Consultant to revise land‑use assumptions, remove Pearland-area projects and reopen public hearings for proposed road impact fees

Consultants told the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on July 22 that they would revise land‑use assumptions (LUA) and parts of the roadway capital improvement program (CIP) and restart the road impact‑fee public‑hearing process to ensure transparency and technical defensibility.

Eddie (roadway consultant) explained the statutory two‑step process: first adopt land‑use assumptions and the CIP, then, in a later hearing, consider imposing the fee itself. Because committee members raised questions about how nonresidential square footage and residential counts were allocated across four service areas — and whether developments in Meridiana and Valencia (MUDs or those with development agreements) were properly excluded — the consultant said staff will correct mappings and issue a revised technical memo prior to advancing the roadway fee step.

Eddie said the team will remove certain Pearland‑edge projects from the first five years of the roadway CIP because those projects lie partially outside the city and are unlikely to require city-funded work in the near term. He also described reallocation of industrial/basic, office/service and retail square footage so that total trip generation (vehicle miles) for the 10‑year forecast dropped substantially after those reallocations.

Committee members repeatedly asked staff and consultants to align roadway residential unit counts with the water/wastewater counts where applicable, to exclude MUD/reservation units that should not be charged, and to confirm city boundary/annexation updates (for example, the BCS/HEB tract near 288). Staff and the consultants agreed to produce a corrected city‑limit map, incorporate the BCS track as appropriate, and circulate a final technical memo for committee review. Eddie said the revisions are likely to change some service‑area totals; the team will then reconvene the advisory committee to sign off before restarting the formal public‑hearing sequence under state law.

No formal recommendation or vote on roadway fees occurred at the meeting; the committee emphasized the need for another meeting with the revised technical memo and full member attendance before the advisory body forwards recommendations to council.