College Station's City Council spent more than two hours in a staff-led workshop on Thursday weighing whether changes to impact fees, parkland dedication charges, building-permit fees or new incentives could encourage more affordable housing.

"If you can go somewhere else and make more money doing the same thing, why would you not go do it," said Anthony Armstrong, the city's planning and development staffer, summarizing the tension behind the discussion: the city charges development-related fees to pay for future infrastructure but those fees also affect the economics of new housing.

Staff presented three levers for council to consider: developer-side incentives such as waiving certain fees through development agreements; buyer-side rebates or expanded down-payment assistance; and regulatory changes such as density bonuses or changes to the Unified Development Ordinance to allow smaller lots or different housing types. Staff also outlined how impact fees feed the capital improvement plan: at current rates the city recovers modest portions of projected roadway, water and wastewater costs tied to future growth (staff projections showed recoverable shares of roughly 1117% for major systems under current policy).

Council members split on remedies. Some favored direct subsidies or waivers tied to specific housing types. "If you're talking about a city where almost two thirds of the housing units are rental, we know where the demand is," Mayor Nichols said, urging attention to wider housing supply issues beyond single-family housing. Council Member Yancey argued for targeted fee relief, proposing waivers for homes under a certain square footage and for apartment projects. Council Member McElhinney said she was open to variable approaches but urged careful study of how fee waivers would be funded.

Developers and industry representatives told council fees matter. "Stop telling us the city is subsidizing developers — it worked until 2016," said Chandler Arden, a local developer, arguing that local fee changes after 2016 contributed to fewer single-family permits being filed in the city compared with nearby jurisdictions.

Staff flagged that a range of other policy tools already exist: the city's down-payment assistance program (currently limited to households at 80% area median income), developer agreements, and tax and financing tools such as municipal utility districts and other special districts used by nearby developments. Staff said these mechanisms can be combined: for example, a developer agreement could waive fees in exchange for deed restrictions that preserve buyer affordability, or a density bonus could trade additional units for required affordable units.

Council asked staff and the Housing Action Plan advisory committee to continue work and return with more concrete options and cost estimates. "We need to define who we want to help," Council Member White said, noting different approaches would be needed for students, entry-level homebuyers and the local workforce. Staff said the Housing Action Plan Advisory Committee will further rank and scope ideas and report back.

What's next: Staff will continue working with the Housing Action Plan advisory committee and the Economic Development team to refine options and return to council with implementation-level proposals, cost estimates and, where appropriate, draft development-agreement language or ordinance text for council consideration.