Curious...is it the council's final decision, or does it require a vote on the ballot?
Convention Center Viability in Brazos County
11,447 Views |
130 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by UmustBKidding
Having run a TX statewide assoc with HQ here and done economic feasibility studies for the members and others it was always interesting to listen to comments when the topic of next years annual convention location would come up. When BCS would be mentioned there was a whole lot of "meh" that would be expressed. It is one thing to perform a feasibility study to find a fatal flaw and stop. The mixed bag in feasibility studies is where you don't find a fatal flaw but all the accumulated risks added together really point to not doing it. The reality of BCS when you talked in depth/detail (not an overall survey of the idea) was typically;
-Ags; we already go to BCS enough for sports/other events, we want to go someplace we don't already go to often.
-non-Ags; I understand my Ag friends being nostalgic and reliving their youth at northgate but personally it doesn't do much for me to go hang out with the college kids.
-Family types; BCS doesn't have a big water park, beach, even go carts or much else for the family to do so it isn't a great place for a convention/family trip.
-non-Family types; They haven't replaced the dirty sock yet have they? Then no!
I would always answer YES, I would consider BCS for our conventions on consultants surveys. However; within the membership when it came down to considerations of any of the following (Arlington, Round Rock, Corpus, Galveston, Lubbock and BCS, BCS was always in last place for votes from the membership. A convention center doesn't do much to change much of the resistance from at least my former members. Throw in air travel challenges, summer heat and humidity, spots on the calendar the hotels are going to be booked for football, parents weekend, graduations, etc. and you start looking at a list of lots of little problems that added together make it a risky economic proposition.
-Ags; we already go to BCS enough for sports/other events, we want to go someplace we don't already go to often.
-non-Ags; I understand my Ag friends being nostalgic and reliving their youth at northgate but personally it doesn't do much for me to go hang out with the college kids.
-Family types; BCS doesn't have a big water park, beach, even go carts or much else for the family to do so it isn't a great place for a convention/family trip.
-non-Family types; They haven't replaced the dirty sock yet have they? Then no!
I would always answer YES, I would consider BCS for our conventions on consultants surveys. However; within the membership when it came down to considerations of any of the following (Arlington, Round Rock, Corpus, Galveston, Lubbock and BCS, BCS was always in last place for votes from the membership. A convention center doesn't do much to change much of the resistance from at least my former members. Throw in air travel challenges, summer heat and humidity, spots on the calendar the hotels are going to be booked for football, parents weekend, graduations, etc. and you start looking at a list of lots of little problems that added together make it a risky economic proposition.
Lone Stranger said:
Having run a TX statewide assoc with HQ here and done economic feasibility studies for the members and others it was always interesting to listen to comments when the topic of next years annual convention location would come up. When BCS would be mentioned there was a whole lot of "meh" that would be expressed. It is one thing to perform a feasibility study to find a fatal flaw and stop. The mixed bag in feasibility studies is where you don't find a fatal flaw but all the accumulated risks added together really point to not doing it. The reality of BCS when you talked in depth/detail (not an overall survey of the idea) was typically;
-Ags; we already go to BCS enough for sports/other events, we want to go someplace we don't already go to often.
-non-Ags; I understand my Ag friends being nostalgic and reliving their youth at northgate but personally it doesn't do much for me to go hang out with the college kids.
-Family types; BCS doesn't have a big water park, beach, even go carts or much else for the family to do so it isn't a great place for a convention/family trip.
-non-Family types; They haven't replaced the dirty sock yet have they? Then no!
I would always answer YES, I would consider BCS for our conventions on consultants surveys. However; within the membership when it came down to considerations of any of the following (Arlington, Round Rock, Corpus, Galveston, Lubbock and BCS, BCS was always in last place for votes from the membership. A convention center doesn't do much to change much of the resistance from at least my former members. Throw in air travel challenges, summer heat and humidity, spots on the calendar the hotels are going to be booked for football, parents weekend, graduations, etc. and you start looking at a list of lots of little problems that added together make it a risky economic proposition.
I chair the Brazos County Health District. A handful of months ago, an employee there, who also happens to be a BISD trustee, made a call to the Texas Association of City, County Health Officials (TACCHO) asking if they could hold their annual show here. They said yes, that they were looking for a new place, and held it here last week with their 400 members. It was at the Texas A&M Hotel Conference Center. While there, I spoke to an organizer. When the subject of their national show came up, NACCHO, I was told it couldn't be held here. Why not, I asked? She told me they looked into previously and we could not accommodate just 2,800 members. No event center large enough.
By the way, congrats to the Brazos County Health District. They won Health Department of the Year at that show last week.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Can you tell me how many of Hunden's studies return a negative recommendation?
If this is a rubber stamp of 90%+ go forward...and I bet it is...then it is predetermined.
If this is a rubber stamp of 90%+ go forward...and I bet it is...then it is predetermined.
tu ag said:
Can you tell me how many of Hunden's studies return a negative recommendation?
If this is a rubber stamp of 90%+ go forward...and I bet it is...then it is predetermined.
I did that research when we first signed them and I want to say it was 62% yes.
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Bob Yancy said:
In traffic it takes longer to get from Ohare to McCormick Center in Chicago than it does to drive from Bush to College Station.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
To post an obvious factually verifiable falsehood like this doesn't help your cause. Instead it makes me question whether you are really interested in researching viability or whether you are just looking for angles to sell your pet project.
VAXMaster said:Bob Yancy said:
In traffic it takes longer to get from Ohare to McCormick Center in Chicago than it does to drive from Bush to College Station.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
To post an obvious factually verifiable falsehood like this doesn't help your cause. Instead it makes me question whether you are really interested in researching viability or whether you are just looking for angles to sell your pet project.
The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) is the largest medical imaging conference in the Unites States. I attended almost every other year for 18 years. I would drive to IAH, catch a flight to ORD, pick up a rental car and drive to the McCormick Center. Upon leaving, I'd do the same in reverse. I would grouse to my wife each time when I got home that it took less time to get home from Bush. Granted I live in south College Station, but still.
I didn't "research" that statement. I experienced it numerous times.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Edited for research: Uber says it takes 52 minutes on average. Wish I could've made the average just one time. Never did. I soft retired in 2014 so maybe they opened a road since then.
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Mr. Yancy,
You have seen the feasibility study. Does it show that a private enterprise could successfully build and operate a convention center?
You have seen the feasibility study. Does it show that a private enterprise could successfully build and operate a convention center?
This is what it is all about - the city is looking for new ways to spend that money which can only be spent on certain things. Like it is burning a hole in their pocket. Ok build the convention center - it's funded by hot money. Great. No real gain but just a drain for the hot money to go to.techno-ag said:
Bob, isn't it true that HOT funds can be used on convention centers? If so, this is a great way to pour back into the community.
Now what we have a building that will lose money but as long as it's funded by hot money it's okay?
This is going to be a massive project to get the kinds of events they are talking about hosting.
How about we start on the other end and get concrete confirmation form actual end users - Why don't you ask some of the people that put on these massive conventions and ask them if they would come here?
Instead of a consultant - I would bet you would recieve a lot better insight.
I collect ticket stubs! looking for Aggie vs tu stubs - 1926 and below, 1935-1937, 1939-1944, 1946-1948, 1950, 1953, 1956-1957, 1959, 1960, 1963-1966, 1969-1970, 1973, 1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 2004, 2008 also looking for vs Villanova 1949- all home and away 2012-2013- media or suite passes for bowl games in 2021, 2023 and 2024
taxpreparer said:
Mr. Yancy,
You have seen the feasibility study. Does it show that a private enterprise could successfully build and operate a convention center?
It says that a private entity should manage it, not government. It is silent on the issue of the private sector building it. We voted to move to phase two of the study which will cost $32k as I recall. In that phase they will look at the cost and potential locations, et al. I am going to ask if the consultant, at no extra cost, can look at funding options and speak to successful case studies wherein multiple entities, public and private, have funded these projects.
The truth is, Alg and Regan are correct. The City of College Station cannot fund this alone. I would not vote for that.
Respectfully yours,
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
I'm sure all the Architecture / Construction companies around the greater New Braunfels / San Antonio area will be thrilled with the work Mr. Woods sends their way.
whoop1995 said:This is what it is all about - the city is looking for new ways to spend that money which can only be spent on certain things. Like it is burning a hole in their pocket. Ok build the convention center - it's funded by hot money. Great. No real gain but just a drain for the hot money to go to.techno-ag said:
Bob, isn't it true that HOT funds can be used on convention centers? If so, this is a great way to pour back into the community.
Now what we have a building that will lose money but as long as it's funded by hot money it's okay?
This is going to be a massive project to get the kinds of events they are talking about hosting.
How about we start on the other end and get concrete confirmation form actual end users - Why don't you ask some of the people that put on these massive conventions and ask them if they would come here?
Instead of a consultant - I would bet you would recieve a lot better insight.
I did a lot of research myself. You are correct you can learn a lot just doing the work yourself instead of paying consultants, but they are experiential professionals in their field. The trick is making sure they are not incentivized to tell you what you want to hear and/or what they want you to do because they'll derive added financial gain from the transaction. In Hunden's case I'm fairly confident we don't have that situation.
And I am still reaching out to hear feedback via this platform. I don't hear a chorus of support. More like the opposite. Excepting a change in that feedback, I will not be supporting it going forward.
But, sometime in the future we will have one, and if it's designed right it will be a game changer. I just hope I'm around to see it- because I believe it'll improve the economy and entertainment options for all of us.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Bob....McCormick? That isn't your primary competition for a BCS Convention Center. Might as well include Anaheim as another if you are going to mention those massive facilities in suburban locations. I think I understand what you were trying to say there but your execution was lacking. I always figured 35-50 minutes O'Hare to McCormick with a cab, an hour 15 on the Metra or if I rented a car more in line with your numbers time you did all the airport rental hassle.
Did Hudson get deep enough in the weeds to address if there are any savings from city groups needing to rent hotel facilties for some of their events and these could be done at a city facility like this? Those really aren't "new dollars" into town but it keeps staff employed, etc. Of course I've talked to some center people where the city departments think the convention facitlity folks are gouging their budgets to make their operation look better. Any internal savings to leverage there or does the city generally have meeting space for what they do?
Did Hudson get deep enough in the weeds to address if there are any savings from city groups needing to rent hotel facilties for some of their events and these could be done at a city facility like this? Those really aren't "new dollars" into town but it keeps staff employed, etc. Of course I've talked to some center people where the city departments think the convention facitlity folks are gouging their budgets to make their operation look better. Any internal savings to leverage there or does the city generally have meeting space for what they do?
I can fix the issue between iah and the new cc. We need a high speed rail that is end to end at these places. Given all the people that will flock to our community for conventions and concerts, I'd imagine that train would be packed and busy all the time.
Lone Stranger said:
Bob....McCormick? That isn't your primary competition for a BCS Convention Center. Might as well include Anaheim as another if you are going to mention those massive facilities in suburban locations. I think I understand what you were trying to say there but your execution was lacking. I always figured 35-50 minutes O'Hare to McCormick with a cab, an hour 15 on the Metra or if I rented a car more in line with your numbers time you did all the airport rental hassle.
Did Hudson get deep enough in the weeds to address if there are any savings from city groups needing to rent hotel facilties for some of their events and these could be done at a city facility like this? Those really aren't "new dollars" into town but it keeps staff employed, etc. Of course I've talked to some center people where the city departments think the convention facitlity folks are gouging their budgets to make their operation look better. Any internal savings to leverage there or does the city generally have meeting space for what they do?
Great feedback thanks. The study doesnt have a lot of slides and they're all easy reads. It's one of the better consultant reports from a clarity perspective I've seen. I highly recommend scanning it it'll answer a lot of questions- if you trust it.
The city has 1207 next to city hall that is not being filled but it's a local event venue. Not large enough to support anything sizable.
I hope that's responsive to your questions.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F67wmFD_dAliS7SpMiYB3TlACoj8cm-F/view?usp=sharing
Link to study. Attribution to Brian Alg
Link to study. Attribution to Brian Alg
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Bob Yancy said:BCS-Ag said:
Good discussion, pros and cons on both sides. That said, I haven't seen much discussion nor coverage in the consultant study about the existing infrastructure at Texas A&M that undercuts a big chunk of the need for a new convention center. The A&M hotel conference Center plus Kyle Field can handle a lot of mid-range conference needs. It. Can't handle them all, and is not available year round, but I have to think it would severely undercut the revenue of a standalone convention center.
The study says if Texas A&M opened their doors, the need would be mitigated significantly. I highly recommend reading it. It's thorough and compelling.
For a variety of reasons, not all am I privy to, they aren't doing that. Most of Texas A&M's inventory are purpose built facilities. Their personnel are institutionalized to fulfill those purposes, be they sports events or graduations.
They could open the doors much wider, but because of the aforementioned reasons and others I am not informed on, they are having challenges doing so- this even though the cities and county have a shared access agreement in place in return for us helping with funding the Kyle Field renovation.
I used to complain about that a lot from the dais, but I temper that criticism now given my Alma mater's recent decision to generously support fire services provided by CSTX. (Which I also was a squeaky wheel about)
They didn't have to do that, but they recognized what's fair and stepped up in a great example of town & gown cooperation for public safety. Bravo and much obliged. I thank them heartily.
Bottom line is there isn't any facility in their inventory that will support a convention of 3,000 people with trade booth exhibits and breakout session rooms.
This is all one chapter of the migraine inducing research I've already done and now Hunden, too.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
So.imagine this scenario, it's not hard if you try:
A&M gets wind of COCS building a convention center... well that might cut into some of its.business... so A&M starts opening its doors and with all its money can undercut COCS for conventions.
Now COCS council already approved the spending (likely without a vote by citizens) so COCS and citizens now have a huge empty money pit on its hands.
Meanwhile Bob already left CS to seek higher office in Texas riding on his success of getting a convention center approved, so won't care anymore
91_Aggie said:Bob Yancy said:BCS-Ag said:
Good discussion, pros and cons on both sides. That said, I haven't seen much discussion nor coverage in the consultant study about the existing infrastructure at Texas A&M that undercuts a big chunk of the need for a new convention center. The A&M hotel conference Center plus Kyle Field can handle a lot of mid-range conference needs. It. Can't handle them all, and is not available year round, but I have to think it would severely undercut the revenue of a standalone convention center.
The study says if Texas A&M opened their doors, the need would be mitigated significantly. I highly recommend reading it. It's thorough and compelling.
For a variety of reasons, not all am I privy to, they aren't doing that. Most of Texas A&M's inventory are purpose built facilities. Their personnel are institutionalized to fulfill those purposes, be they sports events or graduations.
They could open the doors much wider, but because of the aforementioned reasons and others I am not informed on, they are having challenges doing so- this even though the cities and county have a shared access agreement in place in return for us helping with funding the Kyle Field renovation.
I used to complain about that a lot from the dais, but I temper that criticism now given my Alma mater's recent decision to generously support fire services provided by CSTX. (Which I also was a squeaky wheel about)
They didn't have to do that, but they recognized what's fair and stepped up in a great example of town & gown cooperation for public safety. Bravo and much obliged. I thank them heartily.
Bottom line is there isn't any facility in their inventory that will support a convention of 3,000 people with trade booth exhibits and breakout session rooms.
This is all one chapter of the migraine inducing research I've already done and now Hunden, too.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
So.imagine this scenario, it's not hard if you try:
A&M gets wind of COCS building a convention center... well that might cut into some of its.business... so A&M starts opening its doors and with all its money can undercut COCS for conventions.
Now COCS council already approved the spending (likely without a vote by citizens) so COCS and citizens now have a huge empty money pit on its hands.
Meanwhile Bob already left CS to seek higher office in Texas riding on his success of getting a convention center approved, so won't care anymore
My goodness that's quite a script. My wife has vetoed higher office, so y'all can hire me or retire me, but I'll be here locally. I'd like to say she wants me around, but I think it's because we have three dogs and maintenance to be done on rental property. ;-)
On a serious note, anything that big would have to go to the voters.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
College Station City Council must refocus its efforts on the fundamental responsibilities that directly impact the daily lives of our residents. While ambitious projects may seem appealing, we are facing critical issues that demand immediate attention. Specifically, until the economic uncertainty surrounding the Macy's property is resolved and tangible property tax relief is delivered to homeowners, the Council should:
* Prioritize Essential Infrastructure: Invest in the maintenance and improvement of our roads, water systems, and drainage infrastructure. College Station's rapid growth necessitates robust infrastructure to support our community's needs. We must avoid deferring maintenance, which only leads to more costly repairs down the line.
* Strengthen Public Safety: Ensure our police and fire departments are adequately funded and staffed to maintain public safety. This includes addressing response times, investing in necessary equipment, and supporting community policing initiatives.
* Enhance Core City Services: Focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of essential city services, such as waste management, parks maintenance, and permitting processes. Streamlining these services will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
* Exercise Fiscal Prudence: Implement a moratorium on non-essential projects until the Macy's situation is resolved and property taxes are demonstrably reduced. This includes re-evaluating expenditures on projects that do not directly address the core needs of our community.
* Transparent Budgeting: Make the City's budget more transparent and accessible to residents. Conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses for all proposed projects and provide clear justifications for expenditures.
* Address Traffic Congestion: College station is growing rapidly, and traffic is a major concern. Any efforts to improve roads and traffic flow should be a priority.
The economic uncertainty surrounding the Macy's property represents a significant challenge for our city. Until a viable plan is in place and the potential impact on property taxes is mitigated, it is imperative that the Council exercise fiscal restraint.
By prioritizing essential functions and demonstrating a commitment to responsible spending, the College Station City Council can build trust with residents and ensure the long-term prosperity of our community."
* Prioritize Essential Infrastructure: Invest in the maintenance and improvement of our roads, water systems, and drainage infrastructure. College Station's rapid growth necessitates robust infrastructure to support our community's needs. We must avoid deferring maintenance, which only leads to more costly repairs down the line.
* Strengthen Public Safety: Ensure our police and fire departments are adequately funded and staffed to maintain public safety. This includes addressing response times, investing in necessary equipment, and supporting community policing initiatives.
* Enhance Core City Services: Focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of essential city services, such as waste management, parks maintenance, and permitting processes. Streamlining these services will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
* Exercise Fiscal Prudence: Implement a moratorium on non-essential projects until the Macy's situation is resolved and property taxes are demonstrably reduced. This includes re-evaluating expenditures on projects that do not directly address the core needs of our community.
* Transparent Budgeting: Make the City's budget more transparent and accessible to residents. Conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses for all proposed projects and provide clear justifications for expenditures.
* Address Traffic Congestion: College station is growing rapidly, and traffic is a major concern. Any efforts to improve roads and traffic flow should be a priority.
The economic uncertainty surrounding the Macy's property represents a significant challenge for our city. Until a viable plan is in place and the potential impact on property taxes is mitigated, it is imperative that the Council exercise fiscal restraint.
By prioritizing essential functions and demonstrating a commitment to responsible spending, the College Station City Council can build trust with residents and ensure the long-term prosperity of our community."
dubi
Joined:
Nov 7, 2006
Posts:
25,429
How long do you want to ignore this user?
double b said:
College Station City Council must refocus its efforts on the fundamental responsibilities that directly impact the daily lives of our residents. While ambitious projects may seem appealing, we are facing critical issues that demand immediate attention. Specifically, until the economic uncertainty surrounding the Macy's property is resolved and tangible property tax relief is delivered to homeowners, the Council should:
* Prioritize Essential Infrastructure: Invest in the maintenance and improvement of our roads, water systems, and drainage infrastructure. College Station's rapid growth necessitates robust infrastructure to support our community's needs. We must avoid deferring maintenance, which only leads to more costly repairs down the line.
* Strengthen Public Safety: Ensure our police and fire departments are adequately funded and staffed to maintain public safety. This includes addressing response times, investing in necessary equipment, and supporting community policing initiatives.
* Enhance Core City Services: Focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of essential city services, such as waste management, parks maintenance, and permitting processes. Streamlining these services will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
* Exercise Fiscal Prudence: Implement a moratorium on non-essential projects until the Macy's situation is resolved and property taxes are demonstrably reduced. This includes re-evaluating expenditures on projects that do not directly address the core needs of our community.
* Transparent Budgeting: Make the City's budget more transparent and accessible to residents. Conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses for all proposed projects and provide clear justifications for expenditures.
* Address Traffic Congestion: College station is growing rapidly, and traffic is a major concern. Any efforts to improve roads and traffic flow should be a priority.
The economic uncertainty surrounding the Macy's property represents a significant challenge for our city. Until a viable plan is in place and the potential impact on property taxes is mitigated, it is imperative that the Council exercise fiscal restraint.
By prioritizing essential functions and demonstrating a commitment to responsible spending, the College Station City Council can build trust with residents and ensure the long-term prosperity of our community."
An exceptionally well stated position. Thanks for the feedback.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
And this one does NOT mean building a Fire Department Taj Mahal like the one on University!double b said:
* Strengthen Public Safety: Ensure our police and fire departments are adequately funded and staffed to maintain public safety. This includes addressing response times, investing in necessary equipment, and supporting community policing initiatives.
Every time I drive by that monstrosity, it makes me sad that the city approved something like that.
Anybody that does these things and votes against a CC, a rec center, and other amenities will have my vote until I die.
I'd also help their campaign financially.
I'd also help their campaign financially.
And this is the lynchpin of this entire farce - HOT is theft under the color of law that allows municipalities (non-experts risking someone else's money) to take income from private businesses (experts risking capital) and spend it, without worry or much in the way of accountability, on pet projects that supposedly benefit the industry they take the money from, but many times are just another 'city council success' that they can put on the city web page or brochure.whoop1995 said:
This is what it is all about - the city is looking for new ways to spend that money which can only be spent on certain things. Like it is burning a hole in their pocket. Ok build the convention center - it's funded by hot money. Great. No real gain but just a drain for the hot money to go to.
Now what we have a building that will lose money but as long as it's funded by hot money it's okay?
The wells hurt. Ultimately, I agree with the expense as it is in the core city services category. But, any expense that large and unexpected should automatically require a retrospective and report. And, the city should not be comfortable taking on significant new obligations while $70m surprises are falling from the sky.
A CC, like any growth, adds burden to infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance and improvement comes from the general fund.
Are HOT funds really sufficient to cover this CC? Including debt service? I don't see how. What about improvements to roads around the venue to offset new traffic issues? - And I don't just mean new traffic lights or stop signs or medians. Actual improvements like additional lanes, dedicated turn lanes and adaptive or even smart traffic signals for surrounding intersections and for high traffic routes to hotels and restaurants. Similar improvements to water, waste and electric infrastructure to offset the venue. Additional emergency services presence required by events such as traffic management and emergency response.
As an example, we shouldn't need to consider the CC when deciding where to build the next fire station. Doing so diminishes the future services of those footing the bill. If the CC is outside the area of, or requires additional staffing at a fire station, the difference should be covered by CC funds. Please make sure infrastructure improvement and mitigation costs are included in the Phase 2 study.
I cannot support using the General Fund for any of the above, even if HOT are used for the Convention Center itself. There are already numerous unaddressed infrastructure needs, and adding more infrastructure strain and another consumer of infrastructure (with a direct line to city hall) will not help with the prioritization of the needs of the citizens.
If HOT funds cover everything, including offsetting any negative QOL for the citizens, then my objection will be moot. However, I also pay taxes to Brazos and CSISD, and even if the city can offer to pay with HOT, they cannot offer the same.
I have other objections, such as focus on core services and poor track record in development, but other posters have represented those already.
A CC, like any growth, adds burden to infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance and improvement comes from the general fund.
Are HOT funds really sufficient to cover this CC? Including debt service? I don't see how. What about improvements to roads around the venue to offset new traffic issues? - And I don't just mean new traffic lights or stop signs or medians. Actual improvements like additional lanes, dedicated turn lanes and adaptive or even smart traffic signals for surrounding intersections and for high traffic routes to hotels and restaurants. Similar improvements to water, waste and electric infrastructure to offset the venue. Additional emergency services presence required by events such as traffic management and emergency response.
As an example, we shouldn't need to consider the CC when deciding where to build the next fire station. Doing so diminishes the future services of those footing the bill. If the CC is outside the area of, or requires additional staffing at a fire station, the difference should be covered by CC funds. Please make sure infrastructure improvement and mitigation costs are included in the Phase 2 study.
I cannot support using the General Fund for any of the above, even if HOT are used for the Convention Center itself. There are already numerous unaddressed infrastructure needs, and adding more infrastructure strain and another consumer of infrastructure (with a direct line to city hall) will not help with the prioritization of the needs of the citizens.
If HOT funds cover everything, including offsetting any negative QOL for the citizens, then my objection will be moot. However, I also pay taxes to Brazos and CSISD, and even if the city can offer to pay with HOT, they cannot offer the same.
I have other objections, such as focus on core services and poor track record in development, but other posters have represented those already.
Its how we got to station 6 is what upsets me.
As traffic increased on Texas Avenue the powers that be decided that Station one had to move. Most places would have put in place a emergency only traffic signal, but that was not the chosen path. Many suggested a location somewhere on University drive. But it was stated that since all College Station growth was to the south and they city already owned land acquired for the failed convention center project in conjunction with wolf pen drainage ditch, Holleman drive the best option. We were assured that the ISO fire response times could be met from that location to all areas to the North within the city without problems.
So many years later there was state organization for municipalities, maybe was TML, was holding their annual convention at the Hilton. It was a feather in the cap of COCS to have been selected. So during the meeting someone activated a fire pull in the building and engines from both Bryan and College Station were dispatched. When the Red engines arrived significantly before the white&blue ones from CS the CS officials were not happy, not a good look. They declared this can never occur again, we must build now, hence station 6's location.
Now we are working on station 7. Originally the justification was to cover SW areas of the city that the relocated station 3 was at the limit of response time. CSISD offered to donate land on Royder, since have multiple schools there, but COCS declared that is not good place. Area residents suggested on the west side of tracks along the recently opened Greens Prairie in case of train blockage, but no we buy land on Wellborn for this station. Now its decided, likely because state law changes, that the annex land prosperity was not going work any longer and will delay new growth to the SW, we instead need to build the station Greens Prairie in the castle gate area instead.
As traffic increased on Texas Avenue the powers that be decided that Station one had to move. Most places would have put in place a emergency only traffic signal, but that was not the chosen path. Many suggested a location somewhere on University drive. But it was stated that since all College Station growth was to the south and they city already owned land acquired for the failed convention center project in conjunction with wolf pen drainage ditch, Holleman drive the best option. We were assured that the ISO fire response times could be met from that location to all areas to the North within the city without problems.
So many years later there was state organization for municipalities, maybe was TML, was holding their annual convention at the Hilton. It was a feather in the cap of COCS to have been selected. So during the meeting someone activated a fire pull in the building and engines from both Bryan and College Station were dispatched. When the Red engines arrived significantly before the white&blue ones from CS the CS officials were not happy, not a good look. They declared this can never occur again, we must build now, hence station 6's location.
Now we are working on station 7. Originally the justification was to cover SW areas of the city that the relocated station 3 was at the limit of response time. CSISD offered to donate land on Royder, since have multiple schools there, but COCS declared that is not good place. Area residents suggested on the west side of tracks along the recently opened Greens Prairie in case of train blockage, but no we buy land on Wellborn for this station. Now its decided, likely because state law changes, that the annex land prosperity was not going work any longer and will delay new growth to the SW, we instead need to build the station Greens Prairie in the castle gate area instead.