Council weighs who should pay to upgrade Split View Road as nearby development proceeds

Temple staff and council spent extended time on Aug. 21 discussing Split View Road — a short, county‑era pavement left behind after a previous realignment — and whether the city or nearby developers should pay to bring it up to city standards before planned housing and neighborhood services development proceeds.

David (staff project lead) told council the existing section is roughly 31 feet back‑of‑curve to back‑of‑curve in places but was built to county specifications and lacks edge protection in others. He said the street’s pavement section and unknown foundation increase the risk that higher traffic volumes from proposed development will accelerate deterioration. Staff estimated reconstructing the full section to a city local‑street standard would cost roughly $1.0 million (design approximately $100,000; construction just under $1.0 million), with additional unknowns such as a water line relocation and drainage work.

David and staff presented projected traffic from nearby Northgate and Northridge development plans: the townhome component alone could generate roughly 1,000–1,900 average daily trips, and the neighborhood‑services portion could add several hundred to more than 1,500 trips. Given those volumes and the road’s current narrow, chip‑seal/asphalt overlay construction, staff said reconstruction is likely required if parcels along the road develop.

Council and developers discussed a range of responses: do nothing (defer), require the developer to reconstruct the perimeter street as a condition of platting, negotiate a cost‑share participation agreement, partially abandon a middle section and reroute access, or have the city fund reconstruction. Staff explained the city used to assess perimeter‑street fees but no longer does; absent that mechanism the options fall to either developer responsibility, city funding or negotiated participation agreements.

Developer representatives present (Josh and others) offered a hybrid approach: build interior streets as part of the subdivision and temporarily route traffic to existing alignment while final arrangements are made; they asked for staff and legal to explore parcel/right‑of‑way trades that could shift alignment into the development footprint. Staff cautioned that rechanneling a section into private development could leave an unimproved portion for other lots that would still require access.

Council members repeatedly emphasized two constraints: (1) the city does not currently have identified capital funding to pay for a full reconstruction, and (2) the council was reluctant to spend approximately $1 million of city funds on a local street without a clear funding source. After substantial back‑and‑forth, council provided direction that the city will not commit general‑fund capital dollars now to rebuild the full length of Split View Road; instead staff should continue to work with developers to seek a developer‑led or cost‑shared solution that does not require the city to front the full construction cost. Staff was asked to convene a stakeholder group (city staff, planning, legal, the developer and property owners) to produce concrete options and a recommended agreement within weeks.

No final ordinance or formal council vote was recorded in the workshop; the discussion produced a staff direction and a request for a specific follow‑up process. Council members stressed that if development proceeds without a developer agreement the city could face faster road deterioration, repeated complaints and future higher expense to repair the road.