Thought I would take this opportunity and tell everyone in broad strokes what is happening:

1) we had what I contend is a tight budget, very refined, that included a 5% tax rate cut. Due to $1 billion in successful valuation protests, the budget largely remains intact, but the tax rate cut is going to be much smaller. Plus or minus tenths and hundreds of pennies your new tax rate will be very close to $.50 in all likelihood. This is a forecast on my part. It is not finalized.

2) the new public works facility; Texas independence Park; veterans Park baseball fields; and the local music statue were all essentially approved before tonight and no changes were made to those projects.

3) the following are my interpretations of where we came down on additional projects and full disclosure, I may be wrong here and there. There was a lot of discussion and staff are distilling that discussion into documents for our review:

a) we agreed that Wolf Pen Creek amphitheater will receive significant upgrades and we directed staff to engage with the private sector to see how much of it can be done without spending taxpayer dollars. As one member of council, I can envision no scenario whereby it would be paid for 100% by the private sector- full disclosure.

b) Northgate: we agreed that immediate improvements to existing infrastructure such as the tree planters and other items in disrepair need to be fixed in all haste, but I think it's fair to say we don't want to do anything major there until we know what's going to happen with the city parking lot. With citizen stakeholder approval, were we to sell the city lot to a private sector Developer there are many things they would likely do that the taxpayer would not have to pay for. Staff will assemble additional documentation and an action plan for our review, but we will be sprucing Northgate up. We just don't want to spend a bunch of money, making major improvements only for those to be wrecked if a development comes to the city lot. (Edited to add: Mayor made a good point that we should roll up pedestrian crossings over University into the Northgate project and view it as integral to public safety in that area. No one disagreed.)

c) Balcones Drive extension: by my count, it failed 3 to 4 but I'm not certain. Staff will assemble their notes and give us a report. I do have a question for people that live in that area and shop at HEB Jones Crossing. Would you rather see Balcones Drive connected from where it dead ends now to Welsh or would you rather Waxwing be a signal intersection both ways in and out of that development at 2818? It will be roughly $8 million to complete Balcones and $800,000 for a signal and increased access to that development. 14 additional commercial lots and an apartment complex are about to go in there. Seeking feedback.

d) Midtown: there was interest in connecting Town Lake to the highway service Road between the Harley shop and Goodwill. I support that plan and believe it is crucial to the commercial development of this area that was so passionately envisioned by the city years ago. We do not have final numbers on what that would cost and staff is working on it. My best guess in discussion with qualified road contractors is a not to exceed of about $7 million. Due to a lack of aquatics and amenities in the midtown area I support us putting a modest community pool project there, but I received no support for that idea. If I were a betting man, I believe we will probably do some monument signage marking the entries and exits from Midtown proper per our original plan.

e) Hensel Park: it is not our property, but there was going to be an ask from the university or the system to participate in a modest project to spruce up the park. One of the worst kept secrets in town is that there is significant interest in doing something that I believe would be exciting and transformative at Hensel. If I were a betting man, I would say the City Of College Station will not do anything at that park until we know what its primary stakeholders wish it to become. We patiently await a resolution.

f) rec center at Macy's, or Midtown, or ?: while we did not cancel the project, I think it's fair to say it has been tabled. I believe a rec center and a multi event center are mutually exclusive and that we cannot do both. They are simply too expensive. Until we know more about the potentially exciting project that would involve multiple entities, I suspect we will keep our powder dry with regards to our recreation center. If we ever do a recreation center I believe it needs an aquatics component, and it needs to go in Midtown where it was originally visioned.

g) formerly Convention Center, now called "Events Center": see E and F above. We await the final report from Hunden- the expert that we hired to review the feasibility of us doing this ourselves. I believe going it alone is a non-starter for CS. I also believe with partners and vision, It could be one of the most transformative projects in our lifetimes in BRAZOS COUNTY.

The proceeding opinions as to what transpired tonight are just that… my opinions. We covered a lot of ground and I may be off on a few items.

If anyone wants to weigh in and make your opinions known I highly advise email to council and/or showing up to every meeting between now and when we finalize the budget. Some council members may read texags, and some may not.

I apologize for the grammatical errors. Most of this was voice to text. There's your Air Force style military briefing, General. Have a good evening.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Valen said:

---

With inflation going down again in the July report and interest rates bound to fall in the next couple months, why do you think increasing the tax rate that 1 extra cent as a cushion is a good plan? I know we're lowing the rate overall, but for some people every penny makes a difference.

---

I haven't decided on my vote for the rate. It's going to be a cut no matter what we do, and that's a good thing. We have ~3/4 of a billion in new student tower value coming on line in the next 3-4 years. That's a good thing. It'll help ease a student housing problem and it's going to push our tax rate even lower as more valuation is added to the rolls.

To put it in perspective, we're talking about a little more than $50 in taxes on a half million dollar home different from where we were before this protest news broke. I'm not going to go scorched earth over what will be a tax rate cut. We're in a good spot as citizens and city.

But your question is a good one. Everyone is betting on lower interest rates and activity is building in momentum. You can see it happening every day.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Thank you for this update. It is really helpful to know the direction and sentiment.

My $55 parking ticket for running :10 late last Thursday at the Northgate lot will help a little bit..

Bob Yancy said:

---

c) Balcones Drive extension: by my count, it failed 3 to 4 but I'm not certain. Staff will assemble their notes and give us a report. I do have a question for people that live in that area and shop at HEB Jones Crossing. Would you rather see Balcones Drive connected from where it dead ends now to Welsh or would you rather Waxwing be a signal intersection both ways in and out of that development at 2818? It will be roughly $8 million to complete Balcones and $800,000 for a signal and increased access to that development. 14 additional commercial lots and an apartment complex are about to go in there. Seeking feedback.

---

Balcones Drive extension is the better solution.

Strong preference as a Southwood Valley resident.

Quote:

---

Agreed on voting for events center unless the owner of that property steps up big enough to make it a no brainer.

---

Just checking, everybody else saw this coming from a mile away, right?

I cant see COB contributing to an 'event center", especially at Hensel Park, when their new Legends Event Center is just a few miles north on the same street.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

Looks like the folks marketing the Jones Crossing development are already counting on there being a light installed...

---

They've wanted it awhile. They have an apartment complex ready to go but have been holding off due to a hefty impact fee and concerns that the hundreds of people in and out will cause issues. But yes. They planned on it.

Edited to add: it's an extremely well done development. I go out of my way to meet there with constituents at Another Broken Egg, et al. It's a really cool vibe and the kind of development in there I want for our city.

It's very very hard to objectively believe that the existing ingress and egress, even with a completed Balcones, is enough.

If we don't do the Waxwing signal, and it gets out of hand after full buildout- it'll forever be "exhibit A" in my mind of a big development miss by city hall. Full disclosure.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Exactly. There's always a "but". I hope the mayor and city council of Bryan won't be influenced by these liberal CS people. And the elected officials from the county, as well. College Station is out of control with the spending OPM.

Waxwing is a cluster and I'm not sure adding a light will do anything to help it.

As mentioned by VStarr, an eastbound acceleration lane should have been constructed. I'm not sure why the COCS and TxDOT let the developer off the hook for this.

Waxwing is a right-in and right-out t-intersection with a barrier. I'm not sure an intersection like that has ever been signalized. Several other problems exist:

1. It's only 1,500 ft. from the signalized Welsh intersection.
2. FM 2818 is in both a horizontal and vertical curve to the west, hampering sight distance.
3. The acceleration/entrance ramp from Wellborn dumps into FM 2818 at the end of the horizontal curve and only 300 ft. from the right turn lane. This creates an unsafe weaving movement and further complicates turning right out of Waxwing.

Thoughts on a solution:
Build a dedicated acceleration lane out of Waxwing that connects with the right-turn lane at Welsh. This requires reworking all of the roadside illumination along the south side of FM 2818. The illumination needs to be moved, but it must stay in place to provide lighting to the area for nighttime driving. I'd probably plumb the area as well to go to a curb and gutter section with the storm drain underground to eliminate the open ditch. The downside to this is the weaving movements that are going to be formally created. In reality, they already exist, but in a much less safe situation. People turning right out of Waxwing will have a dedicated lane of almost 1,500 ft. This lane will become the right turn lane onto Welsh. To avoid a drag race to the intersection, I would recommend reducing the speed limit to 45 mph on the east side of the Welborn Rd. overpass until the east side of A&M Consolidated. There are two legacy driveways between Welsh and Waxwing. If this property ever changes hands, these access points need to be monitored closely to avoid another similar situation to Waxwing.

I believe this should be done immediately. See how this improves safety and mobility, and then if Waxwing still meets a signal warrant, you've done everything else to improve the area.

Just my thougts.

Civil04 said:

---

Waxwing is a cluster and I'm not sure adding a light will do anything to help it.

As mentioned by VStarr, an eastbound acceleration lane should have been constructed. I'm not sure why the COCS and TxDOT let the developer off the hook for this.

Waxwing is a right-in and right-out t-intersection with a barrier. I'm not sure an intersection like that has ever been signalized. Several other problems exist:

1. It's only 1,500 ft. from the signalized Welsh intersection.
2. FM 2818 is in both a horizontal and vertical curve to the west, hampering sight distance.
3. The acceleration/entrance ramp from Wellborn dumps into FM 2818 at the end of the horizontal curve and only 300 ft. from the right turn lane. This creates an unsafe weaving movement and further complicates turning right out of Waxwing.

Thoughts on a solution:
Build a dedicated acceleration lane out of Waxwing that connects with the right-turn lane at Welsh. This requires reworking all of the roadside illumination along the south side of FM 2818. The illumination needs to be moved, but it must stay in place to provide lighting to the area for nighttime driving. I'd probably plumb the area as well to go to a curb and gutter section with the storm drain underground to eliminate the open ditch. The downside to this is the weaving movements that are going to be formally created. In reality, they already exist, but in a much less safe situation. People turning right out of Waxwing will have a dedicated lane of almost 1,500 ft. This lane will become the right turn lane onto Welsh. To avoid a drag race to the intersection, I would recommend reducing the speed limit to 45 mph on the east side of the Welborn Rd. overpass until the east side of A&M Consolidated. There are two legacy driveways between Welsh and Waxwing. If this property ever changes hands, these access points need to be monitored closely to avoid another similar situation to Waxwing.

I believe this should be done immediately. See how this improves safety and mobility, and then if Waxwing still meets a signal warrant, you've done everything else to improve the area.

Just my thougts.

---

Wow. Spoken like an engineer. Thanks for the feedback. An observation and a question:

O: the concrete partition would be removed and a 4 way intersection installed as proposed by the developer (they presented it with a traffic study).
Q: aren't there signal distances less than that on that roadway now?

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Thanks for taking time to read my post.

I have not looked at the traffic study, so please forgive my ignorance. If the concrete barrier is removed to create a four-way, I assume it's because they are lining up The Woodlands entrance with Waxwing. It feels like that is a must. However, doing this forces a 4-way because I doubt there is much through traffic that will go straight from Waxwing to The Woodlands. The 4-way is most likely preferred because it allows traffic on Waxwing to turn left and go west on FM 2818. This might prove problematic. Without diving deeply into it, these drivers will now choose to continue west on FM 2818 or exit to Welborn. This can already be done by exiting Balcones or the other entrance on Welborn. Why not continue to have these movements use these access points and let eastbound traffic exit on FM 2818?

In terms of distance between signals, it's not always about distance; one must consider the level of service and desired mobility on the corridor. For example, the distance between the University and Texas signal and the signal at Nimitz (to the northeast) is about 1100 ft. However, the posted speed on University is different and the level of congestion due to proximity to TAMU is different from what you expect (and more importantly desire) on FM 2818. Though I will say the congestion on University could be slightly mitigated by lengthening the left turn bays for University traffic, but that's another discussion.

Back to my FM 2818 and Waxwing acceleration lane point. Why not build the least mobility-killing option and create a safer situation for exiting traffic? Even if a signal is required in the future, the infrastructure I describe continues to create a better situation.

Again, thanks for reading my post and responding.

Best regards.

Civil04 said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read my post.

I have not looked at the traffic study, so please forgive my ignorance. If the concrete barrier is removed to create a four-way, I assume it's because they are lining up The Woodlands entrance with Waxwing. It feels like that is a must. However, doing this forces a 4-way because I doubt there is much through traffic that will go straight from Waxwing to The Woodlands. The 4-way is most likely preferred because it allows traffic on Waxwing to turn left and go west on FM 2818. This might prove problematic. Without diving deeply into it, these drivers will now choose to continue west on FM 2818 or exit to Welborn. This can already be done by exiting Balcones or the other entrance on Welborn. Why not continue to have these movements use these access points and let eastbound traffic exit on FM 2818?

In terms of distance between signals, it's not always about distance; one must consider the level of service and desired mobility on the corridor. For example, the distance between the University and Texas signal and the signal at Nimitz (to the northeast) is about 1100 ft. However, the posted speed on University is different and the level of congestion due to proximity to TAMU is different from what you expect (and more importantly desire) on FM 2818. Though I will say the congestion on University could be slightly mitigated by lengthening the left turn bays for University traffic, but that's another discussion.

Back to my FM 2818 and Waxwing acceleration lane point. Why not build the least mobility-killing option and create a safer situation for exiting traffic? Even if a signal is required in the future, the infrastructure I describe continues to create a better situation.

Again, thanks for reading my post and responding.

Best regards.

---

Firstly, thanks for your approach to this. I learned more this way. There's a lot to unpack. Let me try:

You are correct in your assumption- the Developer wants to realign one side or the other I can't remember which. They want to increase access to their property from both directions on 2818 and to create four hard corners at that intersection for the development of additional amenities.

As for the apartment complexes, they are both very big and I believe their interest is in those people from those two complexes being able to quickly go in and out of their development- perhaps even by foot or bicycle in addition to vehicles.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question posed in the last sentence of your first paragraph. By adding a four-way intersection at waxwing aren't all other entrance and exit options preserved? Doesn't the addition of a four way intersection at waxwing simply increase access to the property (from westbound traffic on 2818) dramatically?

Your waxwing acceleration lane is for eastbound traffic on 2818 correct? I don't disagree but I don't think an acceleration lane is mutually exclusive to a four-way intersection there. It only enhances safety and traffic flow.

You used the term 'mobility killing' so I looked up mobility from a traffic engineering perspective: "Mobility is not just about transportation systems themselves, but also about the ability of individuals to utilize those systems to reach desired destinations."

To me, by that definition mobility is increased dramatically. Thousands of residents could gain access to their desired destination without having to change direction from westbound on 2818. They just hang a left at waxwing- and at least a couple thousand residents can access H-E-B and all of the other amenities without ever getting on 2818 at all- or Wellborn for that matter- by simply hopping across 2818 at the proposed intersection.

I called my contacts at TxDot and spoke at length over the phone. I later drove out there and met with them and we looked at it in detail. It's their roadway after all. They were 100% apathetic. I got the distinct impression they just didn't want to get into the middle of it (my supposition) but they were definitely not opposed.

The developer's traffic engineer Consultant made a compelling case at council some time ago.

It's just really hard for me to fathom how it won't be needed in the future upon build out of a large apartment complex and 14 additional commercial properties in there. If just one of those 14 tracts develops into a high volume destination, it's hard to conclude current access will be adequate.

Of course, if we build Balcones people will be able to hang a left on Welsh off of 2818 westbound and then jog a quick right hand turn to continue westbound on Balcones into HEB. But when leaving the same way the came, might traffic queue back all the way to Balcones for people waiting at the Welsh/2818 intersection?

A lot to consider. I just want us to be certain.

Time will definitely tell the tale.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95

Brian Alg said:

---

Quote:

---

Agreed on voting for events center unless the owner of that property steps up big enough to make it a no brainer.

---

Just checking, everybody else saw this coming from a mile away, right?

---

The taxpayers should always have a vote on a capital project that is tens of millions of dollars. Now if the property owner want to finance the whole investment......

Putting an event center anywhere but at Hensel park is insane unless A&M is not interested....walk to shopping, a dozen or more restaurants, close by nice hotel, walk to A&M conferences and sporting events, short walk to North Gate, parking garage close by, movie theatre, Miniature golf, walk to A&M, etc., etc, etc.