Update: Additional projects have been added as city staff update the list. (A select few items are omitted for security reasons.)

The Eagle's Emma Lawson has a good piece on the front page this morning regarding this tremendous effort by city staff.

https://theeagle.com/news/local/government-politics/college-station-launches-new-capital-projects-website/article_20b31bb6-e23c-11ee-931c-2ba3b91c662b.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

Have a great week!

Respectfully,

Yancy

PS- I'm out this week and therefore any direct questions I'll respond to thereafter. Thank you!

[Read the edit at the top of the thread. -Staff]

The website is throwing errors today. Says data source error and won't display anything.

birdman said:

---

I don't always agree with Bob Yancy on how to spend my tax money. However, I do think he's our best servant.

He is open and discusses the issues BEFORE a decision is made. We have more information than ever before because of him. And he listens to his bosses.

I respect the hell out of that.

---

Agreed! Kudos to Mr. Yancy for willingly volunteering to subject himself to the minefield that is TexAgs is admirable and most appreciated.

Working now!

Yancy, what is going on at SE/Independence Park? What is the structure out there? Anything else planned? What should we be calling it?

UhOhNoAgTag said:

---

Yancy, what is going on at SE/Independence Park? What is the structure out there? Anything else planned? What should we be calling it?

---

see video highlights from city council meeting on monday...

I may have missed it. How much are they thinking these 3 new ballfields are going to be to design, build, etc?

The focus at the end of the video seemed to solely focus on the impact to Little League. There are just as many, if not more, kids that play travel ball that use the fields at Bachmann. I am not trying to say that one is more important than the other. All I'm saying is that both need to be considered when calculating the impact of the Bachmann renovations.

Wayne Smith only has the smaller fields so you can't send the older kids there.

Location of the three new ballparks at Veterans. I know they tried, but sure wish they could have made it work for four.

So just a conditioned stone and brick bathroom out in the middle of nowhere?

Any more parking?

Txmoe said:

---

birdman said:

---

I don't always agree with Bob Yancy on how to spend my tax money. However, I do think he's our best servant.

He is open and discusses the issues BEFORE a decision is made. We have more information than ever before because of him. And he listens to his bosses.

I respect the hell out of that.

---

Agreed! Kudos to Mr. Yancy for willingly volunteering to subject himself to the minefield that is TexAgs is admirable and most appreciated.

---

Thank you kindly. Both of you.

Many thanks sir!!!

Unexpected $70M for water wells, Bob?

They going to drill 300 of them and sell water to San Antonio like some folks to the north?

I could see the city trying to make money that way.

Hornbeck said:

---

Unexpected $70M for water wells, Bob?

---

We just finished budget deliberations today. Next you all will have an opportunity to weigh in.

Because our deliberations are so fresh (got home a few hours ago) and because public hearings are soon, I'll be general and brief on water with my take on it-

Texas is facing a water crisis. Our growth in population and businesses has created an "arms race," but for water. Communities and industry all over are grabbing permits, drilling wells and trying to secure water for their own use, or to sell out from under geographically served areas. By 2036 we face what I will term a "crisis" if we don't act as a city now. Add in the fact that Texas looks to be a major manufacturing region for semiconductors, including Bryan, that consume volumetric amounts of water, and it exacerbates the situation.

To Maroon Barchetta, this is the opposite of a vanity project. It's $70,000,000 for 3 wells that no one prefers to spend. It's capital spending that secures our water supply and staves off a local shortage many of us may not live to see.

Because of complex laws and regulations, it's do it now or lose the ability to do so- or, possibly do so later at a massively higher cost.

Even with this capital outlay, conservation efforts and programs will have to be pursued. Each and every one of us will be asked to conserve water, use xeriscaping in our flower beds, and generally stop trying to recreate a tropical climate in our lawns and flower beds.

There's your briefing on water. These views are mine and not city or council policy.

Respectfully yours,

-yancy

I didn't say the wells were a vanity project. That is you putting words in my mouth.

We wanted clarity. Sorry, but questionable spending in the past makes people wary when they see large numbers in the budget.

Thanks for posting your brief update.

maroon barchetta said:

---

I didn't say the wells were a vanity project. That is you putting words in my mouth.

We wanted clarity. Sorry, but questionable spending in the past makes people wary when they see large numbers in the budget.

Thanks for posting your brief update.

---

Fair enough. Sorry I presumed to anticipate your comments. Have a wonderful evening - after 14 hours of budget I gotta check out for a while.

Respectfully,

-yancy

Councilman Yancy,

Are there any plans for surface water storage? We will not be able to sustain all of the area's future growth by only drilling more wells. The water in those acquifers does not get replenished nearly as fast as it would need to in order to support the additional population we are anticipating. Personally, I don't believe the engineering studies that claim to know how fast the water percolates through the soil to get back to the acquifers. It seems like it's more of a guess than an accurate estimate.

Rainfall occurs every year and seems to be a shame to let it all run into the Gulf Of Mexico without trying to stop some of it. I know the LCRA is looking into building reservoirs for that reason. Replenishment would rely on Mother Nature but I like that idea as a supplement to our underground sources.

Over a decade ago there were hearings about a possible reservoir under consideration in our local area. The lake was supposed to be buiilt for human consumption. The committee (or board) in charge of it received a lot of backlash regarding the new reservoir. Most of the speakers seemed very upset they would have to sell family land for this to happen. While I understand thier complaint, sometimes the value to the entire community has to supercede the value to the smal part of the community. Running out of water would certainly change the way we view this issue.


Your thoughts?

Thanks.

hereford said:

---

Councilman Yancy,

Are there any plans for surface water storage? We will not be able to sustain all of the area's future growth by only drilling more wells. The water in those acquifers does not get replenished nearly as fast as it would need to in order to support the additional population we are anticipating. Personally, I don't believe the engineering studies that claim to know how fast the water percolates through the soil to get back to the acquifers. It seems like it's more of a guess than an accurate estimate.

Rainfall occurs every year and seems to be a shame to let it all run into the Gulf Of Mexico without trying to stop some of it. I know the LCRA is looking into building reservoirs for that reason. Replenishment would rely on Mother Nature but I like that idea as a supplement to our underground sources.

Over a decade ago there were hearings about a possible reservoir under consideration in our local area. The lake was supposed to be buiilt for human consumption. The committee (or board) in charge of it received a lot of backlash regarding the new reservoir. Most of the speakers seemed very upset they would have to sell family land for this to happen. While I understand thier complaint, sometimes the value to the entire community has to supercede the value to the smal part of the community. Running out of water would certainly change the way we view this issue.


Your thoughts?

Thanks.

---

It's a great question first of all. To my knowledge we use no surface water sources. Here's what I know:

College Station's water system has about 490 miles of water distribution lines, 10 wells over Simsboro, Carrizo-Wilcox, Carrizo and Sparta aquifer groundwater wells, pump stations, and three elevated water storage tanks- one of em with a really cool paint job. :-)

The system was rated "Superior" by the State of Texas but then TCEQ changed up the system and I'm not sure. We receive awards for outstanding operations pretty regularly from the EPA and others. Pressure is almost too good, in some areas approaching or even occasionally exceeding 100psi.

Because of geothermal heating from being deep in the ground, temperature of the water pumped from underground is ~118 degrees Fahrenheit. To reduce the temperature, the water is pumped through cooling towers at Sandy Point Pump Station, lowering the temp to below 90 degrees.

Water transmission lines carry the cooled ground water ~13 miles from Sandy Point Pump Station to the Dowling Road Pump Station for further treatment. Aquifer source water for College Station is clean enough that only chlorine disinfection is needed to treat the water to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

Surface water often contains contaminants. Even rainwater capture systems to clean storage facilities require a different standard of treatment because rainwater picks up contaminants in the atmosphere as it falls. You also get contaminants from water sitting on the surface in ponds, lakes and reservoirs.

But, your question is a really good one because rainwater capture and to an extent surface water can be great water sources.

To my knowledge, and I'll confirm with staff and edit this response if I'm mistaken, we use no surface water sources and have no budgeted plans to do so at this time.

Right now, plans are to build 3 new wells for $70 million over several years, and modify existing to increase capacity. We currently use about 18 million gallons per day. Current capacity to produce equates to ~22 million gallons. These numbers may need updating as we're growing so fast.

Staff has proposed a 10% increase in fees to help fund the wells. Right now, depending upon your household's consumption rate, you pay the lowest price for water compared to Wellborn SUD, Wixon Valley or CoB. At some higher levels of consumption CoB is a little cheaper. At the 10% hike if approved, you'd still be paying at, or below, these comparable local entities depending on consumption. Everyone's rates change based on higher levels of consumption.

There's your primer and your answer to the best of my knowledge. I'll ask about surface water horizon plans, if any.

Respectfully yours,

-yancy