If current population growth trends hold, College Station will surpass 130,000 citizens by the end of 2024.

Since the 2020 census, population has grown from approximately 120,000 to just under 130k.

Attached is a growth chart. It depicts a slight slowing in the rate of growth but still at a rapid clip.

Rapid growth challenges municipalities in the provision of public safety services, water and wastewater infrastructure, traffic and roadways, sanitation, drainage and all aspects of city management.

I thought this was interesting. Have a great weekend.


[We are tired of having to clean up threads and if we remove a post because posters are not being respectful we are going to ban that poster. If we have to clean up derailing posts complaining about moderation because posters are not being respectful we will ban that poster. That is the only warning for this thread. -Staff]

If only taxes per person went down with volume.

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

I know you can't go back in history but I don't see how you cannot lose money on it unless A&M is willing to agree to a huge lease. If A&M is there, there will be no property taxes collected and no BPP tax collected. It's going to be tough to have an overall positive situation if the potential of a private entity owning and operating a business there.

Hopefully the current city officials eventually learn from this misguided investments.

I realize it's not a city road, but someone needs to pressure someone into making 6 into four lanes each way from 2818 north side to 2154 south side.

BCSWguru said:

---

I realize it's not a city road, but someone needs to pressure someone into making 6 into four lanes each way from 2818 north side to 2154 south side.

---

Already coming. Designed and funded. Cities having to relocate utilities in the TxDot right of way now. The bypass will be transformed- from southern CS to northern Bryan. Construction start pretty much imminent.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Just the bypass portion or will it include everything south of Rock Prairie, maybe as far down as Mesa?

---

If memory serves the six lane expansion is slated for Fitch to 21.

That might be short-sighted the way growth is in the county.

techno-ag said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Just the bypass portion or will it include everything south of Rock Prairie, maybe as far down as Mesa?

---

If memory serves the six lane expansion is slated for Fitch to 21.

---

That's correct. Approximately $280 million state project. 5 or 6 overpasses rebuilt. I think two are diverging diamonds- University and Briarcrest. (Yes I know they're strange.)

6 lanes of highway with some new turnaround function I've never seen before. 12 miles long from Fitch to 21.

The diverging diamond is a colossal waste of funds.

You get the same effect at probably 1/10,000,000 of the cost with a protected left turn signal.

What a joke. Millions of dollars wasted. Did someone mention "fiduciary responsibility" earlier?

Bob Yancy said:

---

BCSWguru said:

---

I realize it's not a city road, but someone needs to pressure someone into making 6 into four lanes each way from 2818 north side to 2154 south side.

---

Already coming. Designed and funded. Cities having to relocate utilities in the TxDot right of way now. The bypass will be transformed- from southern CS to northern Bryan. Construction start pretty much imminent.

---

How many lanes? If it's one added lane it's a colossal waste of time.

Quit making factual sounding proclamations about topics when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about...or...go ahead, explain signal phasing to us.

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Respectfully-Hurry up and do it. It seem to me it is being made to be much harder to fix than it really is. Whatever the solution is-do it. It is burning money daily. If nobody there can figure it out or find someone who can-then you answered your own question on should you be re-elected.

Wasn't someone trying to get in there when the city bought it? Was it a business? Church? What exactly was the situation? Seems time for that cloud of mystery to fade away and someone give a bit of full disclosure. Why protect the fools who did it? Who owes them that protection? Aren't the taxpayers owed much more?

Find someone yo fill it and move on. I cannot wait for the day it gets filled and the entire council crows about how genius they are, lol. The sun will be shining and birds chirping that day-you can count on that my friend!

A compound annual growth rate under 3% is not exactly rapid growth. What are rapidly growing are our property taxes and city spending.

Population changing from 68000 in 1980 to 130000 is growth of about 91% ((130000 minus 68000) divided by 68000) over a 24-year period, or a compound growth rate of under 3% per year.

The following two documents may be of interest:

1980-1981 City of College Station budget:
https://opendoc.cstx.gov/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=990341&dbid=0&repo=DOCUMENT-SERVER&cr=1

2023-2024 City of College Station budget:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Departments/Fiscal%20Services/Budget.pdf

From the first one, the net budget around the time the population was around 68,000 people was roughly $18.4 million.

From the second one, the net budget for 2023-2024 is $492 million. Don't be fooled by the "general fund budget" of $118 million listed near the top. Go down to page 15 for the actual net budget.

So, the budget has grown by (492 minus 18.4) divided by 18.4. As a percent, that is 2,573% (and I'm being kind by truncating after the decimal rather than rounding up).

That of course doesn't take into account inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.4 million in January of 1980 has the same buying power as $74.28 million in May of 2024. But of course we had population growth. The right thing to do is look at the budget from 1980 on a per-resident basis. Then adjust it for inflation. Then multiply that by the current number of residents.

In 1980, with a budget of $18.4 million and 68,000 residents, the per-resident budget was $270.59. $270.59 in January 1980 dollars converted to May 2024 dollars is $1,092.34. Multiply that by 130,000 residents and you get roughly $142 million.

But what was that 2023-2024 budget? $492 million, representing $3784.62 per resident -- over three times what you would expect per resident after taking inflation into account.

Then again, the City of College Station wasn't the proud owner of a former Macy's building 44 years ago, so at least we have that.

Someone will probably tell me where I made an error in my maths, so I apologize in advance for being sloppy.

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Respectfully-Hurry up and do it. It seem to me it is being made to be much harder to fix than it really is. Whatever the solution is-do it. It is burning money daily. If nobody there can figure it out or find someone who can-then you answered your own question on should you be re-elected.

Wasn't someone trying to get in there when the city bought it? Was it a business? Church? What exactly was the situation? Seems time for that cloud of mystery to fade away and someone give a bit of full disclosure. Why protect the fools who did it? Who owes them that protection? Aren't the taxpayers owed much more?

Find someone yo fill it and move on. I cannot wait for the day it gets filled and the entire council crows about how genius they are, lol. The sun will be shining and birds chirping that day-you can count on that my friend!

---

Supposedly an air conditioned storage facility the city elders would find objectionable at a prominent entry point into the city, if memory serves from past discussions about it on here.

techno-ag said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Respectfully-Hurry up and do it. It seem to me it is being made to be much harder to fix than it really is. Whatever the solution is-do it. It is burning money daily. If nobody there can figure it out or find someone who can-then you answered your own question on should you be re-elected.

Wasn't someone trying to get in there when the city bought it? Was it a business? Church? What exactly was the situation? Seems time for that cloud of mystery to fade away and someone give a bit of full disclosure. Why protect the fools who did it? Who owes them that protection? Aren't the taxpayers owed much more?

Find someone yo fill it and move on. I cannot wait for the day it gets filled and the entire council crows about how genius they are, lol. The sun will be shining and birds chirping that day-you can count on that my friend!

---

Supposedly an air conditioned storage facility the city elders would find objectionable at a prominent entry point into the city, if memory serves from past discussions about it on here.

---

I wondered. Amazes me that none of the current the current "elders" would speak up and just say what the circumstances were and exactly what they are now. The childishness of it all is comical if you step back and look at it. I listened to Harvell take an interview question on it on WTAW and the answer was absolutely worthless. When these "elders' get offended I have absolutely zero pity for them-all of them.

Nobody will give a straight answer on how we got here and certainly not on an actual plan to get it fixed and over with. Always the same "We are working on a great solution but I cannot talk about it now" like it is the nuclear launch codes-asinine. I cannot wait for the virtue signaling once they somehow fill the space-I just hope I am invited to the celebration party so I can actually witness that many people kissing their own asses and patting themselves on the back at the same time-the portrait will be awesome!

Bob Yancy said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

nought said:

---

A compound annual growth rate under 3% is not exactly rapid growth. What are rapidly growing are our property taxes and city spending.

Population changing from 68000 in 1980 to 130000 is growth of about 91% ((130000 minus 68000) divided by 68000) over a 24-year period, or a compound growth rate of under 3% per year.

The following two documents may be of interest:

1980-1981 City of College Station budget:
https://opendoc.cstx.gov/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=990341&dbid=0&repo=DOCUMENT-SERVER&cr=1

2023-2024 City of College Station budget:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Departments/Fiscal%20Services/Budget.pdf

From the first one, the net budget around the time the population was around 68,000 people was roughly $18.4 million.

From the second one, the net budget for 2023-2024 is $492 million. Don't be fooled by the "general fund budget" of $118 million listed near the top. Go down to page 15 for the actual net budget.

So, the budget has grown by (492 minus 18.4) divided by 18.4. As a percent, that is 2,573% (and I'm being kind by truncating after the decimal rather than rounding up).

That of course doesn't take into account inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.4 million in January of 1980 has the same buying power as $74.28 million in May of 2024. But of course we had population growth. The right thing to do is look at the budget from 1980 on a per-resident basis. Then adjust it for inflation. Then multiply that by the current number of residents.

In 1980, with a budget of $18.4 million and 68,000 residents, the per-resident budget was $270.59. $270.59 in January 1980 dollars converted to May 2024 dollars is $1,092.34. Multiply that by 130,000 residents and you get roughly $142 million.

But what was that 2023-2024 budget? $492 million, representing $3784.62 per resident -- over three times what you would expect per resident after taking inflation into account.

Then again, the City of College Station wasn't the proud owner of a former Macy's building 44 years ago, so at least we have that.

Someone will probably tell me where I made an error in my maths, so I apologize in advance for being sloppy.

---

Tremendous amount to look at in this and I will- but right now it's Aggie baseball and a cold beer for me! Thumbs up and fingers crossed.

---

A 3% annual growth rate for a city is almost "off the charts" rapid.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

What about the spending? If the 3% growth is "off the charts" , what would you consider the spending trend?

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

nought said:

---

A compound annual growth rate under 3% is not exactly rapid growth. What are rapidly growing are our property taxes and city spending.

Population changing from 68000 in 1980 to 130000 is growth of about 91% ((130000 minus 68000) divided by 68000) over a 24-year period, or a compound growth rate of under 3% per year.

The following two documents may be of interest:

1980-1981 City of College Station budget:
https://opendoc.cstx.gov/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=990341&dbid=0&repo=DOCUMENT-SERVER&cr=1

2023-2024 City of College Station budget:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Departments/Fiscal%20Services/Budget.pdf

From the first one, the net budget around the time the population was around 68,000 people was roughly $18.4 million.

From the second one, the net budget for 2023-2024 is $492 million. Don't be fooled by the "general fund budget" of $118 million listed near the top. Go down to page 15 for the actual net budget.

So, the budget has grown by (492 minus 18.4) divided by 18.4. As a percent, that is 2,573% (and I'm being kind by truncating after the decimal rather than rounding up).

That of course doesn't take into account inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.4 million in January of 1980 has the same buying power as $74.28 million in May of 2024. But of course we had population growth. The right thing to do is look at the budget from 1980 on a per-resident basis. Then adjust it for inflation. Then multiply that by the current number of residents.

In 1980, with a budget of $18.4 million and 68,000 residents, the per-resident budget was $270.59. $270.59 in January 1980 dollars converted to May 2024 dollars is $1,092.34. Multiply that by 130,000 residents and you get roughly $142 million.

But what was that 2023-2024 budget? $492 million, representing $3784.62 per resident -- over three times what you would expect per resident after taking inflation into account.

Then again, the City of College Station wasn't the proud owner of a former Macy's building 44 years ago, so at least we have that.

Someone will probably tell me where I made an error in my maths, so I apologize in advance for being sloppy.

---

Tremendous amount to look at in this and I will- but right now it's Aggie baseball and a cold beer for me! Thumbs up and fingers crossed.

---

A 3% annual growth rate for a city is almost "off the charts" rapid.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

What about the spending? If the 3% growth is "off the charts" , what would you consider the spending trend?

---

It's unacceptable. Runaway growth in govt spending concerns me. Gravely. I know how to read a balance sheet, income statement, et al. I look at employees per capita, spending per capita, and more. A lot. One of the peculiarities of being on council is continually comparing us to other cities, and frankly finding we compare favorably. Very favorably, in fact. One of our closest comparable cities spends $10 million a year more, with 40,000+ less citizens- at a 20% higher tax rate! Other cities spend lavishly to promote growth and economic development, while College Station doesn't. The largest capital project in College Station history is…wait for it- a wastewater treatment plant. Ho hum. Yet the city of CS gets mercilessly hammered on this platform for mistakes like Chimney Hill and Macy's- which it should- while other cities skate.

It's an unenviable position to feel compelled to defend that which you seek to improve. But that's the job. You have to do both.

I give our city hall both credit and criticism where due. I'm telling you straight up your city is better off than most and does better than most with your tax dollars. Can it do better? 100%

Have a good evening.

Respectfully,

-yancy

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

nought said:

---

A compound annual growth rate under 3% is not exactly rapid growth. What are rapidly growing are our property taxes and city spending.

Population changing from 68000 in 1980 to 130000 is growth of about 91% ((130000 minus 68000) divided by 68000) over a 24-year period, or a compound growth rate of under 3% per year.

The following two documents may be of interest:

1980-1981 City of College Station budget:
https://opendoc.cstx.gov/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=990341&dbid=0&repo=DOCUMENT-SERVER&cr=1

2023-2024 City of College Station budget:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Departments/Fiscal%20Services/Budget.pdf

From the first one, the net budget around the time the population was around 68,000 people was roughly $18.4 million.

From the second one, the net budget for 2023-2024 is $492 million. Don't be fooled by the "general fund budget" of $118 million listed near the top. Go down to page 15 for the actual net budget.

So, the budget has grown by (492 minus 18.4) divided by 18.4. As a percent, that is 2,573% (and I'm being kind by truncating after the decimal rather than rounding up).

That of course doesn't take into account inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.4 million in January of 1980 has the same buying power as $74.28 million in May of 2024. But of course we had population growth. The right thing to do is look at the budget from 1980 on a per-resident basis. Then adjust it for inflation. Then multiply that by the current number of residents.

In 1980, with a budget of $18.4 million and 68,000 residents, the per-resident budget was $270.59. $270.59 in January 1980 dollars converted to May 2024 dollars is $1,092.34. Multiply that by 130,000 residents and you get roughly $142 million.

But what was that 2023-2024 budget? $492 million, representing $3784.62 per resident -- over three times what you would expect per resident after taking inflation into account.

Then again, the City of College Station wasn't the proud owner of a former Macy's building 44 years ago, so at least we have that.

Someone will probably tell me where I made an error in my maths, so I apologize in advance for being sloppy.

---

Tremendous amount to look at in this and I will- but right now it's Aggie baseball and a cold beer for me! Thumbs up and fingers crossed.

---

A 3% annual growth rate for a city is almost "off the charts" rapid.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

What about the spending? If the 3% growth is "off the charts" , what would you consider the spending trend?

---

It's unacceptable. Runaway growth in govt spending concerns me. Gravely. I know how to read a balance sheet, income statement, et al. I look at employees per capita, spending per capita, and more. A lot. One of the peculiarities of being on council is continually comparing us to other cities, and frankly finding we compare favorably. Very favorably, in fact. One of our closest comparable cities spends $10 million a year more, with 40,000+ less citizens- at a 20% higher tax rate! Other cities spend lavishly to promote growth and economic development, while College Station doesn't. The largest capital project in College Station history is…wait for it- a wastewater treatment plant. Ho hum. Yet the city of CS gets mercilessly hammered on this platform for mistakes like Chimney Hill and Macy's- which it should- while other cities skate.

It's an unenviable position to feel compelled to defend that which you seek to improve. But that's the job. You have to do both.

I give our city hall both credit and criticism where due. I'm telling you straight up your city is better off than most and does better than most with your tax dollars. Can it do better? 100%

Have a good evening.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Bobis
I know you are trying. I also know comparing this city to "most others" is how this perpetuates, is a copout, and how this trend will certainly continue. If you do not mentally understand it is completely unacceptable and approach it that way you will completely fail in your mission to control it. Yes, you have to work within the system. That same system that works against you can be made to work for you. Saying things like "we are better than most" has absolutely no meaning and you have to know that. Frankly, that means nothing to me or anybody else that sees the statistics above and it should mean nothing to you. Those numbers are sickening. Combine that with the actual decline it the quality of many of the services provided and it is mind numbing.

From where I sit, mistakes are forgiven with little or no accountability, focus is often in areas that government has no business being involved in (hence the monstrous balloon in overall budget), and most of the members of our city government feel little accountability to citizens once in office. Not a direct shot at you, but I really do not see how these things can be denied in the macro. While the city does do some things well within the areas it should be involved, the entire focus has broadened so far that even people who are good with an initial ficus of good intentions seem to end up believing that our government has the ability and skill to do things and run programs long term that they clearly do not.

Just remember the primary focus of city government first-basic services for the citizens. When that is working 100% with no issues, then look at the land speculation, paid parking in residential neighborhoods, macy's projects, focus conference center on University, trees on medians, lol?…I think you get it. Stop the non-essentials until you lock down the basics. As a parent I guarantee you the basics are NOT locked down. Schools alone have major issues and many more coming. Health services, poverty, hunger, adult education current facilities maintenance-all inadequate for the future and we both know the plan. Taxes. Instead of cutting the BS projects and consolidating on the basics, just keep it all going and bring in more tax money or si ply have more bond votes and create debt.

It would be great if that was not seen as cutting edge when it is exactly what those "most other" communities do to get exactly where they are now, and exactly where we are headed. The numbers don't lie. Pray the growth keeps up as that is the only thing keeping this train moving. If it slows this great business plan will instantly derail-and that is just not a real plan at all.

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

nought said:

---

A compound annual growth rate under 3% is not exactly rapid growth. What are rapidly growing are our property taxes and city spending.

Population changing from 68000 in 1980 to 130000 is growth of about 91% ((130000 minus 68000) divided by 68000) over a 24-year period, or a compound growth rate of under 3% per year.

The following two documents may be of interest:

1980-1981 City of College Station budget:
https://opendoc.cstx.gov/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=990341&dbid=0&repo=DOCUMENT-SERVER&cr=1

2023-2024 City of College Station budget:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Departments/Fiscal%20Services/Budget.pdf

From the first one, the net budget around the time the population was around 68,000 people was roughly $18.4 million.

From the second one, the net budget for 2023-2024 is $492 million. Don't be fooled by the "general fund budget" of $118 million listed near the top. Go down to page 15 for the actual net budget.

So, the budget has grown by (492 minus 18.4) divided by 18.4. As a percent, that is 2,573% (and I'm being kind by truncating after the decimal rather than rounding up).

That of course doesn't take into account inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.4 million in January of 1980 has the same buying power as $74.28 million in May of 2024. But of course we had population growth. The right thing to do is look at the budget from 1980 on a per-resident basis. Then adjust it for inflation. Then multiply that by the current number of residents.

In 1980, with a budget of $18.4 million and 68,000 residents, the per-resident budget was $270.59. $270.59 in January 1980 dollars converted to May 2024 dollars is $1,092.34. Multiply that by 130,000 residents and you get roughly $142 million.

But what was that 2023-2024 budget? $492 million, representing $3784.62 per resident -- over three times what you would expect per resident after taking inflation into account.

Then again, the City of College Station wasn't the proud owner of a former Macy's building 44 years ago, so at least we have that.

Someone will probably tell me where I made an error in my maths, so I apologize in advance for being sloppy.

---

Tremendous amount to look at in this and I will- but right now it's Aggie baseball and a cold beer for me! Thumbs up and fingers crossed.

---

A 3% annual growth rate for a city is almost "off the charts" rapid.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

What about the spending? If the 3% growth is "off the charts" , what would you consider the spending trend?

---

It's unacceptable. Runaway growth in govt spending concerns me. Gravely. I know how to read a balance sheet, income statement, et al. I look at employees per capita, spending per capita, and more. A lot. One of the peculiarities of being on council is continually comparing us to other cities, and frankly finding we compare favorably. Very favorably, in fact. One of our closest comparable cities spends $10 million a year more, with 40,000+ less citizens- at a 20% higher tax rate! Other cities spend lavishly to promote growth and economic development, while College Station doesn't. The largest capital project in College Station history is…wait for it- a wastewater treatment plant. Ho hum. Yet the city of CS gets mercilessly hammered on this platform for mistakes like Chimney Hill and Macy's- which it should- while other cities skate.

It's an unenviable position to feel compelled to defend that which you seek to improve. But that's the job. You have to do both.

I give our city hall both credit and criticism where due. I'm telling you straight up your city is better off than most and does better than most with your tax dollars. Can it do better? 100%

Have a good evening.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Bobis
I know you are trying. I also know comparing this city to "most others" is how this perpetuates, is a copout, and how this trend will certainly continue. If you do not mentally understand it is completely unacceptable and approach it that way you will completely fail in your mission to control it. Yes, you have to work within the system. That same system that works against you can be made to work for you. Saying things like "we are better than most" has absolutely no meaning and you have to know that. Frankly, that means nothing to me or anybody else that sees the statistics above and it should mean nothing to you. Those numbers are sickening. Combine that with the actual decline it the quality of many of the services provided and it is mind numbing.

From where I sit, mistakes are forgiven with little or no accountability, focus is often in areas that government has no business being involved in (hence the monstrous balloon in overall budget), and most of the members of our city government feel little accountability to citizens once in office. Not a direct shot at you, but I really do not see how these things can be denied in the macro. While the city does do some things well within the areas it should be involved, the entire focus has broadened so far that even people who are good with an initial ficus of good intentions seem to end up believing that our government has the ability and skill to do things and run programs long term that they clearly do not.

Just remember the primary focus of city government first-basic services for the citizens. When that is working 100% with no issues, then look at the land speculation, paid parking in residential neighborhoods, macy's projects, focus conference center on University, trees on medians, lol?…I think you get it. Stop the non-essentials until you lock down the basics. As a parent I guarantee you the basics are NOT locked down. Schools alone have major issues and many more coming. Health services, poverty, hunger, adult education current facilities maintenance-all inadequate for the future and we both know the plan. Taxes. Instead of cutting the BS projects and consolidating on the basics, just keep it all going and bring in more tax money or si ply have more bond votes and create debt.

It would be great if that was not seen as cutting edge when it is exactly what those "most other" communities do to get exactly where they are now, and exactly where we are headed. The numbers don't lie. Pray the growth keeps up as that is the only thing keeping this train moving. If it slows this great business plan will instantly derail-and that is just not a real plan at all.

Hear Hear.
This should be spoken before any gathering of two or more city staff.

---

etmydst said:

---

Quit making factual sounding proclamations about topics when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about...or...go ahead, explain signal phasing to us.

---

brought to you by the same folks who support medians all over town. resulting in unsafe U turns, traffic driven into residential areas, and loss of revenue to local businesses.

Well done. Now, explain to us how signal phasing and the DD are worth $14M+

techno-ag said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Respectfully-Hurry up and do it. It seem to me it is being made to be much harder to fix than it really is. Whatever the solution is-do it. It is burning money daily. If nobody there can figure it out or find someone who can-then you answered your own question on should you be re-elected.

Wasn't someone trying to get in there when the city bought it? Was it a business? Church? What exactly was the situation? Seems time for that cloud of mystery to fade away and someone give a bit of full disclosure. Why protect the fools who did it? Who owes them that protection? Aren't the taxpayers owed much more?

Find someone yo fill it and move on. I cannot wait for the day it gets filled and the entire council crows about how genius they are, lol. The sun will be shining and birds chirping that day-you can count on that my friend!

---

Supposedly an air conditioned storage facility the city elders would find objectionable at a prominent entry point into the city, if memory serves from past discussions about it on here.

---

Yep, the storage facility would have both high property texas and BPP taxes. Now, there are no taxes collected

The city did the same at Rock Prairie where Wal-Mart wanted to put a Super Wal-Mart there but the city wouldn't approve it. So what do they do, allow The non-profit, non-taxed Scott and White buy it and building there. That was one of the best and highest land value vacant tract of land there is. Not only would the city collect the property taxes on about a $20,000,000 value in the building and the land, but also lost the sales tax receipts from hundreds if not millions of dollars of sales.