Representative Paul Dyson Files Powerful Housing Bill

3,876 Views | 24 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by BluHorseShu
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02p, 3/14/25
Shout out to our Texas State Representative Paul Dyson for an incredible bill he filed today.

House Bill 5489, if enacted, imposes a moratorium on the collection of impact fees cities impose on builders and developers from Sept 1, 2025 to August 31, 2029.

This bill will stimulate housing starts and lower prices for Texas homebuyers and businesses in construction costs.

It's an incredibly powerful and elegant bill to be filed by a freshman and I applaud Representative Dyson and encourage everyone to congratulate him and offer their support.

Great bill, Paul!


https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/HB05489I.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2mjHRYbPdP0oejRNdvAK8ZBPbtg6O3aFJbB0JgbyvOPdFfCov0nyuxSMs_aem_GrWRtDLWtCCGSizisfN-FA#navpanes=0

[We do our best to keep the political threads on this board related to the Brazos Valley but this bill may have a direct impact on subject matter that has been discussed on this board. -Staff]
Reply Quote
9
Edited by Staff
instapt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:57p, 3/15/25
Can you elaborate on what makes this "incredibly powerful" and "elegant?" There is an incredible amount of building already happening in the Brazos Valley. If anything, it's the associated capital improvements that are lagging and lacking. So with a moratorium on impact fees, how are the local city/county governments going to fund those capital improvements? The improvements either won't happen or something else will get cut. How would this bill do anything besides lower costs and therefore increase profit for builders?
Reply Quote
12
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to instapt • 2:37p, 3/15/25
instapt said:
Can you elaborate on what makes this "incredibly powerful" and "elegant?" There is an incredible amount of building already happening in the Brazos Valley. If anything, it's the associated capital improvements that are lagging and lacking. So with a moratorium on impact fees, how are the local city/county governments going to fund those capital improvements? The improvements either won't happen or something else will get cut. How would this bill do anything besides lower costs and therefore increase profit for builders?


Sure:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.


Everyone that has owned a home today longer than 5 years didn't pay those fees disproportionately- you and I had help from our fellow citizens. We didn't have to "go it alone."

I believe cities are based on the law of large numbers. By all of us pulling together, amenities and infrastructure and public safety are made affordable for everyone.

Imagine if the cost of a new park, or a new fire station was divvied up only among those in the immediate vicinity, and not all citizens. Would that be fair?

I believe in the same shared cost model cities utilized for decades prior to the impact fee statute being enacted in Texas.

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
Reply Quote
6
rockelle
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30a, 3/16/25
It seems this is a local government issue. If COCS charges the impact fees and City of Bryan does not, then isn't this something that should be addressed at the local level? Why the need for overreaching legislation at the State level? Local government should take back control of its tax and spend city staffs.
Reply Quote
10
MsDoubleD81
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:41a, 3/16/25
AG
Are impact fees the same throughout the city? Or are they different? Sure seems like they are non-existent near campus and a lot higher out south.
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rockelle • 9:21a, 3/16/25
rockelle said:
It seems this is a local government issue. If COCS charges the impact fees and City of Bryan does not, then isn't this something that should be addressed at the local level? Why the need for overreaching legislation at the State level? Local government should take back control of its tax and spend city staffs.


The Texas legislature is trying to tackle municipal regulatory creep statewide, particularly as it relates to housing. The state of Texas is enduring a housing crisis arguably not seen in modern history. As demand for Texas housing surges, supply has not kept up. This further exacerbates the crisis, which is prompting the legislature to act.

Does the legislature overreach and sometimes catch high performing cities and school districts in over regulation via casting too wide a net? Yes, that happens. Is this one of those situations? No, not in my opinion.

From the beginning of my time on council, and long before I was elected, regulatory creep in my beloved city was apparent to me. From my own experiences in building both residential and commercial property as a general contractor in the city limits, to our inability to compromise with developers for voluntary annexation and other benefits in the ETJ; From the time and effort to get a food truck permit in CSTX compared to CoB, to city hall's efforts to reshape our city's housing market and the very lifestyle of our citizens; from our holistic embrace of density at the expense of our single family detached neighborhoods, to our dramatically increasing regulatory regime and fee schedule across the board…

the plain truth is we are not business friendly to deal with anymore.

That's why I ran on a platform that included a business friendly approach to city government. Both times in my written and broadcast campaign materials you'll find that it's prominently featured. Both times my bosses, the citizens, agreed and thus I'm pursuing all avenues I know to fulfill that promise.

I shudder to think of the missed opportunities to this point- the friendly and mutually agreed upon annexation of new neighborhoods that could have grown our housing stock and our city's footprint simultaneously; the retention of our housing market share as opposed to losing a huge and growing chunk of our single family detached housing to outlying jurisdictions; the flight of quality regional and Mom and Pop local builders that left College Station; the steady march towards the iron grip of a food service based economy at the expense of economic development that grows blue, gray and white collar jobs- rather than constantly relying on only the maroon ones. And yes, the loss of our cherished neighborhood integrity due to a tightening housing market squeezing too many into too few structures because only national home builders and student tower developers can endure the regulatory creep we've allowed.

To pointedly answer your question, yes, impact fees should be a local city decision, along with many of those things I enumerated above. College Station and many other Texas cities had every opportunity to protect and sustain our cherished reputation as a business friendly state that made us the envy of the nation.

But, like the proverbial frog that doesn't jump out of a simmering pot of California style regulatory creep, we find our tight housing market and overcrowded neighborhoods have reached the boiling point.

If it passes, Dyson's bill will help.

PS- as with all pending legislation, this bill will result in a short term chilling effect on housing starts. That's why I'll be proposing to my colleagues we make a brilliant preemptive move and issue our own moratorium on impact fees as soon as possible. Otherwise everyone will wait til the bill passes and if it does, they'll most assuredly wait until September 1 when it takes effect. We do not have 6 months worth of housing growth to spare.

So to your point- here's our chance to handle this at the local level.

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
Reply Quote
8
2 edits
instapt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 1:22p, 3/16/25
Bob Yancy said:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.
1) It only lowers the cost to buy a home if the builder passes their savings to the homeowners. Do you really think the builder will do that, rather than increase their profit? To me, a single-page bill implies that, at best, it's not well thought out and, at worst, it's merely grandstanding.

2) But if the taxes aren't keeping pace with the growth, then getting rid of impact fees means taxes have to get raised. Dyson (and you, via your endorsement) are for increasing taxes?

3) It's not at all punitive to a new neighborhood if it's because of them, and to serve them. If a new 3000-home neighborhood at the other end of town requires widened roads, turn lanes, etc., I think those 3000 home owners should be the ones paying for it, not the rest of us (for whom it would be punitive!).
Reply Quote
13
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to instapt • 1:42p, 3/16/25
instapt said:
Bob Yancy said:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.
1) It only lowers the cost to buy a home if the builder passes their savings to the homeowners. Do you really think the builder will do that, rather than increase their profit? To me, a single-page bill implies that, at best, it's not well thought out and, at worst, it's merely grandstanding.

2) But if the taxes aren't keeping pace with the growth, then getting rid of impact fees means taxes have to get raised. Dyson (and you, via your endorsement) are for increasing taxes?

3) It's not at all punitive to a new neighborhood if it's because of them, and to serve them. If a new 3000-home neighborhood at the other end of town requires widened roads, turn lanes, etc., I think those 3000 home owners should be the ones paying for it, not the rest of us (for whom it would be punitive!).


Thanks for your feedback:

1) Any time you lower the cost of goods sold, the price pressure goes down. Some builders may pocket the delta, but not all. And over time, market forces will lower the cost unless the builder is offering a premium product. And it was actually courageous of Paul to file such a bill as a freshman. Easiest thing in the world would be to just submit no brainer resolutions in your first term and keep your head down. He didn't do that. This is meaningful legislation, not grandstanding.

2) Developers have to build roads immediately servicing the residents that will reside there, and they must use concrete vs asphalt and adhere to the highest standards doing so. And I didn't say taxes weren't keeping pace. One of my pet peeves is when municipalities enact and/or raise fees when they don't have to. We are constantly told how fiscally healthy the city is. At the last meeting, in fact. And no, I'm not for increasing taxes, nor have I ever voted for a rate increase.

3) Public streets are a public good. Just because you don't live there today doesn't mean you, a member of your family or a friend won't in the future, necessitating you drive there from time to time- just as people constantly drive through your neighborhood that don't live there. Public goods are, well, public. Just like parks and fire stations. Do we only charge those in the vicinity of a park or fire station? No, the whole city pitches in. It's a slippery slope to go down- particularly when everyone who has owned a home longer than 5 years didn't have to bear the brunt of those infrastructure costs alone.

Finally- impact fees are regressive against the young and first time homebuyers trying to afford their piece of the American Dream. You and I had our chance to buy a home that was affordable. They should too. The us versus them mentality in all things fails to appeal to me, unless you're talking about the Longhorns. :-)

PS- one more thing even though you didn't mention it- even if it's the best policy in the world to have impact fees, and I don't think it is, it's bad policy if a builder looks at the cost differential to build and says, "forget this I'll just build in Bryan, or Snook, or Navasota where I don't have to pay this." And that's largely happening.

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
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Hittag1492
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 2:04p, 3/16/25
AG
Bob Yancy said:
instapt said:
Bob Yancy said:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.
1) It only lowers the cost to buy a home if the builder passes their savings to the homeowners. Do you really think the builder will do that, rather than increase their profit? To me, a single-page bill implies that, at best, it's not well thought out and, at worst, it's merely grandstanding.

2) But if the taxes aren't keeping pace with the growth, then getting rid of impact fees means taxes have to get raised. Dyson (and you, via your endorsement) are for increasing taxes?

3) It's not at all punitive to a new neighborhood if it's because of them, and to serve them. If a new 3000-home neighborhood at the other end of town requires widened roads, turn lanes, etc., I think those 3000 home owners should be the ones paying for it, not the rest of us (for whom it would be punitive!).


Thanks for your feedback:

1) Any time you lower the cost of goods sold, the price pressure goes down. Some builders may pocket the delta, but not all. And over time, market forces will lower the cost unless the builder is offering a premium product. And it was actually courageous of Paul to file such a bill as a freshman. Easiest thing in the world would be to just submit no brainer resolutions in your first term and keep your head down. He didn't do that. This is meaningful legislation, not grandstanding.

2) Developers have to build roads immediately servicing the residents that will reside there, and they must use concrete vs asphalt and adhere to the highest standards doing so. And I didn't say taxes weren't keeping pace. One of my pet peeves is when municipalities enact and/or raise fees when they don't have to. We are constantly told how fiscally healthy the city is. At the last meeting, in fact. And no, I'm not for increasing taxes, nor have I ever voted for a rate increase.

3) Public streets are a public good. Just because you don't live there today doesn't mean you, a member of your family or a friend won't in the future, necessitating you drive there from time to time- just as people constantly drive through your neighborhood that don't live there. Public goods are, well, public. Just like parks and fire stations. Do we only charge those in the vicinity of a park or fire station? No, the whole city pitches in. It's a slippery slope to go down- particularly when everyone who has owned a home longer than 5 years didn't have to bear the brunt of those infrastructure costs alone.

Finally- impact fees are regressive against the young and first time homebuyers trying to afford their piece of the American Dream. You and I had our chance to buy a home that was affordable. They should too. The us versus them mentality in all things fails to appeal to me, unless you're talking about the Longhorns. :-)

PS- one more thing even though you didn't mention it- even if it's the best policy in the world to have impact fees, and I don't think it is, it's bad policy if a builder looks at the cost differential to build and says, "forget this I'll just build in Bryan, or Snook, or Navasota where I don't have to pay this." And that's largely happening.

Respectfully

Yancy '95



A few questions to understand fully.
As these costs will now be covered by taxes ro everyone, what say does the community have in allowing builders to develop new subdivisions, etc?

Would we know the tax impact prior to allowing new home construction?

Have studies shown that properly designed impact feed are beneficial, or negative overall (vs poorly designed ones which are certainly not beneficial)?

Are the current impact fees considered properly designed or poorly designed? In essence, is there a negative impact on building and growth currently due ro these fees?

Have other options been explored aside from totally eliminating fees?

How much do current impact feed add to home prices locally?

With interest rates in a downward trend (a much larger impact in home ownership/buying), will this really help or simply add to the local tax burden?

I am on the fence, but with anything our city leaders propose financially-I am in a trust but verify mode (actually verify then trust, lol) and rightfully so.

Reply Quote
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hittag1492 • 5:56p, 3/16/25
Hittag1492 said:
Bob Yancy said:
instapt said:
Bob Yancy said:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.
1) It only lowers the cost to buy a home if the builder passes their savings to the homeowners. Do you really think the builder will do that, rather than increase their profit? To me, a single-page bill implies that, at best, it's not well thought out and, at worst, it's merely grandstanding.

2) But if the taxes aren't keeping pace with the growth, then getting rid of impact fees means taxes have to get raised. Dyson (and you, via your endorsement) are for increasing taxes?

3) It's not at all punitive to a new neighborhood if it's because of them, and to serve them. If a new 3000-home neighborhood at the other end of town requires widened roads, turn lanes, etc., I think those 3000 home owners should be the ones paying for it, not the rest of us (for whom it would be punitive!).


Thanks for your feedback:

1) Any time you lower the cost of goods sold, the price pressure goes down. Some builders may pocket the delta, but not all. And over time, market forces will lower the cost unless the builder is offering a premium product. And it was actually courageous of Paul to file such a bill as a freshman. Easiest thing in the world would be to just submit no brainer resolutions in your first term and keep your head down. He didn't do that. This is meaningful legislation, not grandstanding.

2) Developers have to build roads immediately servicing the residents that will reside there, and they must use concrete vs asphalt and adhere to the highest standards doing so. And I didn't say taxes weren't keeping pace. One of my pet peeves is when municipalities enact and/or raise fees when they don't have to. We are constantly told how fiscally healthy the city is. At the last meeting, in fact. And no, I'm not for increasing taxes, nor have I ever voted for a rate increase.

3) Public streets are a public good. Just because you don't live there today doesn't mean you, a member of your family or a friend won't in the future, necessitating you drive there from time to time- just as people constantly drive through your neighborhood that don't live there. Public goods are, well, public. Just like parks and fire stations. Do we only charge those in the vicinity of a park or fire station? No, the whole city pitches in. It's a slippery slope to go down- particularly when everyone who has owned a home longer than 5 years didn't have to bear the brunt of those infrastructure costs alone.

Finally- impact fees are regressive against the young and first time homebuyers trying to afford their piece of the American Dream. You and I had our chance to buy a home that was affordable. They should too. The us versus them mentality in all things fails to appeal to me, unless you're talking about the Longhorns. :-)

PS- one more thing even though you didn't mention it- even if it's the best policy in the world to have impact fees, and I don't think it is, it's bad policy if a builder looks at the cost differential to build and says, "forget this I'll just build in Bryan, or Snook, or Navasota where I don't have to pay this." And that's largely happening.

Respectfully

Yancy '95



A few questions to understand fully.
As these costs will now be covered by taxes ro everyone, what say does the community have in allowing builders to develop new subdivisions, etc?

Would we know the tax impact prior to allowing new home construction?

Have studies shown that properly designed impact feed are beneficial, or negative overall (vs poorly designed ones which are certainly not beneficial)?

Are the current impact fees considered properly designed or poorly designed? In essence, is there a negative impact on building and growth currently due ro these fees?

Have other options been explored aside from totally eliminating fees?

How much do current impact feed add to home prices locally?

With interest rates in a downward trend (a much larger impact in home ownership/buying), will this really help or simply add to the local tax burden?

I am on the fence, but with anything our city leaders propose financially-I am in a trust but verify mode (actually verify then trust, lol) and rightfully so.



At Aggie game will respond. Gig 'em!
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
Reply Quote
Hittag1492
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 6:22p, 3/16/25
AG
Bob Yancy said:
Hittag1492 said:
Bob Yancy said:
instapt said:
Bob Yancy said:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.
1) It only lowers the cost to buy a home if the builder passes their savings to the homeowners. Do you really think the builder will do that, rather than increase their profit? To me, a single-page bill implies that, at best, it's not well thought out and, at worst, it's merely grandstanding.

2) But if the taxes aren't keeping pace with the growth, then getting rid of impact fees means taxes have to get raised. Dyson (and you, via your endorsement) are for increasing taxes?

3) It's not at all punitive to a new neighborhood if it's because of them, and to serve them. If a new 3000-home neighborhood at the other end of town requires widened roads, turn lanes, etc., I think those 3000 home owners should be the ones paying for it, not the rest of us (for whom it would be punitive!).


Thanks for your feedback:

1) Any time you lower the cost of goods sold, the price pressure goes down. Some builders may pocket the delta, but not all. And over time, market forces will lower the cost unless the builder is offering a premium product. And it was actually courageous of Paul to file such a bill as a freshman. Easiest thing in the world would be to just submit no brainer resolutions in your first term and keep your head down. He didn't do that. This is meaningful legislation, not grandstanding.

2) Developers have to build roads immediately servicing the residents that will reside there, and they must use concrete vs asphalt and adhere to the highest standards doing so. And I didn't say taxes weren't keeping pace. One of my pet peeves is when municipalities enact and/or raise fees when they don't have to. We are constantly told how fiscally healthy the city is. At the last meeting, in fact. And no, I'm not for increasing taxes, nor have I ever voted for a rate increase.

3) Public streets are a public good. Just because you don't live there today doesn't mean you, a member of your family or a friend won't in the future, necessitating you drive there from time to time- just as people constantly drive through your neighborhood that don't live there. Public goods are, well, public. Just like parks and fire stations. Do we only charge those in the vicinity of a park or fire station? No, the whole city pitches in. It's a slippery slope to go down- particularly when everyone who has owned a home longer than 5 years didn't have to bear the brunt of those infrastructure costs alone.

Finally- impact fees are regressive against the young and first time homebuyers trying to afford their piece of the American Dream. You and I had our chance to buy a home that was affordable. They should too. The us versus them mentality in all things fails to appeal to me, unless you're talking about the Longhorns. :-)

PS- one more thing even though you didn't mention it- even if it's the best policy in the world to have impact fees, and I don't think it is, it's bad policy if a builder looks at the cost differential to build and says, "forget this I'll just build in Bryan, or Snook, or Navasota where I don't have to pay this." And that's largely happening.

Respectfully

Yancy '95



A few questions to understand fully.
As these costs will now be covered by taxes ro everyone, what say does the community have in allowing builders to develop new subdivisions, etc?

Would we know the tax impact prior to allowing new home construction?

Have studies shown that properly designed impact feed are beneficial, or negative overall (vs poorly designed ones which are certainly not beneficial)?

Are the current impact fees considered properly designed or poorly designed? In essence, is there a negative impact on building and growth currently due ro these fees?

Have other options been explored aside from totally eliminating fees?

How much do current impact feed add to home prices locally?

With interest rates in a downward trend (a much larger impact in home ownership/buying), will this really help or simply add to the local tax burden?

I am on the fence, but with anything our city leaders propose financially-I am in a trust but verify mode (actually verify then trust, lol) and rightfully so.



At Aggie game will respond. Gig 'em!


No rush-if you are at the baseball game I feel your pain!
Reply Quote
1 edit
momlaw
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54p, 3/16/25
AG
Quote:
PS- as with all pending legislation, this bill will result in a short term chilling effect on housing starts. That's why I'll be proposing to my colleagues we make a brilliant preemptive move and issue our own moratorium on impact fees as soon as possible. Otherwise everyone will wait til the bill passes and if it does, they'll most assuredly wait until September 1 when it takes effect. We do not have 6 months worth of housing growth to spare.
This was one of my concerns when reading your original post. Pleased to see you plan to address it. Giving Council Members the opportunity to take a stand with a vote is critical to governance accountability to voters. Thanks
Reply Quote
4
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:24p, 3/16/25
https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/Bryan-continuing-housing-incentive-program-as-College-Station-adds-impact-fees-395014411.html
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
Reply Quote
Stucco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 3/17/25
Is this about reducing regulation, or subsidizing the cost of infrastructure for new development, or just competing with our neighbor?

The $3,500 won't make a bit of difference in the cost of a house these days. Are the regulations associated with impact fees really so heavy they chased out Mom and Pop builders?
Reply Quote
1
Omperlodge
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:00a, 3/17/25
I have been to several discussions about impact fees. Nowhere in any of the calculations have I seen tax revenue included in the calculations to offset the cost of an additional home on the city's systems. Developers have to pay for their interior development costs and I don't disagree with them paying for costs that they cause on the greater city, but if the new home will pay for the greater costs through tax revenue there is no need for an impact fee.
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stucco • 11:40a, 3/17/25
Stucco said:
Is this about reducing regulation, or subsidizing the cost of infrastructure for new development, or just competing with our neighbor?

The $3,500 won't make a bit of difference in the cost of a house these days. Are the regulations associated with impact fees really so heavy they chased out Mom and Pop builders?


I'm still crunching numbers but it's far in excess of $3500, has increased hundreds of percent across the board since enacted, and data indicates local builders are voting with their feet to avoid them.

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
Reply Quote
3
Stucco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:15a, 3/20/25
If CS wants to adjust or eliminate the impact fees, we have the power to. I have no idea why we need to champion a state-level moratorium because we can't manage our own affairs.
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stucco • 9:34a, 3/20/25
Stucco said:
If CS wants to adjust or eliminate the impact fees, we have the power to. I have no idea why we need to champion a state-level moratorium because we can't manage our own affairs.


I applaud and support Representative Dyson's bill because, try as I might, and trust me I have, I have failed in my attempt to persuade my colleagues of the damage we are doing to our housing market.

We have tinkered with housing and I'm very concerned we are breaking what was once an incredibly affordable and abundant resource. If we don't reverse course, lower fees and offer a more business friendly permitting process, we are in for serious trouble.

Young families aren't buying in College Station like they historically have. Our school district isn't growing.

Bryan, Navasota, Snook and Brazos County are getting huge chunks of our housing market share.

I think it's the biggest local story of our time. Bigger than Macy's or ballparks or Northgate- combined.

Builders are voting with their feet and building elsewhere. Particularly local builders that are prideful of what they put on the ground in their local market. Increasingly, only major national builders and deep pocketed student tower developers can afford to build here.

We are throwing gasoline on an existing housing crisis fire with fees and permitting barriers.

This bill would help alleviate that.

My $.02 and 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
Reply Quote
7
Stucco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:57a, 3/20/25
The focus was on the approach, not on the issue. Has there been a study or analysis of the impact of the fees, positive and negative? Is there a resulting prediction that the impact of repealing them will have, or doubling the fees will have? If so, and the situation is shown to be dire, it should not be difficult to persuade the city to change. If no study exists, why not? Has staff been directed to perform one?
Reply Quote
Lone Stranger
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:18a, 3/20/25
This is an age old argument on how to cover fixed costs of new development. Charge those fixed costs to the people that create the need for the new fixed costs (new development) in the system or roll those fixed costs longer term into taxes and/or usage fees on bills (CSU: electric, water, sewer, etc.) and have everyone subsidize the fixed costs of the new development (and the new entrants eventually are helping subsidize the newer entrants down the road). When cities like go through a large lengthy growth spurt they tend to get a lot of flack from the citizenry about subsidizing new development at the expense of the existing populace. IF growth was consistent, either method would probably be a wash in the end over who is subsidizing who. But growth is NOT consistent so it ebbs and flows.

As you mention CS Council "could" change this without any un-needed nanny govt state law. I suspected when you made the initial post you did not have near the votes to change this on Council. So when you start trying to show CS isn't KING of housing starts compared to the area like it has been you better be ready for why we all need to subsidize fixed costs of new development from the citizenry.

TDLR: impact fees are seen as a fair way to handle new fixed costs but somewhat anti-development if not everyone does them. Cities that get too aggressive with them can find themselves less competitive than they were without them.
Reply Quote
King of the Dairy Queen
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 3/20/25
all this stuff that gets banned on this board and this guy is allowed to use it like his facebook account. I dont understand the moderation here at all.
Reply Quote
5
Bryanisbest
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 12:45p, 3/20/25
AG
Bob Yancy said:
Stucco said:
If CS wants to adjust or eliminate the impact fees, we have the power to. I have no idea why we need to champion a state-level moratorium because we can't manage our own affairs.


I applaud and support Representative Dyson's bill because, try as I might, and trust me I have, I have failed in my attempt to persuade my colleagues of the damage we are doing to our housing market.

We have tinkered with housing and I'm very concerned we are breaking what was once an incredibly affordable and abundant resource. If we don't reverse course, lower fees and offer a more business friendly permitting process, we are in for serious trouble.

Young families aren't buying in College Station like they historically have. Our school district isn't growing.

Bryan, Navasota, Snook and Brazos County are getting huge chunks of our housing market share.

I think it's the biggest local story of our time. Bigger than Macy's or ballparks or Northgate- combined.

Builders are voting with their feet and building elsewhere. Particularly local builders that are prideful of what they put on the ground in their local market. Increasingly, only major national builders and deep pocketed student tower developers can afford to build here.

We are throwing gasoline on an existing housing crisis fire with fees and permitting barriers.

This bill would help alleviate that.

My $.02 and respectfully yours

Yancy '95



Bob, you have too much common sense or street smarts to live in College Station's ivory tower of minds. College Station thinks they can take growth for granted so they don't have to compete for it by cutting impact fees. If Dyson's bill becomes law they will get back their growth advantage in spite of themselves.
Reply Quote
1
MeKnowNot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:10p, 3/20/25
Many builders want to develop large areas of property. Developable large acre tracts are difficult to find in College Station, so it's natural that housing development slows and the remaining new housing commands a higher price.

For example, if the City were to build a new public works facility where would they build it?
Reply Quote
RafterAg223
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:03p, 3/20/25
AG
Meanwhile, just had a PAC meeting for the first time in a while in College Station. Staff kept directing us to the UDO every time we had a serious question. If you direct people to a UDO for a city your work for, you should know the answers contained within. If you don't, said document is too damn big. The general atmosphere in the meeting was not one of "how can we help", rather how can we be robots and push crap on you that has not even a modicum of common sense attached to it. It's maddening. These people have zero ability at this city to think outside of a box. It's almost as if they either don't have a clue or they fear their job is at risk for answering a question that requires any amount of critical thinking. It shouldn't be that hard to change the zoning from one product to another like product in this town. Spending tons of money to change a comp plan and then zoning is ridiculous. The planning process needs a major makeover here!

Dyson's bill needs to pass, and staff at COCS needs to be allowed to apply common sense when dealing with tax paying citizens.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 4:59p, 3/24/25
AG
Bob Yancy said:
instapt said:
Can you elaborate on what makes this "incredibly powerful" and "elegant?" There is an incredible amount of building already happening in the Brazos Valley. If anything, it's the associated capital improvements that are lagging and lacking. So with a moratorium on impact fees, how are the local city/county governments going to fund those capital improvements? The improvements either won't happen or something else will get cut. How would this bill do anything besides lower costs and therefore increase profit for builders?


Sure:

1) it's powerful in that in will lower the cost to build a home and thus lower the cost to buy one. Elegant because it's a single page bill, which is rarely seen.

2) cities will pay for capital improvements the same way they did for decades- via the taxes they collect.

3) a moratorium on impact fees spreads the cost over all citizens rather than targeting one new neighborhood punitively.


Everyone that has owned a home today longer than 5 years didn't pay those fees disproportionately- you and I had help from our fellow citizens. We didn't have to "go it alone."

I believe cities are based on the law of large numbers. By all of us pulling together, amenities and infrastructure and public safety are made affordable for everyone.

Imagine if the cost of a new park, or a new fire station was divvied up only among those in the immediate vicinity, and not all citizens. Would that be fair?

I believe in the same shared cost model cities utilized for decades prior to the impact fee statute being enacted in Texas.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95
We're going to need every cost cut we can get because tariffs are going to raise the costs come 'liberation day'. Be great if there was some costs that could be cut at the state level for automobiles. At this rate, we'll need to take out a mortgage just to purchase a new vehicle. Maybe homestead exemption for living in our car?
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.