Last night, the College Station City Council voted 5-2 to retain roadway impact fees, following months of debate regarding their potential elimination. Impact fees in College Station are one-time charges on new developments intended to fund infrastructure.

The two that voted against were Yancy and White.

The fees are passed from the developer to the homebuyer. An extra $6k in impact fees adds an extra $5k to $8k over the course of a 30 year mortgage.

McIlhaney said, and I'm paraphrasing, that "young folks just need to lower their expectations for buying a house". In other words, "let them eat cake".

The "CS" on the building still doesn't stand for "Common Sense".

College Station fights developers from every angle and has little interest in quality affordable housing unless it's more high rise apartments for students.

befitter said:

---

College Station fights developers from every angle and has little interest in quality affordable housing unless it's more high rise apartments for students.

---

Agreed. Or, a greed.

The worst part about the impact fees is the are stealth tax hike on every home. When you raise the price on a new home with impact fees the valuation of all homes rises by the same amount. These fees cost everyone

5 terrible votes

Supposedly in Midtown, they are already paying an extra 65 cents per $100 for "infrastructure". I guess in other subdivisions, they just tack the fee onto the price of the home.

And im sure Councilman Wrong was first to vote YES.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

And im sure Councilman Wrong was first to vote YES.

---

Not only was he happy to vote YES, he also over emphasized the fact that these fees were FAIR!

I want to see the math. I believe that a developer should pay for the costs of infrastructure within their development along with any additional incremental cost to the overall system of College Station. This is probably how they justify the road impact fee.

If you have a small development that isn't extending any roads that will be used by the greater College Station residents, a road impact fee makes sense.

If you have a large development that is extending miles and miles of larger roads, they are making a significant investment that benefits all residents to a certain extent. These road costs should be offset against the impact fees or the city is just double dipping.

I think City Council loses sight of the fact that each new $400,000 home adds $2047 to the revenue line along with all their personal spend in terms of sales tax and supporting local businesses. A 1000 new homes brings in $61,424,640 over 30 years even without appreciation of the home. I have a hard time believing that the cost to the system for those additional 1000 homes is greater than the tax revenue they bring in over that time period.

You are correct and where is that money going?
The area is a total disappointment where is the amphitheater the walkable shopping etc etc all promised years ago

There should be an immediate audit to account for every dollar, those poor people are getting so ripped off

Omperlodge said:

---

I want to see the math. I believe that a developer should pay for the costs of infrastructure within their development along with any additional incremental cost to the overall system of College Station. This is probably how they justify the road impact fee.

If you have a small development that isn't extending any roads that will be used by the greater College Station residents, a road impact fee makes sense.

If you have a large development that is extending miles and miles of larger roads, they are making a significant investment that benefits all residents to a certain extent. These road costs should be offset against the impact fees or the city is just double dipping.

I think City Council loses sight of the fact that each new $400,000 home adds $2047 to the revenue line along with all their personal spend in terms of sales tax and supporting local businesses. A 1000 new homes brings in $61,424,640 over 30 years even without appreciation of the home. I have a hard time believing that the cost to the system for those additional 1000 homes is greater than the tax revenue they bring in over that time period.

---

From 1938 to 2018 we didn't even have these fees. How did we survive fiscally for our entire history without them? No one on council ever paid a nickel in impact fees on their home, including me. It's a regressive tax against only those trying to buy a new home today.

As I see it, it's council's duty to hold in check the tendency that all organizations have to grow themselves. Without us on council representing the citizens, there's almost no fee or tax we can't level as a monopoly government.

And, once any fee IS enacted, it's too easy to justify with the constant retort "well, if we do away with this fee we'll just have to raise taxes on everyone else." Not true. Mathematically not true. If we can pay a $27m legal judgement and buy Macy's and let it set empty without raising taxes, we can darn sure forego $2.3m a year in fees targeting young folks without doing so.

We are doing damage to our housing market. We are artificially elevating the cost of a home, constraining supply by dissuading builders from building in our city limits, and driving young families and downsizing retirees out of town.

Navasota, Caldwell, Franklin and the city of Bryan love this policy. CoB built almost twice the homes we did inside their city limits in 2025 and we're 40% bigger.

Via this policy, everyone's taxes are going up even when the rates don't because valuations go up when the number of homes added to a growing market goes down.

I know our vote last night was seen by legislators that'll convene the 90th session with impact fees in mind and likely make the decision for us.

We had an opportunity to self govern last night and we whiffed.

Have to call it as I see it.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95

Vote accordingly. That is how the problem gets solved. If you stay home and do nothing but complain you will never fix the problem. VOTE VOTE VOTE

So, I grabbed a few video clips of Yancy speaking on this last night.

The first, he's talking about evidence that the city's own studies show that the market is out of balance. He also points out the $200M ish increase in the city's budget since 2021.

https://filebin.net/segtozsufv3ibi14

The second, he's pointing out that cities bear a lot of blame in the housing crisis.

https://filebin.net/tjctcnhk3vn4enup

The third, he's pointing out that in the city limits of Bryan, last year 359 new single family residential homes built versus 159 in CS city limits. He also points out the huge difference in median new home price, almost $160k more in CS.

https://filebin.net/9h1iajkprk1tlkx2

Last, the economics of the situation. CS fees are artificially creating scarcity, and driving prices up for everyone.

https://filebin.net/7sa9758u8y7l6fxk


I'll close with this. You'd think an *Ag Economics* professor (Mayor Nichols) would understand what these fees are doing to the housing market. They aren't "sticking it to the greedy developers"... they are sticking it to their constituents. Yancy gets a lot of heat from his peers for posting on here. He gets heat from us on here as well. However, IHMO, he's the only one with one lick of sense up there.

Wanted to share what I shared on Facebook with yall because I was the one on the IFAC that had a vote pushed through to give the recommendation to council to lower roadway to 0

I was deeply disappointed to see the impact fees remain unchanged. That said, I will not criticize or speak ill of those who voted to keep them in place.

What I will share is the reasoning behind the motion I made and which passed in the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, a point I did not fully articulate last night.

Earlier this summer, the City adopted its budget and set the tax rate one penny higher than necessary to create a "cushion" for potential uncertainties. I clearly recall city officials stating that, even without that additional penny, the budget would still balance and meet all required needs. To be direct: roadway impact fees could have been eliminated or at least significantly reduced without any increase in property taxes. It would have required creative budgeting and prioritization, but the fiscal flexibility exists. The gap was built in deliberately.

A central argument against reducing the fees centered on future funding: "How would we pay for infrastructure without them?" Yet the very reason given for the extra penny in the tax rate was uncertainty surrounding pending state legislation. That cushion is already in place. As the only citizen who spoke during the tax rate adoption discussion, I heard the assurances firsthand: the budget pencils out even without it. A cushion is helpful, but it is not mandatory.

It is unreasonable to suggest that our talented city staff and leadership could not find innovative ways to close any resulting shortfall if the fees were lowered.
The reality is that these fees continue to exacerbate our housing affordability crisis, including workforce and attainable housing. The American Dream has evolved homeownership remains the goal, but it no longer requires a single family detached house.
However, the notion that impact fees only affect single-family homes is simply incorrect. Every new residential unit regardless of type carries these fees. While the per unit impact may vary, the cost is real and meaningful.

Reducing the fee by even $6,000 per home is not trivial. That amount improves qualification rates for buyers and, over a 30 year mortgage, saves thousands more in interest payments.

A practical alternative would have been to implement a one year pause on these fees and collect real data on the results. Builders have repeatedly stated that lowering or removing the fees would translate into lower home prices. This would have been an evidence based opportunity to test that claim to see whether their promises hold true or not. They deserve the chance to demonstrate their commitment to the community rather than facing ongoing suspicion and criticism.

Continuing the same approach while expecting different outcomes is, frankly, unrealistic. We owe it to our residents especially those struggling to achieve homeownership to explore every reasonable path toward greater affordability.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

5 terrible votes

---

Yep, and those 5 will not be getting my vote if/when they run for re-election.

Place 1 Smith, place 2 Wright and mayor Nichols are all up for reelection in November.

YANCY FOR MAYOR

happyinBCS said:

---

YANCY FOR MAYOR

---

He's a good choice.

Has he said he is running?

Yancy had to fight alone on Rosemary, but ultimately won.

He had to fight alone on the student tower behind The Chicken, but he ultimately prevailed.

He fought alone on the data center and ultimately won that too.

Now the fight is on housing.

Pay attention folks there's an election coming up.

kinda

UhOhNoAgTag said:

---

Place 1 Smith, place 2 Wright and mayor Nichols are all up for reelection in November.

---

I cannot wait to vote against Wright.

I can't stand Place 1 Smith either.

Glad to hear it. I'd love to earn your vote for seat 1.

I've said it before. I'll vote for a ham sandwich over Wright. For Smith, a pastrami and Swiss.

You've got it. I've seen you in action.

Hornbeck said:

---

I'll close with this. You'd think an *Ag Economics* professor (Mayor Nichols) would understand what these fees are doing to the housing market.

---

I think the real problem is that he does understand impact fees and all of its outcomes; and to a much greater understanding than most of us....... And still wants them.

The answer to what happens if we continue down this path is California where impact fees can easily add over $100,000 to the price of a single family home.

This is especially nice when scarcity increases along with values and you are at the stage in life when the mortgages are done and its about generating wealth from property that's paid off. It will be a blessing to their family while preventing families of young professionals with good jobs from being able to buy a home in College Station.

Navasota is smiling at us.

I am increasingly hearing the statement from families saying the 40-45 minute commute from Navasota is not that bad. I was able to get a nice three bedroom for a lot less than college station...

Starting to sound like California - At least the salaries are higher

https://cayimby.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/TheImpactofFees-Report-v3.pdf

Navasota is a 45 minute commute to College Station? And increase the price of a home by $100,000?

Not a lot of context here.

Easy 45 min if you are the one of the thousands of 8am to 5pm A&M employees to Downtown Navasota. Depending on your assigned lot add 10 - 15 minutes to get from your car to office. If in the newer developments like Pecan Lakes or just south like Mockingbird add a little time.

The $100k added in impact fees is a reality in parts of California, not CS. This is not the direction I want us to go.

Come join us in Cameron before you go to Navasota - probably easier to commute to campus from the north anyways

wareagle044 said:

---

Come join us in Cameron before you go to Navasota - probably easier to commute to campus from the north anyways

---

Average of 54 minutes from Cameron to Easterwood... 28 from Navasota to Easterwood. I'd choose Washington county, 40 minutes from Brenham to Easterwood.