Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?

maroon barchetta said:

---

Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?

---

No sir. It's a subsidy. I have my opinions about it. Affordable housing programs led by government have a poor track record. The programs themselves are incredibly complex. There are multiple buckets of money and often times it's a "use it or lose it" scenario. Consequently, cities across America work hard to "use it" to secure current and future funding, because if you don't, grant funding and matching funds aren't there next year.

Despite this, we have voted no to at least four projects, maybe more, from my recollection- and sent staff back to the drawing board. Each time they did. Each new iteration has gotten better.

This latest version is the simplest so far in my mind. And the most cost effective. Buy a dilapidated house with good bones, renovate it and sell at a partial subsidy based on the qualifying family's income. Done.

Should government be involved in affordable housing? Fair question and a 60,000 foot debate. Is government in this business? Every single city pretty much. Are there socioeconomically challenged folks that need assistance? 100%. Do the staunchest most conservative states and cities get involved in these subsidies? 100%, including the great State of Texas and virtually every city in it.

Respectfully,

Another question, and apologies for my ignorance in this area. Are all the staff that spend so much time working on/executing these programs funded by federal dollars also paid by the same federal dollars, or does the city foot that bill?

maroon barchetta said:

---

We are not interested in what everybody else does.

We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.

I'm not sure this qualifies.

---

If that's your actual goal, the best thing you could do from a strategic perspective is check your city's tax rate, your city's debt load and your city's employees per capita- then compare those statistics to cities of comparable size in your state. That would give you a quick snapshot and go a long way toward answering your concerns.

Respectfully,

-yancy

dubi said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?

---

Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.

---

Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?

When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.

---

Rules for thee, not for me.

It should be an Instagram prop outside of city hall.

dubi said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?

---

Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.

---

Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?

When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.

---

140 to 440 over what timeframe ?

Southgate property ?

JP76 said:

---

dubi said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?

---

Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.

---

Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?

When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.

---

140 to 440 over what timeframe ?

Southgate property ?

---

I don't know where those numbers are coming from. We denied a program where the house was close to that amount. I've never voted for one nor has one like that ever passed.

I own rental houses I know this business. We rent to single families. I am keenly aware that what was once $185k is now $280 to $330k. I want families to be able to afford their piece of the American dream in College Station. I proposed a program whereby all or some permitting, parks, and impact fees are waived if the builder comes in at an entry price point with the house. Not affordable housing, but incentivized entry level price points. Affordable housing means something different I've learned on council.

It's a complex issue driven mainly by the market of course. With Tamu, Rellis, being the center of the Texas triangle, et al, there's very little city hall can do but tinker at the margins of the problem and hold the line on taxes. No easy solution. If we had more land in the city limits it would help. Scarcity of supply in the face of increasing demand yields higher prices every time. That's what's happening, but I know y'all know that.

If my beloved Alma mater would build 15,000 dorm rooms, it would help a lot. But that's wrought with logistical complexity and enormous expense to them. It's a perfect storm and I promise we think about it constantly.

We created a citizen committee on housing affordability and their report is due back to us this summer. This is and will be a high interest topic for awhile.

In many ways we are being victimized by our own success.

Quote:

---

I don't know where those numbers are coming from.

---

Brazoscad.

Just a perfect storm of low supply, high demand, cheap money and run away inflation.
That 22-23 structure jump is crazy though.

JP76 said:

---

Just a perfect storm of low supply, high demand, cheap money and run away inflation.

---

might want to check that cheap money part.

When interest rates are this high you need a unit at lower base cost because the amount of disposable income you have to save is being eaten by taxes, and inflation.

Interest rates going up does not have to be the end of the world but certainly can be when wages won't keep pace.

This is not the '08 crash but something else entirely. The recovery from this won't be easy because the cause was artificially made.

If you look at the 80's when interest rates were double digits the you needed to extend your horizon line much further to get returns.

COCS though is in a bit of a pickle because besides A&M there is nothing here that drives growth. The service industry accounted for a lot of jobs.

And I do not mean just low wage jobs, I am talking about the managers and assistant managers as well, people who made 30-35K/year.

Cheap in terms of historic rates. We spent the past 20+ years sub 7 and half of that sub 5. The issue is the properties are worth more to investors for student rentals and a lot of demand for them has came from outside investors and hedge funds over the past 10-15 years which was not as much of a factor prior to 2010.

Not to get all wonky

But cheap is a relative term.

When rates have been at or near 0 5% is a huge increase.

It causes more than a few short/long term adjustments.

In both the public and private markets

woodiewood said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large

Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate

1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money

2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.

3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.

4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!

And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".

If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.

Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.

It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.

***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.

---

I agree with all you stated, but a question and a comment.

Where in Southgate was there a student housing complex that went bust? I live there and never was aware of that.

Also, the Southgate area is not an Historical District and there is no designation by the State of Texas or through the National Historical District as designation by the National Park Service. At some time in the past, the city at the request of a few homeowners label it as an historical area as identified on many of the street signs but it is no official designated area.

---

See article: point 1

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/texas-luxury-dorm-financed-by-bonds-falls-deeper-into-distress


Also deed restrictions for per the HOA - from my understand prevent any sort of modifications

thank you for the corrections - I was on my phone and didnt have the articles readily available. My bad.

I would like to keep this thread on topic:

If this is about money and costs for the city... Southgate is NOT the answer.


Also we have Fed Opportunity zones that help the DEV eat more of the cost of the infrastructure.

That is the low hanging fruit - right there in front of us. BUILD THERE. GROW THERE.

I don't have a Bloomberg subscription but I think the project the article refers to is the City West projct on campus in the old horse pasture. It's near the Brookshire Brothers on George Bush. Since I didn't read the article, it may have laid out how the investors didn't get repaid in year 1 as per the schedule.

The bigger issue with that project I have learned about from the parents of kids who have lived there is that the construction was very poor. 3 people who work in the construction industry who have had kids live in the complex have shared thier concerns about the design and construction of the apartments. The entire complex will be transferred to TAMU when the agreement expires but by then the buildings may be falling down around themselves.

It's obvious this thing is out of control. What law keeps these people out of prison? I realize its probably not a law, more along the lines of several factors that make it highly unlikely. At what point is criminal overspending and the inability to maintain their fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of College Station a crime? Someone needs to spend the rest of their miserable existence in prison, have their assets and lives ruined, and then maybe proper governmental behavior will ensue.

Now I know what you are thinking, "CaptTex, if we do that to them, then someone can do it to us!", yeah **** that, when you take public office, and you take responsibility for money that is forcibly taken simply because someone did something right and owned property, your ass is target number one when questions start to be asked. Tis an odd thing that Kristen Rowe is retiring, when all of this talk of sky high taxes comes about, presumably because she wants none of it im sure, I hope.

I'm not saying I disagree.

Just…wow.

So my point was directed at the fact that NG is going to be the "downtown" of BCS. Park West didn't just miss "one payment". I invite you to read other articles on the subject.

Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.

If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".

Cannot have it both ways.

And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.

Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 4 story student housing.

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

So my point was directed at the fact that NG is going to be the "downtown" of BCS. Park West didn't just miss "one payment". I invite you to read other articles on the subject.

Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.

If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".

Cannot have it both ways.

And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.

Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 29 story student housing.

---

FIFY

Touche

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

Hey GANG!

I hear this where the cool kids come to discuss Aggieland (COCS) Issues.

Allow me to introduce myself before we get into the fun(?).

My name is Craig Regan - I have lived in Brazos County for about 15 years. I am a active duty vet. AC2 in the US Navy. Father of 15 years Husband of 17. I currently help run & manage a bond brokerage for construction insurance. I have no local conflicts to get that outta the way but my experience runs deep in Fed/State/Municipal Contracts. I have most likely read more RFP's than a healthy person should.

Disclosure: I ran for COCS City Council back in '20 and as you might have guessed, I lost in a runoff.

But have been following the discussion on this forum for sometime regarding COCS budget issues. I ran on this four years ago (along with several other policy concerns) and even before that I would appear before council to try and highlight that our real fiscal issues having been and continue to be our O&M and our debt.

So let us open the books briefly to see what is actually happening.

(No need to be gentle with comments. If I messed up or got something wrong, tell me. I'm a big boy, I can handle it.)

As you can see in the images attached COCS budget has increased in the last ~4 years by $150,889,116. Now, as a percentage O&M and debt service has remained steady 58-41 (respectively). However it is important to highlight where the budget has seen the most growth. I am going back to 19-20 because COVID and it's fall out do not create a "clean" side by side COMP.



By far the largest growth is our DEBT service. Up nearly $9m. As you work your way down the list you will see other funds and expenditure be slashed or zero'd out completely.



The other growth line item is the General Fund



For what it is worth, we are still seeing the same trend line in certain areas. But a few of the bigs stand out pretty easily. Parks and Rec's budget has nearly doubled while Public Works has actually decreased.

The last part I will get into now (to keep things digestable) is one that concerns me the most and that is our capital projects and outlays. This next bit of images might surprise or scare you depending on your perspective.



What you see above is what is I consider to be the real threat. Capital Projects and the associated interest that comes with them.

These have to be Prioritized and Organized to a degree that we have not seen before. I have not included utilities such as water and waste water etc for simplicity sake but fair to say the numbers/trends are the same.

I have tried, for many moons, to get folk's eyes on this issue by using several policy methods.

1.) Shift more CASH into CIP budget to avoid paying interest on debt but this would require taking from other departments. Majority on council would have to approve.

2.) Reduce O&M growth by 25%. Growth will happen, there is no way around that but capping that growth at a certain limit is a start.

3.) No more buying or building (think Rock P Baseball fields and Macy's) until we lay down a set of criteria by which we approve further spending. We need the balance sheets for each Buying and Building. If the criteria are not met, we do not advance it. If it council still wants to do it, put it to a public vote.

For example the I did not support the ballpark off RP but not because I do not like baseball. I've been in and around baseball for 20 years but I knew the city bought that property blind and the associated due diligence had not been done on the land itself, when it was bought. We needed to see the balance sheets and P&L's associated with the project and the land sale paperwork before we ok'd bond for it to be built. This is apart of the criteria check I am talking about.

There are more policy's to go through but suffice to say unless we get our arms around these issues we will not being seeing anything but more tax & fee increases.

But here is the rub. It is not just about the growth of the city balance sheet. It is about the subtraction from taxpayers. One more dollar taxed is one less that is in the economy. The less in the economy the less our community grows. The less the economy grows the more people struggle to meet their daily needs - gas, food, utility's - the list goes on. Heck, I do not need to tell you because I live it myself every day as well.

We need to start to open budgetary windows in the coming years and the only way to do that is an orderly, policy based process. It is not just about the intent of doing something but how you intend to get there. The HOW is what really matters.

Hope this helps provide some clarity (or not) but figured it was time to just put the numbers down and open the books.

Best Regards

---

Hey all,

I know I have spoken to some of you off line but I thought I would refresh this.

I am withdrawing from the election for City Council. This is a little complex but Ill try to summarize:

After going nearly a month the races looked like this

Place - 3
2 candidates

Place - 4
1 candidate

Place - 5
1 candidate

Place - 6
2 candidates

On this Friday last, someone - jumped in my race to make it a three way * with two people running unopposed *

I then moved over to place 4 and with 1 candidate still unopposed, someone else jumped in my race to make another 3 way race.

I will let people make up their own minds who would be best but I have decided to remove myself from the ballot so as not to allow ANOTHER runoff election in College Station and to ensure voters have clear choices.

This was not easy, believe me, but I believe it is in the best interest of the city to step aside.

****************

The above behavior is becoming endemic here in College Station and it is all thanks to special interest groups throwing candidates in races that either will barely campaign or force people to split the ticket and force run off elections.

It is time this is called out for what is it: bush league electioneering - if these groups decide that their candidates cannot not stand up in a general election 1 on 1 and just force run offs to win seats on council than it must be true then as it is now: "the guilty flee when none pursue"

We wonder how things get how they are and it is clear, at least to me, that a group has hijacked local city elections and have for all intent and purposes -- rigged the system.

~ If you do not believe me: Go look at the past 10+ years of elections in College Station and do some research and let that story speak for itself.

******************

I ask voters to help take back their city from special interest groups and return some form of sanity to our body politic.

and for those folks that have asked, no - I am not going anywhere but it this kind of thing has to be called out for what it is. I am tired of people not saying it out loud. Our city has been hijacked and it is time to unite behind candidates that can restore balance.

Best Regards and GIG'em Ag's - you know what to do!

CR '14

Cities and County - same thing