tiered over a three year period of $1,666 per year so that in year 1 builders pay $1,000, year 2 $2,000 and year 3 on $3,000. This will give the market time to absorb the pricing. If the City feels the entire amount should not be tiered then I think the fee needs to be reduced to $1,750 rather than $3,500. Roadway Impact Fees: I am not in favor of roadway fees. I feel roadways are used by all citizenry and should be borne by everyone. Alternatively, roadways could be funded through a utility fee add-on much like Bryan’s. From a development perspective, roadway is less important than waste water and water. Our current system where the developer pays for most of the streets and thee City participates in OP (Oversized Participation) is working. I think the City should be more assertive on alternatives such as TIFS or TIRZ for both utility and roadway expansions. General: The city needs to be very careful on impact fees. I am focused on residential and what that will do for housing. It is the cumulative cost that concerns me. There are standards in CS that are not in Bryan (block length for instance) that already make development more expensive in CS vs. Bryan. There is additional consideration right now about requiring concrete streets that would add another $1,000- $1,200 per lot. The proposed amounts or $3,500 (water/wastewater)+$1,500 (roadway)+ $1,000 concrete streets total $6,000 per lot. This will send our new home real estate prices into shock and we will have difficulty with appraisals and I’m afraid they will be consumer push back. The commercial and multi-family cost ramifications should be a huge concern. Commercial/Multi-family developers are pro-forma driven and if cost are too high they will not invest or look at other options. This will also provide downward pressure on land prices—is that fair to existing landowners? Many of the comparison cities outlined make it appear that almost all Texas cities have impact fees. Actually they do not. My company builds in Killeen, Temple, Coppres Cove, Waco, Hewitt, Waco, Conroe, Brenham, Huntsville and B-CS—none of those cities have impact fees. Thank you for your consideration. COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY IMPACT FEES SUBMITTED BY DON HELLRIEGEL, MEMBER IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE; ALL CAPS FOR EASE OF READING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS TO PROVIDE A FEW ADDITIONAL INPUTS IN THE CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT FEES, ESPECIALLY AS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. MY THOUGHTS ARE A REFLECTION OFTHE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON COMMUNITY IMPACT FEES. FOR THOSE INTERESTED, THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF HIGH QUALITY RESEARCH INTO THE MATTER OF COMMUNITY IMPACT FEES. THE INPUTS THAT I PREVIOUSLY SHARED [DATED AUGUST 3,2016] IS INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO BOTH WATER/ WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AND TRANSPORATION IMPACT FEES. THUS, THOSE REMARKS ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS COMMUNICATION-- BELOW. MY ADDITIONAL INPUTS FOLLOW. ADDITIONAL INPUTS A. TRANSPORTATION AND WATER/WASTE WATER IMPACT FEES PARTIALLY SHIFT ALL OF THE BURDEN OF GROWTH FROM EXISTING TAXPAYERS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL INTENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE DUE TO GROWTH HAS LONG BEEN TOTALLY PAID BY EXISTING TAXPAYERS. TAX PAYERS IN MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE INCREASINGLY STATED THAT AT LEAST SOME [OR EVEN ALL] OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COSTS DUE TO GROWTH MUST AT LEAST PARTLY [OR TOTALLY] PAY FOR ITSELF ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS TO REDUCE THE MANY PROBLEMS/NEEDS THAT OCCUR IN HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITIES. B. MOREOVER, WE FACE A CRISIS IN THE NEED TO FIND NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY COMMUNITY CAPITAL INTENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS. IT IS APPARENT THAT MULTIPLE SOURCES WILL NEED TO BE EXPLORED TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS. C. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES MORE CLOSELY SYNCHRONIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED CAPITAL INTENSIVE TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY WITH THE ARRIVAL OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. D. GENERAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FAIL --ESPECIALLY IN HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITIES-- TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THE TRANSPORATATION INFRASTUCTURE NEEDED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY ON A TIMELY BAISIS. E. TRANSPORTATION AND WATER/WASTE WATER IMPACT FEES, LIKE USER FEES, PROVIDE A MORE EFFECIENT WAY TO PAY FOR CAPITAL INTENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAN GENERAL TAXES. ALSO, THEY ENSURE THAT BENEFITS GO TO THOSE WHO PAY THE FEES. F. IMPACT FEES TEND TO EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF DEVELOPABLE LAND WHILE ENABLING QUALITY OF LIFE NEEDS ARE MET. G. MUCH RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT IMPACT FEES DO NOT SLOW COMMUNITY GROWTH. SOME STUDIES SUGGEST IMPACT FEES SERVE AS GREASE THAT HELPS SUSTAIN JOB GROWTH IN LOCAL ECONOMIES. LOGICALLY, EXTREME LEVELS AND FORMS OF IMPACT FEES COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT GROWTH. H. IMPACT FEES REDUCE THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF DELAYED, CANCELLED, OR REDUCED COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE INITATIVES. I COULD LIST A NUMBER OF THOSE THAT WERE DROPPED OR LONG DELAYED AS RESULT OF THE DECISIONS TO ALLOCATE AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE CAPITAL FUNDS TO ROADWAYS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH LEVELS OF GROWTH--SUCH AS MORE FIRE STATIONS, NEW AND MUCH LARGER POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND SO ON. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THESE ALLOCATIONS WERE WRONG, GIVEN THE CRISIS NEEDS CREATED BY RAPID GROWTH. I. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES EXPRESSED BY SOME IF TRANSPORTATION FEES ARE ADOPTED HAVE NOT TAKEN PLACE IN THE COMMUNITIES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED THEM--BOTH IN TEXAS AND NATIONWIDE. FINAL THOUGHT I DO THINK THE CITY STAFF PRESENTED A REASONABLE, THOUGHTFUL, MODEST, AND RATIONAL SCENARIO FOR IMPACT FEES--BOTH TRANSPORTATION AND WATER/WASTWATER. SUBMITTED BY, DON HELLRIEGEL PREVIOUS SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS Dear Alan: Please forward my remarks to all relevant parties prior to the meeting 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. 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 though 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