nwspmp said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

SAC4311 said:

---

Inflation is up 20% since 2021 and the City Employees are getting a 3% adjustment this year. What have the last couple of years looked like for them on adjustments? This makes it look like we aren't keeping up with inflation alone.

---

If that is correct, obviously the bulk of the 58% increase in the past four years has not gone to employee salaries and retention efforts.

As far as the comment about wells being drilled, could not a little more planning made so that one well drilled a year or every two years so the cost would not have the impact on one year's expenditures?

---

I seem to recall that there is a newly permitted player to the water availability in northern Brazos County and southern Robertson county that was approved for a VERY large amount of water to be pulled from that supply, which reduces the production capability for the existing wells, private and government-owned, in the area.

Edit: https://www.kbtx.com/2022/11/01/permit-approved-that-would-remove-large-amounts-water-robertson-county/

If that's the case, would it make sense that getting production into play now would be cheaper potentially then having to do it in a rush later?

---

May make sense-depending on why that water is being taken. Anybody know who is involved in that?

woodiewood said:

---

jwhitlock3 said:

---

2020 said:

---

Grmpy said:

---

SAC4311 said:

---

I agree there are always multiple factors. Bryan/College Station seems to be a stepping stone area for many job markets.

That said, compensation is usually one of the primary motivators employment or changes in employment. Just to match inflation the city employees would have had to give a 10% increase in 2022, or 5% in both 21 and 22. Not matching inflation is like taking a pay decrease when goods, services, and rent continue to increase exponentially.

---

You are correct, however I don't know any businesses in College Station that has increased wages along with inflation. And Government should be the last to increase wages to match inflation simply due to the method it gets revenue.

I'm seeing a lack of concern from College Station on managing this city conservatively. Instead, they want to spend other peoples money a little too freely for my taste.

---

Except on themselves…..somehow when discussing wages not keeping up a major point often gets left out. City management and department directors all have annual increases that outpace inflation by a wide margin. Meanwhile, the boots on the ground get fractions of those same percentages.

Source: https://govsalaries.com/salaries/TX/city-of-college-station

Since covid, the pay jumps for management have skyrocketed. "Do what we say, not what we do."

---

Wow, City Manager went from $198,276 in 2020 to $314,964 in 2023. Website you linked says he's currently paid 79% higher than the average City Manager position for the state of Texas. Drop in the bucket for the overall budget perhaps, but the number/increase is a bit shocking to me.

---

You telling us that you didn't get a 58% raise over those three years?

---

We should loan Trev Albert's to go "trim" the fat at COCS and help manage some of that.

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

Admittedly ignorant on how this works, but if San Antonio is causing this, why wouldn't they pay for it?

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

I disagree. Now you have a huge reserve to spend CASH on projects rather than going out to debt or buy down the tax rate while still supplying city services.


O, GASP… use for other CIP projects now and save money later

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! No tax increases here!" - CoCS and Brazos County, probably

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

Admittedly ignorant on how this works, but if San Antonio is causing this, why wouldn't they pay for it?

---

Honestly it comes down to "Because they don't have to." In Texas (and only Texas), the groundwater below you is yours to do with as you please as long as it is for "beneficial reasons"

https://texaslivingwaters.org/groundwater/the-basics-of-groundwater-law-in-texas/

As long as a specific landowner isn't *intentionally* harming the water table, they can pump as much as they can and that's A-OK. There is some limitations for larger pumping operations, which would fall under the purview of the local groundwater conservation district. They can restrict very large operations, but by law must have a very compelling reason to *not* approve permit requests.

nwspmp said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

Admittedly ignorant on how this works, but if San Antonio is causing this, why wouldn't they pay for it?

---

Honestly it comes down to "Because they don't have to." In Texas (and only Texas), the groundwater below you is yours to do with as you please as long as it is for "beneficial reasons"

https://texaslivingwaters.org/groundwater/the-basics-of-groundwater-law-in-texas/

As long as a specific landowner isn't *intentionally* harming the water table, they can pump as much as they can and that's A-OK. There is some limitations for larger pumping operations, which would fall under the purview of the local groundwater conservation district. They can restrict very large operations, but by law must have a very compelling reason to *not* approve permit requests.

---

Seems we might have a case on both the water table and the fact it would cost us 70 million to compensate for their usage. Why wouldn't the landowner charge them for the access? Weird laws for sure.

nwspmp said:

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

...

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.
...

---

Is Goodland Farms driving the need for these new wells, or is it just growth?

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I disagree. Now you have a huge reserve to spend CASH on projects rather than going out to debt or buy down the tax rate while still supplying city services.


O, GASP… use for other CIP projects now and save money later

---

See, I would disagree because if the City is going to the citizens requesting money for XYZ project, the citizens can evaluate the merits of that proposal and vote it up or down, or they can elect people who would do such on the Council.

That proposed above would see the City saying "We need $70MM for water wells" and then spending the money on Instagram signs.

If a proposal is made for a project, I think it's good policy for that money to only be used for that project, and any under billings should go back to the city to be voted on and approved for other projects or be allocated to offset taxes in the next fiscal year.

birdman said:

---

I haven't read all of the details but something stuck out. $70 million to drill three wells is insane. Maybe that also covers infrastructure like treatment plant.

The typical oil well in Brazos County is nearly two miles deep and has a two mile lateral. I'm not sure which water table they want but it is nowhere near that deep. And they aren't drilling long laterals either. Oil well has a big expensive frac job also. I can't imagine them doing that water well.

Those oil wells cost $15 million each. Local government is drilling three water wells for $70 million? Somebody needs to go to jail for fraud.

---

https://blog.cstx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FY25-Proposed-Annual-Budget.pdf

On page 246-248 it looks like the projected cost for the three wells is $51MM. There is also the combined collection line which is the bulk of the additional cost, but the closest I can find on $70MM is the overall capital projects, which includes other items and is $66MM after overhead.

The closest similar project I found* recently was a project for 3 similar sized wells at around $45MM starting construction in 2020 with a projected completion in 2023; that was late last night on my phone, so I'll have to go and find that again.

* Should be close to these numbers; I was tired last night!

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

Admittedly ignorant on how this works, but if San Antonio is causing this, why wouldn't they pay for it?

---

Honestly it comes down to "Because they don't have to." In Texas (and only Texas), the groundwater below you is yours to do with as you please as long as it is for "beneficial reasons"

https://texaslivingwaters.org/groundwater/the-basics-of-groundwater-law-in-texas/

As long as a specific landowner isn't *intentionally* harming the water table, they can pump as much as they can and that's A-OK. There is some limitations for larger pumping operations, which would fall under the purview of the local groundwater conservation district. They can restrict very large operations, but by law must have a very compelling reason to *not* approve permit requests.

---

Seems we might have a case on both the water table and the fact it would cost us 70 million to compensate for their usage. Why wouldn't the landowner charge them for the access? Weird laws for sure.

---

The landowners are the ones selling their groundwater rights to the operating company to get the water.

There could be a case for it, but the project has a fair legal footing due to Texas' odd laws on this matter.

nwspmp said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

nwspmp said:

---

Craig Regan 14 said:

---

I think the "now" vs "later" argument is fair only if you consider COCS didn't see this coming a mile away… which they should have.

Our population has not EXPLODED to the point where you just have to dig wells ASAP or else. It has been and will be a steadily increasing numbers.

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

But if you rush now you are rushing into a material inflation market and prices will increase. Which goes to say that these should be built 1 at a time but those moneys used should have been piling up to pay for it. At least a part of it.

We are gonna have to borrow to build those wells - we do not have $70m laying around. But staff used the term "Immediately" several times when referencing said wells.


People have to understand this kind of tax and spending is not good for the local economy.

---

If the existing wells were sufficient to cover expected growth over time (with some savings to expand later, slowly), and a new entry comes in and takes enough of the water that emergency wells are needed, how is that the fault of COCS?

I would expect that COCS had the budget to expand at a regular rate, commensurate with population growth, but this new drain on the water table probably threw out those projections. The approval for those applications to draw down the supply came from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation Board, of which COCS is only another customer.

Had they been hoarding cash to pay for a possible lack of water supply from a third party, and that threat never materialized, then we'd be rightly excoriating them for taking money from citizens that wasn't being used.

It's easy to look in hind sight to find the errors, but unless this new entity drawing from their 13 wells and very large water draw (permitted for about 1/3 of San Antonio's total consumption) planned this years ago, publicly floated their intentions, and only filed in late 2022, then it's tough to predict that someone might come in and suddenly decide to take out as much water as Bryan, College Station and TAMU collectively use and send it away from the area. By all public accounts, this operation was a 2022 timeframe.

https://www.goodland-farms.com/faq - Check out the last one, refers to this document, where the lowering of the well table is a known and strong likelihood as a result of the UW Brazos Valley well operation.

https://brazosvalleygcd.org/files/?upf=dl&id=14418

To me, this seems like an expensive but likely needed measure to ensure security of that resource against what a private entity is doing with the help of a friendly semi-local agency with oversight approval.

By no means am I happy about it, but hand-waving that they should've known someone would come in and over double the water drawdown for export in our area and slow-rolling the solution doesn't seem right. If there are realistic other options, then that's fine and would be certainly welcome. The city government holding on to an amount of cash to cover highly unlikely or out-of-the-ordinary scenarios "just in case" seems worse over all to me, which is what it seems you think they should've done.

---

Admittedly ignorant on how this works, but if San Antonio is causing this, why wouldn't they pay for it?

---

Honestly it comes down to "Because they don't have to." In Texas (and only Texas), the groundwater below you is yours to do with as you please as long as it is for "beneficial reasons"

https://texaslivingwaters.org/groundwater/the-basics-of-groundwater-law-in-texas/

As long as a specific landowner isn't *intentionally* harming the water table, they can pump as much as they can and that's A-OK. There is some limitations for larger pumping operations, which would fall under the purview of the local groundwater conservation district. They can restrict very large operations, but by law must have a very compelling reason to *not* approve permit requests.

---

Seems we might have a case on both the water table and the fact it would cost us 70 million to compensate for their usage. Why wouldn't the landowner charge them for the access? Weird laws for sure.

---

The landowners are the ones selling their groundwater rights to the operating company to get the water.

There could be a case for it, but the project has a fair legal footing due to Texas' odd laws on this matter.

---

Can the local groundwater conservation district really not stop someone from materially affecting the water table?

I'm assuming that's one of the main purposes of the district. Here is another very large elephant to mention. If College Station is drilling more and deeper wells to address this issue (the massive pumping of water from the groundwater table) what is the City of Bryan, and all the local water districts (Wickson, Wellborn, etc.) doing? I assume they will be in panic / out of water mode, right? They don't have the same resources that CoCS has, or have they been planning ahead?

Time to join Somerville Lake and Lake Bryan…

Hornbeck said:

---

I'm assuming that's one of the main purposes of the district. Here is another very large elephant to mention. If College Station is drilling more and deeper wells to address this issue (the massive pumping of water from the groundwater table) what is the City of Bryan, and all the local water districts (Wickson, Wellborn, etc.) doing? I assume they will be in panic / out of water mode, right? They don't have the same resources that CoCS has, or have they been planning ahead?

---

City of Bryan has maximized their permits last I saw and actually sells water to other local utility districts (like Wellborn, etc). I think COCS has existing permits that cover these new wells but they're a use it or lose it style; not entirely sure on that and am trying to find the documentation.

The local groundwater conservation district ostensibly is there to oversee the resources, but they're small and couldn't withstand any real legal challenges likely, so smaller ones I would imagine to be more "amenable" to larger interests.

EriktheRed said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

10k over 5 years is not a HUGE number.

---

If you think the CS population has only increased 10k over 5 years I have a bridge to sell you.

And then add the influx of people who live outside the city limits yet utilize CS in virtually every similar way us residents do, and we've got a growth explosion.

---

According to the Existing Condition Report done related to the new city Housing Action Plan, 69% of the people who work in the College Station city limits don't live in the CS city limits.

That seems like a HUGE # to me

---

Many of the large subdivisions, including some of the older ones, are not in the COCS....yet. I also supect a lot of city employees live in Grimes and Burleson counties.

There's also plenty of people who live in Bryan and work in CS.

trouble said:

---

There's also plenty of people who live in Bryan and work in CS.

---

We should make ya'll pay a toll every time ya'll come into our city !!!

trouble said:

---

You should learn how to spell y'all.

---

Y'all - You all
Ya'll - Yallow Bellied