HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 3
Consent No. 2a - Minutes
Coversheet revised 7
Feb 9 Workshop 8
Feb 9 Regular 15
Consent No. 2b - Medical District Plan Support Resolution
Coversheet revised 19
Resolution 20
Consent No. 2c - HDR Design Contract Cancellation for
Raymond Stotzer West Infrastructure
Coversheet revised 23
Change Order 24
location Map 25
Consent No. 2d - Contract Administration Procedures
Coversheet revised 26
Resolution 27
Consent No. 2e - 2011 Annual Traffic Contact Report
Coversheet revised 29
Executive Summary - Dr. Alex del Carmen 30
Consent No. 2f - Office of the Governor Criminal Justice
Division (CJD) Grant
Coversheet revised 36
CJD Grant Resolution 37
Consent No. 2g - Resolution Suspending the Atmos Energy
Requested Rate Change
Coversheet revised 39
Resolution 40
Attachment 2: FAQs 42
Consent No. 2h - Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report
Coversheet revised 47
Report 48
Consent No. 2i - Economic Development Master Plan - Contract
for Professional Services
Coversheet revised 57
Resolution 58
Contract 59
Consent No. 2j - Wind Watts Rate Decrease
Coversheet revised 80
Ordinance 81
Consent No. 2k - Northgate Pedestrian Safety Improvements –
Phase I Advance Funding Agreement No.2
Coversheet revised 92
AFA 93
Location Map 100
1
Consent No. 2L - Rock Prairie Road Bridge Advance Funding
Agreement
Coversheet revised 101
AFA 102
Location Map 118
Consent No. 2m - Resolution Awarding Bid and Approval of a
Construction Contract for Site Improvements in George K. Fitch
Park
Coversheet revised 119
1 - Resolution 120
2 - Bid Tab #12-027 121
3 - Site Plan 122
Regular No. 1 - Annual Bid for Various Electrical Items and
Electric Meters
Coversheet revised 123
Bid Tab Sheet 124
Regular No. 2 - Public Hearing on Rock Prairie Road West
Right-of-Way Project (ST1025) Resolution Determining Need
Coversheet revised 125
Needs Resolution 126
Location Map 131
2
Mayor
IVancy Berry
Mayor Pro Tem
Dave Ruesink
City Manager
David Neeley
Council members
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie M. Schultz
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 23,2012 at 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance given by College Station Boy Scout Troop 802, Invocation, Consider absence request.
Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted
Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should
be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 5:30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer
alarm will sound after 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City
Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda.
Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack
other speakers, Council or staff.
Consent Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent or regular agenda item not posted as a public
hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. Registration
forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. The Mayor will recognize individuals
who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for
the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for
remarks.
2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which qonsists of ministerial or
"housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the
Council.
a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
February 9,2012 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution to support the planning efforts for
the Medical District and acknowledge the economic development initiatives of the planned infrastructure
improvements in the area.
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, February 23,201 2
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to cancel the design contract (10-
067) with HDR Engineering, Inc., for the Raymond Stotzer West Infrastructure Project due to a change in
the water and wastewater service plan.
d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to improve efficiency of contract
administration procedures.
e. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the annual traffic contact report required annually
by Senate Bill 1074, of the Texas 77th legislative session.
f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the application and acceptance of an Office of the
Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant.
g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution suspending the March, 6th 2012
Effective Date of Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division's requested rate change.
h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B,
99-01, 03-02.
i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution selecting a professional contractor,
Approving professional services contract, and Authorizing the expenditure of funds for the development
of an Economic Development Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $94,885.
j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of changes to the electric rate
ordinance lowering the rates charged for Wind Watts wind power effective March 1, 2012. (This item is
also on the workshop agenda.)
k. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City
of College Station and the State of Texas (TxDOT) for the College Main Plaza and PatriciaILodge Street
Improvements.
1. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City
of College Station and the State of Texas (TxDOT) for the Rock Prairie Road Bridge Improvements.
m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution awarding the bid and approval of
construction contract #12-089, with VOX Construction, L.L.C., in the amount of $95,625 for site
improvements in Georgie K. Fitch Park, to include sidewalks, area lights, trees, irrigation, signage, and a
drinking fountain.
Regular Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing
shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. The Mayor will
recognize you to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address
for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining
for remarks.
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the
City Secretary prior to the Mayor's announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize
individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, February 23,20 12
address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 112 minutes to signal thirty
seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public
comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be
allowed at the discretion of the Mayor.
If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes
as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided
in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will
be referred to the City Council and City Manager.
1. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the annual agreement for various
electrical items and electric meters to be stored in inventory as follows: Stuart C. Irby $25,790.00
($2 1,700 to be decided in Tie-Break); HD Supply $1,600; KBS $156.147.10; Techline $790,691 ;
Priester Mell and Nicholson $76,852 ($21,700 to be decided in Tie-Break); Texas Meter & Device
$7,438.80: Wesco $1 1,363;. Total estimated annual expenditure is $1,048,181.90.
2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution determining the
public necessity to acquire right-of-way and easements along Rock Prairie Road West, between State
Highway 6 and Normand Drive.
3. Adjourn.
If litigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held.
APPROVED: A.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be
held on the Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said
notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 11 01 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,
www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice
and Agenda were posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72
hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following
date and time: by
Dated this day of ,2012 By
City Council Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, February 23, 20 1 2
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of
Notary Public -Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made
48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov . Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
February 23, 2012
City Council Consent Agenda Item No. 2a
City Council Minutes
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
· Febraury 9, 2012 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
Attachments:
· Febraury 9, 2012 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
7
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FEBRUARY 9, 2012
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by
Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the
City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
1. Special recognition of Barbara Moore and Lance Jackson, honored by the Brazos
Valley African- American Museum.
Mayor Berry and the City Council recognized Barbara Moore, Neighborhood and Community
Relations Coordinator, and Lance Jackson, Lincoln Center Supervisor, for being honored by the
Brazos Valley African-American Museum.
Mayor Berry and the Council also recognized City Secretary Sherry Mashburn for achieving her
TRMC re-certification.
8
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 2
Mayor Berry and the Council congratulated David Neeley and Carla Robinson on their first year
anniversary as City Manager and City Attorney, respectively.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Item 2i was pulled from the agenda and will be brought back for consideration at a later date.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the current state of the Police
Department.
Jeff Capps, Chief of Police, reported the department has 121 authorized sworn personnel, 59
authorized civilian personnel, 14 temp/seasonal employees, and 97 employees with educational
degrees (21 Associates, 69 Bachelors, and 7 Advanced Degrees). Personnel received over
13,400 additional training hours in 2011. The attrition rate has been reduced: sworn from 15
officers in 2010 to 10 officers in 2011, and civilian positions from 15 in 2010 to nine in 2011.
The department is accredited, with five re-accreditations.
College Station’s population has increased approximately 3% per year over the last 6 years, 15%
over the span of six years. The number of calls has increased approximately 8% each year with
the overall increase in the past 6 years being 45%. Violent crimes have seen a 20% drop,
property crimes are up 13%, and major crimes are up 11%. A major concern is Burglary of
Habitations, which jumped from 298 in 2010 to 472 in 2011. Another concern is driving while
intoxicated.
He reported the department pulls information from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Data. This
table pulls cities within Texas with populations between 50,000 and 100,000 and ranks them on
their crime rate per 1,000. College Station is ranked at 14. The department holds regular Comp
Stat meetings to assist with their crime preventative and crime fighting methods. At these
meetings, they receive accurate, timely information, achieve rapid deployment, utilize effective
tactics, and employ relentless follow-up and assessments. Policing is increasingly becoming
more data driven. Having the ability to view problem areas allows one to reallocate resources
where they are most needed. They do this with their Patrol Officers, Traffic Division and
Community Service Division. This information has been used to develop various sting
operations this past year. It is also used to deploy resources, such as moving bike officers to
high volume problem areas.
The department uses Mission Specific Operations. These are used as “tactical” operations to
address identified problems. This helps supervisors achieve goals by directing subordinates in a
coordinated manner and allows officers the opportunity to help plan and manage their workday.
Chief Capps briefly described some significant events from the past year, such as the injury to a
child, the homicide investigation on Deacon Drive, and the active shooting incident that occurred
on Southwest Parkway
The department has developed and implemented a City Watch Program. Sanitation, Electric and
Parks employees are trained to look for suspicious activity and how to report the activity they
9
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 3
might see. He also briefly reported on the National Night Out and the Citizens Police Academy.
The Recruiting and Training Division processed, hired, and trained 38 new employees in 2011
(23 Civilian and 15 Sworn). A new comprehensive firearms training course has been
implemented that will better equip officers to handle emergency situations. A fit-life program
for staff has been re-implemented. With the help of the City’s Communication Department, a
new Police recruiting video was developed. In October, the Criminal Investigation Division
received the Thompson Reuters 2011 “Award for Excellence in Criminal Investigations” at the
annual IACP Conference in Chicago. They are in the process of completing an in-depth analysis
of jail operations. With the help of the IT department, they completed an extensive technology
project as they changed to a local vendor for support of the Electronic Ticket writers. A new pay
structure plan was completed for sworn officers, increasing their ability to remain competitive in
market analysis and has helped in the reduction of turnover. The Northgate CARES program
and the Bicycle Officer program were touched on. A “bait bicycle” has been obtained for those
areas where high volumes of theft are occurring.
Departmental goals are simple:
· To Reduce Crime
· To Reduce the Fear of Crime
· To Improve the Overall Quality of Life in the Community
· To Build and Maintain Effective Partnerships
Chief Capps stated they will continue to improve and create a healthy work environment for staff
and will continue to monitor the effects of development and growth in the City related to
resource needs.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the College Station Recycling
Program.
Pete Caler, Assistant Director of Public Works, and Heather Qualls, Recycling Coordinator,
presented a report on the Recycling Program, focusing on residential collection. Mr. Caler stated
they have 35 full-time employees and 25 collection vehicles. Automated collection is the
primary garbage collection system. They collect five days a weeks, with 1,000 – 1,200 cans per
day. Bulk collections are done once a week, with 1,900 homes per day, five days week. It is
labor intensive. Brush collection is used to collect large brush and heavy bulk items curbside.
Recycling collection services 1,900 homes five days a week. Texas Commercial Waste is our
private contractor, and the five-year contract expires in 2015. Residents have to sort the material
and place in different bags. We currently maintain a 71% participation rate. Recyclables are
sorted by Junction 505 employees, an organization that employs people with disabilities.
In 2010, staff conducted multi-family feasibility reports. Pilot projects, and surveys were used to
address what can be done in multi-family and business recycling. It was unsuccessful due to
high contamination of the materials. In 2010, an SLA was prepared for a manned recycling
drop-off center for apartments and businesses. The SLA was not approved due to significant rate
increases to apartment residents. Since then the City has franchised two businesses to collect
recyclables. Participation is optional, and the fee is determined by the private contractor. In
August 2010, the residential contract came back. We received two proposals, but kept the same
10
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 4
system to avoid a rate increase. Rates have not increased since 2006. College Station is unique
in that it has a hybrid “pay as you throw” system; i.e., the more you recycle reduces the need for
an additional container at a higher monthly cost. An established recycling program is an industry
standard in the solid waste field.
Staff recommendation is to investigate a partnership with BVSWMA and the City of Bryan for
single stream recycling. The Cities would collect, and BVSWMA would operate the single
stream material recovery facility.
Council directed staff to start the conversation regarding recycling and possible cooperation with
the City of Bryan and BVSWMA.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2011 Christmas at the
Creek.
David Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation, updated the Council on the 2011 Christmas at
the Creek event. The event was moved because the event had outgrown Central Park. Wolf Pen
Creek provides an opportunity to grow the event into a premiere holiday festival for Brazos
Valley. There is a proper stage for performers with better visibility and other entertainment
options. The four-night event had 20,000 in attendance. A guest book was put out in the Green
Room; most were from the area, but there were some from other parts of the state, two from out-
of-state (New York and Georgia) and two from out of the country (Norway and Korea).
Sponsors included Waltman & Grisham, Krogers, and Suddenlink Communications and KBTX.
Partners in the event included United Way of the Brazos Valley and Presents with a Purpose.
Revenues were up a small amount, but expenditures were reduced quite a bit. Cost reductions
are attributed to less staff time for set-up and break-down, more volunteers, and reduction in
rental costs.
Suggestions for 2012 include:
— Solicit for additional sponsors for specific activities
— Expand business and non-profit organization involvement
— Secure additional food and drink vendors
— Fully integrate new Festival Site Area
— Expand event activities such as:
◦ More snow Letters to Santa Carriage Rides
◦ Longer Hay Ride Booth Decorating Contest
◦ Mrs. Claus location at Arts Center Reindeer Games Location
◦ Additional Shuttles from Parking Area
Council consensus was to have more lights at Central Park (without increasing the budget) for
those people that prefer to view the lights from their car.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 02-09-12-06 to
create an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to discuss Arts Council Relations.
11
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 5
Councilmember Fields reported the Arts Council is interested in conversations with the City
related to Festival site programming and their facility needs.
Mayor Berry and Councilmembers Lyles and Schultz volunteered to serve on the ad hoc
committee.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Ruesink, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Resolution 02-09-
12-06 to create an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to discuss Arts Council Relations.
The motion carried unanimously.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the adoption of Resolution 02-09-12-
07, forming a Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force, appointing Council members to the
same, and directing the Planning & Zoning Commission to appoint members to the same.
Councilmembers Brick, Ruesink and Schultz volunteered to serve on the ad hoc committee.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Mayor Berry and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the
City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Resolution 02-09-12-07,
forming a Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force, appointing Council members to the same,
and directing the Planning & Zoning Commission to appoint members to the same. The motion
carried unanimously.
8. Council Calendar
· February 16 BCS Chamber of Commerce - Business After Hours at Caldwell
Companies – 1700 Research Pkwy Suite 240 (CS), 5:30 p.m.
· February 16 P&Z Workshop Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. (Katy-
Marie Lyles, Liaison)
· February 17- 19 TML Elected Officials Conference at Hyatt Regency Riverwalk -
San Antonio, 8:00 a.m.
· February 20 GB Foundation - Nancy Pelosi and Andrew H. Card Jr. at Annenberg
Presidential Conference Center, 5:30 p.m.
· February 23 City Council Workshop Regular Meeting at 3:00 & 7:00 p.m.
· February 24 Britt Rice Lecture Series - Mary Matalin and James Carville at
Annenberg Conference Center, 6:00 p.m.
Council reviewed the Council calendar. February 22 was added to note the Inner Circle
Luncheon.
9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: a Council
Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of
specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any
deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a
subsequent meeting.
12
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 6
Councilmember Mooney asked staff to evaluate the request by Jim Maness regarding Arrington
Road. Consensus was for staff to evaluate the request and make any necessary recommendation.
Councilmember Fields asked for a workshop item related to energy efficient alternatives to
double-paned windows. Staff was directed to review the code and report their findings to the
Council via email.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Greenways Advisory Board, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of
Governments, Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, BVSWMA,
BVWACS, Cemetery Committee, Code Review Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau,
Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association,
Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark
Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of
Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and
Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for
Council of Governments, Signature Event Task Force, Sister City Association, TAMU
Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Transportation Committee, Zoning Board of
Adjustments.
No reports were given.
11. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, and
§551.074-Personnel, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 5:20
p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
· City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in
Westside/Highway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of
College Station and certify City of Bryan
· Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow et al, No. 10-20792; Chavers v. Randall Hall et al, Case
No. 10 CV-3922
· College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-02023
· Shirley Maguire and Holly Maguire vs. City of College Station, Cause No. 11-002516-
CV-272, In the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit:
· Legal obligation regarding health insurance for retired employee.
C. Deliberation on Personnel regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment,
duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee; to wit:
· Council self-evaluation
13
WKSHP020912 Minutes Page 7
The Executive Session adjourned at 6:34 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012.
No action was required from Executive Session.
13. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the
College Station City Council at 8:56 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
14
RM020912 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FEBRUARY 9, 2012
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Regular Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 7:09 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012 in the Council
Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas
77842.
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request.
Citizen Comments
There were no Citizen Comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
15
RM020912 Minutes Page 2
· January 26,2012 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
· January 30,2012 Special Workshop-Strategic Plan Update
· January 3 1,2012 Special Workshop-Strategic Plan Update
2b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Resolution 02-09-12-2b, for a
Professional Services Contract with Arcadis US, Inc., in the amount of $149,718, for the
preliminary engineering report for the Sandy Point Combined Project, and approval of
Resolution 02-09-12-2b-a, declaring intention to reimburse certain expenditures with
proceeds from debt.
2c. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a one year lease extension for
Gambro Healthcare of Texas (aka DaVita, Inc.) in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center.
Effective August 2012, the minimum monthly rent will increase from $2 133 1.61 to
$22.177.09.
2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a real estate
contract between the City of College Station (Buyer) and Edward Uvacek, Jr. and Beatrice
G. Uvacek (Seller) in the amount of $216,601.00 for the purchase of right-of-way (0.446
acres) and a public utility easement (0.642 acres) needed for the Rock Prairie Road East
Widening Design and Right-of-way Project.
2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a renewal of a
semi-annual contract with Knife River for Type D Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete and
Emulsion Installed, in an amount not to exceed $408,000.
2f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the renewal of an Interlocal
Contract "Agreement", for a period of five years, allowing the City of College Station to
repair and maintain the city-owned playground equipment at Hensel Park in the same
manner and to the same standard as set out by city policy for all College Station
playgrounds; and, to maintain that portion of Hensel Park that consists of the surface area
upon which the playground equipment is located.
2g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on approving a correction deed
conveying property located at 911 Monclair Avenue.
2h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the ratification of
cancellation of item Group B, PO#12-0343 in the amount of $33,570.00 to FAPCo LLC and
subsequent ratification of award of bid item Group B to JH Davidson and Associates in the
amount of $34,626.00 for the purchase of current transformers for the Switch Station
Entergy tie project.
2i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion authorizing payment of the third of five
economic development incentive payments in the amount of $250,000 to Texas A&M
University's Texas Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS).
Item 2i was pulled from consideration and will come back for consideration at a later date.
16
RM020912 Minutes Page 3
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent
Agenda, less item 2i. The motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Ordinance
2012-3396, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official
Zoning Map", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, more
specifically a Rezoning from A-0 Agricultural Open to R-1 B Single-Family Residential for
65 acres located at 13500 Rock Prairie Road, generally located west of Lick Creek Park.
At approximately 7:16 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
James Benham, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, explained the purpose for the 100’ buffer
and buffer around the oil well.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2012-
3396, amending Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning
Map", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, more specifically a
Rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 B Single-Family Residential for 65 acres located
at 13500 Rock Prairie Road, generally located west of Lick Creek Park. The motion carried
unanimously.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of the Rental
Rehabilitation Guidelines.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted six (6) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields
voting against, to approve the Rental Rehabilitation Guidelines as submitted. The motion
carried.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the revision of the Strong
and Sustainable Neighborhood Grant Program Guidelines.
Gary Ives, 3943 Blue Jay Court, President of the Springbrook Homeowners Association,
expressed his concern with one of the proposed new rules on Gateway Grants. He distributed to
the Council pictures of the common areas along Longmire. He approached the homeowners
about applying for a Gateway Grant and received strong support from the homeowners. They
received a $4,200 Gateway Grant to revitalize the landscaping. However, with these new
guidelines, the job that needs to be done is not eligible. The $4,200 seed funding they received
was for a project that amounts to a $26,000 renovation.
17
RM020912 Minutes Page 4
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Mayor Berry, the
City Council voted six (6) for and one (1) opposed, with Councilmember Fields voting against,
to adopt the revised Strong and Sustainable Neighborhood Grant Program Guidelines. The
motion carried.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the appointment to
BVSWMA to replace Stephen Beachy.
Mayor Berry reported that Stephen Beachy had submitted his letter of resignation from the
BVSWMA Board in order to devote time to his position as President of the Brazos Valley
Groundwater Conservation District Board.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Floyd, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Richard Floyd to
the BVSWMA Board. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Adjournment.
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the
City Council at 8:39 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2012.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
18
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Medical District Plan Resolution
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution to
support the planning efforts for the Medical District and acknowledge the economic
development initiatives of the planned infrastructure improvements in the area.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City, Core Services and
Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, Diverse Growing Economy, Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. Note: This resolution
is for work enacted by the City thus far and does not approve the draft Medical District
Plan.
Summary: On October 13, 2011, the City Council approved a Conditional HOME Commitment
(agreement) in the amount of $1,000,000 with The NRP Holdings, LLC for an affordable senior
rental housing development in accordance with The City of College Station 2010-2014
Consolidated Plan, which demonstrated a need for affordable senior living development. At the
same meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-13-11-02, declaring support for The
NRP Holdings, LLC Joint Housing Tax Credit and Home Investment Partnership Program
application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for the year 2012. The
Housing Tax Credit application process is very competitive, making each point request in the
application essential to the successful award of tax credits.
One potential point may be gained by showing that economic development initiatives have been
made in the area of the development to promote economic stability and growth. Such initiatives
could include a City Council-supported plan for the district and infrastructure improvements in
the area to meet development demands. The tract for the proposed development is located
within the area of the Medical District Plan, which has been drafted and is nearing completion.
Council received an update on the planning process for the Medical District in January and was
supportive of the work that has been accomplished thus far. The purpose of the attached
Resolution is to further support the efforts of The NRP Holdings, LLC in their application for tax
credits by demonstrating support of the planning process of the Medical District and the
progress it has made, and demonstrating the commitments already made to improve the
network of infrastructure in the vicinity.
The Medical District Plan will not be adopted through this resolution. The purpose of the
resolution is to acknowledge the efforts that have been and are currently being made in the
process of creating the plan, and to acknowledge the commitments the City Council has already
made to support economic development in the planning area.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Resolution
19
20
21
22
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
HDR Design Contract Cancellation
for Raymond Stotzer West Infrastructure
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to
cancel the design contract (10-067) with HDR Engineering, Inc., for the Raymond Stotzer
West Infrastructure Project due to a change in the water and wastewater service plan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure – ensure the fiscally
responsible use of utility funds for the extension of services.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends authorizing the change order to clear the
encumbrance and cancel the design contract with HDR.
Summary: The original scope of the Raymond Stotzer West Infrastructure Project was to
provide water and wastewater utility services to an area along Raymond Stotzer West from
FM 2818 to SH 47. The project included waterlines, gravity sewer, force main, and a
wastewater lift station. Due to change to the water and wastewater service plan that
resulted from the BioCorridor Interlocal Agreement and CCN swap with the City of Bryan,
the wastewater component of this project was eliminated, and the approach to provide
water service to the area changed significantly. The water service will be extended as the
area develops with the extension of HSC Pkwy, and a new design contract that will be
appropriate for the proposed development will be proposed for City Council consideration.
Therefore, the original project scope is no longer applicable, and the design contract is
being canceled, with the remaining encumbrance cleared in the amount of $749,411.44.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds were budgeted for this project in the Water and
Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Funds. The balance on the contract will be
utilized on other capital projects.
Attachments:
1. Change Order
2. Location Map
23
24
SH 47 FM 60FM 2818 RAYMOND STOTZER PARKWAYF & B ROADHARVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY SOUTHTURKEY CREEK RDTURK RDW
ELL
B
O
R
N R
D
NUCLEAR SCIENCE ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE WESTRESEARCH PARKWAYHORTICULTURE DRIVERA
M
P
Raymond Stotzer West ±
Legend
City Limit
Bryan City Limits
Project Area
25
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Contract Administration Procedures
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to improve
efficiency of contract administration procedures.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution as presented.
Summary: In November 2010, Council authorized the City Manager to execute Standard Form
Contracts for Construction and Professional Services. Staff is proposing to further streamline the
contract routing process for all contracts that require Council approval.
This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute all contracts on behalf of the City only
after the Council has approved the contract. This resolution does not preclude the Mayor from
executing contracts, and the Mayor may exercise the right to execute contracts approved by
Council at any time, for any reason, or in lieu of the City Managers signature.
Staff proposes to implement this new procedure, if approved by Council, on or after April 1, 2012
giving staff sufficient time to amend the signature page(s) for all contracts that will be presented to
Council on or after that date.
Budget & Financial Summary: None.
Attachments: Resolution
26
27
28
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
2011 Annual Traffic Contact Report
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeffrey Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the annual
traffic contact report required annually by Senate Bill 1074, of the Texas 77th
legislative session.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): This item is presented according to statutory requirements.
Staff requests Council’s acceptance of this report.
Summary: Each year, in an effort to remain transparent to our community, the
Police Department employs an independent consultant to analyze traffic stop data
and develop this report. The report indicates that the department is in compliance
with state law and continues to employ best practice strategies.
Since January 1, 2002, the College Station Police Department, in accordance with the
Texas Racial Profiling Law (SB No. 1074), has been required to implement and
maintain policy and procedures to satisfy the requirements of the law. The
requirements include:
· Development of a policy, which clearly defines the acts that constitute racial
profiling and prohibits any peace officer employed by the department from
engaging in racial profiling.
· Conduct Racial Profiling Training to Law Enforcement Officers.
· Implementation and publication of complaint and disciplinary processes for
addressing racial profiling complaints.
· Development of a policy which establishes procedures for reviewing video and
audio documentation.
· Collection of tier 1 traffic stop data.
· Production of an annual report on police traffic contacts (tier 1) and
conveyance of that report to the City Council before March 1 of each year.
Budget & Financial Summary: n/a
Attachments:
· Letter to council summarizing findings – Dr. Alex del Carmen
· A full copy of 2011 Annual Traffic Contact Report can be viewed in the City
Secretary’s Office.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the application and
acceptance of an Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council approval
Summary: The CJD’s mission is to create and support programs that protect people
from crime, reduce the number of crimes committed, and to promote accountability,
efficiency, and effectiveness within the criminal justice system. CJD focuses on the
enhancement of Texas' capacity to prevent crime, provide service and treatment options,
enforce laws, train staff and volunteers, and the restoration of crime victims to full physical,
emotional and mental health.
This CJD grant will provide 100% funding for the purchase of an all terrain vehicle to be
used in the Northgate Entertainment District and at other special events where large groups
gather. The addition of this piece of equipment will allow officers better mobility through
dense crowds as well as provide them the ability to travel across large areas quickly when
the need to respond to a call arises.
This grant will also provide 100% funding for the purchase of digital cameras to be used by
our patrol officers. There are many times during a patrol shift in which an officer needs a
camera to take photos for evidentiary purposes. Though a few cameras are currently
available to our officers, the numbers are limited requiring officers to share and deliver
cameras from one location to another. This has a profound impact on our efficiency in
addition to the risk of losing evidence if a time sensitive situation arises such as a rain storm
arriving that could wash away evidence or redness from an assault fading.
There is no local match requirement for CJD, but grant funding will only be provided for the
initial equipment purchase. Due to this, any other associated costs such as maintenance,
repair, or replacement will be the responsibility of the grantee agency.
Budget & Financial Summary: The purchase of the ATV will cost approximately $14,700.
Annual maintenance, repair, or replacement is estimated to not exceed $300. The
equipment necessary to provide each officer with a digital camera will total approximately
$12,122. Annual maintenance, repair, or replacement is estimated to not exceed $2000. A
budget amendment will be brought forward to appropriate these grant funds into the police
department budget.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
36
37
38
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Resolution Suspending the Atmos Energy
Requested Rate Change
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a
resolution suspending the March, 6th 2012 Effective Date of Atmos Energy Corp.,
Mid-Tex Division’s requested rate change.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends adopting the resolution and suspending
the effective date of the Atmos rate increase.
Summary: College Station, along with approximately 153 other cities served by the
Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division (Atmos), is a member of the Atmos Cities
Steering Committee (ACSC). On January 31th, Atmos filed with the City a Statement
of Intent to increase rates within the City.
Since 2007, ACSC cities and Atmos have utilized the Rate Review Mechanism
(“RRM”) process to allow for an expedited but comprehensive annual rate review.
Last year, the RRM process was extended for a fourth year, with some modifications
being requested. ACSC negotiated with Atmos through the final quarter of 2011 to
extend the RRM process, but no agreement was reached.
As such, Atmos filed a Statement of Intent to increase the system-wide base rate
(which excludes the cost of gas) by approximately $49 million or 11.94% which
includes an increase of 13.6% in its base rates for residential customers.
Additionally, Atmos has proposed changes to the formula for collecting rates by
increasing the residential fixed-monthly charge from $7.50 to $18.00 and decreasing
the consumption charge from $0.25 per 100 cubic feet to $0.07 per ccf. The
effective date of this change would be March 6, 2012 as required by law.
State law provides that cities may suspend the rate change for 90 days after the
otherwise effective date to provide cities time to review the rate-filing package. This
resolution suspends the March 6, 2012 effective date for 90 days to allow the City,
working in conjunction with other ACSC cities, to evaluate the filing, determine
whether the filing complies with state law, and determine what strategies to pursue,
including settlement and the ultimate negotiation of reasonable rates.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1) Resolution
2) ACSC / RRM Frequently Asked Questions
39
40
41
August 1, 2011
Revised February 1, 2012
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING
ACSC AND THE RRM RATEMAKING PROCESS
What is the Role of Cities in Ratemaking?
Cities have historically exercised original jurisdiction over the level of gas rates charged
within their boundaries. Generally, gas distribution utilities have filed rate cases at the city level
and only gone to the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RRC”) with an appeal of city action or if
they cannot reach a settlement with cities. If a utility and cities reach an agreement, the utility
may then file a case at the RRC to implement the same rates approved by cities in areas outside
municipal boundaries.
Once a case is at the RRC, the Commission Staff generally expects cities to intervene and
do most of the discovery, sponsor opposing witnesses, and do most of the cross-examination and
briefing. There is no consumer advocate at the RRC. If cities do not participate in hearings at
the RRC, the request of a regulated utility is likely to be rubber-stamped.
What is the background to the creation of the Atmos Cities’ Steering Committee?
The Atmos pipeline and distribution systems were built, owned and operated by Lone
Star Gas (“LSG”) which maintained over 200 rate jurisdictions until it sold its assets to Texas
Utilities (“TXU”) in the late 1990’s. That meant that many cities had their own unique
distribution rates and that individual cities had to process rate cases at the local level. LSG -
Pipeline served all 200-plus distribution systems and pipeline rates were set by the RRC.
From the early 1980’s through the late 1990’s, LSG filed no pipeline or system-wide rate
case at the RRC. When LSG was finally brought before the RRC to show cause why its rates
should not be reduced, approximately 80 cities intervened and created an ad hoc group known as
the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Lone Star.
TXU purchased the LSG assets in the late 1990’s and immediately commenced
consolidating 200-plus ratemaking jurisdictions into regions. As regional cases were filed, cities
within each region created an ad hoc committee to form a common strategy and negotiating
position. Once TXU had aggregated the cities into five or six jurisdictions, each with a different
rate, Texas Utilities Gas Company filed a system-wide case to bring all of the old LSG territory
under one common rate. The different city regional committees then united and formed the
Allied Coalition of Cities (“ACC”). While the gas utility assets were owned and controlled by
TXU, the Steering Committee transformed itself from an ad hoc group that came together only in
response to rate filings by the utility into a permanent standing committee.
In Gas Utilities Docket (“GUD”) No. 9400 in 2004, TXU’s request for a $61.6 million
system-wide increase was aggressively opposed by ACC. The Company received only a $2.01
million increase. Unhappy with that result, TXU decided that owning a gas system was neither
as fun nor as profitable as the deregulated electric system, and they sold the system to Atmos
Energy Corporation (“Atmos” or “Company”). ACC was then transformed into the Steering
42
2
1800208
Committee of Cities Served by Atmos and then renamed Atmos Cities Steering Committee to
obtain an easy to remember acronym, “ACSC”.
What is the Atmos Cities Steering Committee?
ACSC is a coalition of 154 cities that unite in common purpose to address gas utility rate
and franchise issues related to Atmos Energy Corporation. Its objectives are to: (1) ensure that
gas utility rates charged to cities and their residents are fair and reasonable; (2) maintain
reasonable franchise fee revenues for cities; (3) protect cities’ original jurisdiction over rates and
services; (4) be a voice for consumers where no state agency assumes such a role; and (5)
promote sound ratemaking policy in the public interest.
Cities join the permanent standing committee by passing a resolution and agreeing to
support the work of ACSC through modest occasional per capita assessments which support
ongoing administrative and legislative advocacy and all expenses where cities are not entitled to
reimbursement. Each member city designates a representative to ACSC. Member
representatives may volunteer to serve on the ACSC Executive Committee or Settlement
Committee. The Executive Committee sets policy, hires legal counsel and consultants, directs
litigation, establishes a legislative agenda, sets assessments on members as needed and meets
quarterly with Atmos executives. The Settlement Committee is directly involved in negotiating
resolution of contested matters with Atmos executives.
The list of current members is attached.
What is the benefit of membership in ACSC?
One hundred fifty-four cities speaking as one voice is much more effective in advocacy
before the Railroad Commission and legislature than any one city or multiple small groups of
cities.
The legislature has given gas utilities a right to an annual increase in rates. Resources
(both financial and human) of individual cities are conserved by membership in ACSC.
Additionally, membership enhances institutional memory of ratemaking issues, public policy
debates, and right-of-way and franchise fee battles.
What has ACSC accomplished recently?
Going into the legislative session, ACSC in December 2010 released a 48-page report,
“Natural Gas Consumers and the Texas Railroad Commission.” More than 200 television,
newspaper and radio news sites posted information on and a link to the report which may be
found on ACSC’s website, TexasGasConsumers.org.
Earlier in 2010, ACSC representatives visited on several occasions with the Sunset
Commission Staff, and several ACSC recommendations for reform were included in the Sunset
Commission Report on the Railroad Commission, delivered to the legislature’s Sunset
Committee prior to public hearings on the agency. Several ACSC member representatives
testified before the legislature regarding reforms needed at the Railroad Commission.
43
3
1800208
During the most recent legislative session, lobbying efforts by ACSC were critical in
killing two gas utility bills that would have undermined traditional regulation, deprived cities of
certain rights, and led to even greater rate increases.
ACSC has resolved a major issue involving franchise fees. Atmos unilaterally, with out
notice, ceased inclusion of franchise fees in the calculations of gross receipts regardless of
whether specific franchises included such payments. Several cities were willing to pursue the
matter through litigation. However, counsel for ACSC was able to negotiate a resolution that
allowed each member city to determine whether it desired an increase in franch ise fee payments
based on inclusion of franchise fees in the calculation of gross receipts. If a city opted for
inclusion of fee-on-fee revenues, it had the further option of retroactive payments back to the
point in time that Atmos decided to curtail fee-on-fee payments. Each member had these options
regardless of the wording of the then valid franchise agreement. This resolution spared
significant litigation costs and anxiety and was only possible because of the clout of the ACSC
membership.
One of the most significant accomplishments of ACSC occurred in 2007 via a settlement
of the then pending system-wide rate case. Approximately 50 ACSC city representatives showed
up in Arlington for a meeting with Atmos executives who were shocked at the vocal opposition
to Atmos practices, the unfairness of annual Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (“GRIP”)
rate filings that precluded city and citizen review, and the Company’s lack of coordination with
cities. That meeting led to the creation of the Rate Review Mechanism (“RRM”) process and
greater ongoing communication between the Company and ACSC.
In 2010, ongoing communications between ACSC and the Company led to a workable
solution to the need to replace steel service lines in a manner that accommodated cit y needs to
control their rights-of-way, while moderating the rate impact and focusing first on the riskiest
service lines based on leak repair histories. This compromise precluded a more onerous (from a
city and consumer perspective) program threatened by the RRC.
What is a RRM case?
The concept of a RRM proceeding emerged as a three-year experimental substitute for
GRIP cases as part of the settlement of Atmos Mid-Tex’s 2007 system-wide rate case. In 2003,
the Texas Legislature added Section 104.301, Interim Adjustment for Changes in Investment, to
the Gas Utility Regulatory Act. While not identified as such in the law, § 104.301 was referred
to as the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program or GRIP. The GRIP adjustments allowed gas
companies to recover changes to invested capital without a review of whether increased revenues
or declining expenses offset the invested capital costs. Both Atmos Pipeline and Atmos Mid-Tex
filed GRIP cases as soon as the RRC adopted rules to implement the interim adjustments. As
explained below, it quickly became apparent that the GRIP adjustments were terrible public
policy.
As an alternative to GRIP, ACSC entered into a negotiated agreement with Atmos in
2007 to establish the RRM process. Unlike GRIP, the RRM provided for an annual review of all
portions of Mid-Tex’s cost of service. It fixed an authorized rate of return on equity for the
three-year period at 9.6% (which was less than what the RRC would have authorized) and set
44
4
1800208
caps on the extent to which expenses or investments could increase from one year to the next.
More importantly, it allowed cities to make a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the
utility business—investment, operation and maintenance expenses and revenues—unlike GRIP
which only allows consideration of changes to invested capital.
Why is RRM superior to GRIP?
The GRIP cases are one-sided guarantees of a rubber-stamp of the utility’s rate request.
ACSC attempted to participate in the first two GRIP proceedings filed by both Atmos Pipeline
and Atmos Mid-Tex at the RRC. Not only were cities’ motions to intervene denied, but also,
ACSC’s comments were ignored. At the city level, ACSC consultants determined that Atmos
was not only including items such as artwork, chairs, computers and meals in interim rate
adjustments that were allegedly intended to promote pipeline safety, but also the Company was
over-earning its previously authorized rate of return. ACSC attacked the Commission’s rule in
court because it denied city participation, denied a hearing on a contested matter, and denied
cities’ recovery of any expenses associated with resisting GRIP rate increases. The courts have
not been helpful to cities and the Texas Supreme Court has affirmed the denial of cities’ right to
participate in GRIP cases at the RRC.
Cities have contended that GRIP is terrible public policy since it authorizes what would
from a history of public interest regulation be regarded as unlawful—piecemeal ratemaking.
GRIP allows rates to increase if the utility’s invested capital net of depreciation increases year-
over-year. An increase in rates is mandated under GRIP if investment increases, even if
increasing revenues and declining expenses more than offset the costs associated with increased
investment.
The RRM process negotiated by ACSC solves the piecemeal ratemaking problem by
providing for a comprehensive review of Atmos’ expenses and revenues. Furthermore, RRM
benefits ACSC by: (1) allowing cities participation that would be denied under GRIP; (2)
allowing cities to recover, at utility shareholder expense, all their ratemaking costs; and (3)
avoiding both litigation and RRC jurisdiction.
The legislature has functionally authorized annual increases in gas utility rates through
the GRIP process. Since consumers are otherwise stuck with annual rate increases, it is better to
have cities participating in the comprehensive RRM process than unable to participate in a
piecemeal process.
What has been the history of the RRM efforts?
In 2010, ACSC, in settling the third RRM proceeding, agreed to a slight modification and
extension of the process. A settlement of the fourth annual RRM is now pending before ACSC
members. The results of the four RRM proceedings are as follows:
RRM Filing Year Atmos Request ACSC Settlement
#1 2008 $33.5 million $20 million
#2 2009 $20.2 million $2.6 million
#3 2010 $70.2 million $27 million
#4 2011 $15.7 million $6.6 million
45
5
1800208
These results are better for cities and consumers than would have been authorized by the
RRC under the GRIP process.
What is the future of the RRM process?
The settlement of the fourth RRM filing anticipated ACSC and Atmos working between
August and December to refine the RRM process. A settlement perpetuating the RRM process
was not reached by the end of 2011 which has led to the filing of the January 31, 2012 traditional
rate case. Discussions regarding the future of the RRM process will continue as we attempt to
resolve the rate case by settlement.
If you have other questions please contact me at (512) 322-5875 and/or
ggay@lglawfirm.com.
Geoffrey Gay
ACSC, General Counsel
46
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report
To: David Neely, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on
Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, 03-02.
Relationship to Strategic Initiatives: Financially Sustainable City and Core Services and
Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): At their meeting on February 2nd, the Planning & Zoning
Commission unanimously recommended acceptance of the report. Staff also recommends
Council acknowledges and accepts of the Semi-Annual Report – No Further Action is
required at this time.
Summary: The attached Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report is provided to the City Council in
accordance with the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395.058. In short, the City of
College Station currently has five impact fee areas where all associated utility construction
is complete. All five of the impact fees were updated by Council in accordance with State
Law in either 2008 or 2009.
A previous report showed changes in the projected densities in several of the Impact Fee
areas related to the Land Uses adopted with the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. An update to
incorporate these changes had been in progress but needed to consider the Water and
Wastewater Master Plans that were under development, as well as, a City Wide Impact Fee
Study that was underway. With the completion of both projects, the update can now
proceed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee per the
City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 15: Impact Fees. On February 2, 2012
the Advisory Committee discussed and unanimously recommended support of the Semi-
Annual Report. It is now being forwarded to Council for your status update.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. 02/02/12 Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report
47
1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 2, 2012
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Carol Cotter, P.E., Sr. Asst. City Engineer
SUBJECT: Semi-Annual Report – Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, 03-02
Local Government Code requires semi-annual reporting in order to monitor the progress of impact fees and to determine when an update to the fee study is necessary. An update was recommended and approved previously, and is currently under way. There have been no major changes over the last reporting period. Staff recommends that the Advisory Committee forward this report to City Council for their status update. The City of College Station Ordinance Chapter 15, Impact Fees, designates the Planning and Zoning Commission as the Advisory Committee for review, advisement, and monitoring of proposed and existing impact fees. More specifically, the Advisory Committee is established to: 1. Advise and assist the City in adopting Land Use assumptions. 2. Review the Capital Improvements Plan and file written comments. 3. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan. 4. File semi-annual reports with respect to the progress of the Capital Improvements Plan. 5. Advise the City Council of the need to update or revise the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees. Currently the City of College Station has five impact fees in existence of which all associated construction is complete. All five of the impact fees underwent a 5-Year Update in either 2008 or 2009 (as noted below) in accordance with State Law. The following is a current status report for each of the five impact fees. (To facilitate review data changes from previous 6 months are presented in bold font.):
48
This fee was initially implemented in 1992 at $152.18 /LUE and was revised in 1996 to $289.77/LUE after approval of updated Land use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), revised again to the $232.04/LUE in 2000 and to the current amount in April 2008. The CIP consists of three phases originally estimated at $543,000 which have all been completed at a combined cost of $473,518.72. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $0.00 for total amount of $323,502.20 (per Account #250-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $18,211. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 72% of original construction cost.
92-01 Sanitary Sewer ( Graham Road ) ( 508 ac. ) __ $316.07/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997 at $349.55/LUE and was revised to the current amount in April 2008. The CIP consists of Phase I (east of Hwy 6 ) and Phase II (west of Hwy 6 ). Phase I estimated to cost $1,000,000 was completed in 1999 at a cost of $631,214.59. Phase II was estimated to cost $1,350,000 and was completed at a cost of $813,752.00. The total actual cost was $1,444,966.59. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $4,771.93 for total amount of $564,309.86 (per Acct #251-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about
$199,797. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 52% of original construction cost.
97-01 Sanitary Sewer ( Spring Creek – Pebble Hills) ( 2,000 ac.) $98.39/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997 at $243.38/LUE and was revised to the current amount in April 2008. The CIP consisted of running a 15-inch sanitary sewer line from the south end of the College Station Business Park westerly along Alum Creek to the east ROW of Highway 6. The project was estimated to cost $390,000 and was completed in 1999 at a cost of $214,270.87. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $362.22 for total amount of $21,771.55 (per Acct #252-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $182,017. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 95% of original construction cost.
97-02B Sanitary Sewer ( Alum Creek – Nantucket) ( 608 ac. ) $59.42/LUE
This fee was implemented in April 1999 at $550.00/LUE and was revised to the current amount in April 2008. The CIP consists of running an 18-inch water line south along the east ROW of Highway 6 approximately 4800 feet. The line was estimated to cost $312,000 (the impact fee is based on an 8-inch line at $165,000). A 2400-foot section of the 18-inch line was constructed in 1999 from the south end at a total cost of $342,977.73. Fees collected over the last 6 months are
$56,973.34 for total amount of $64,740.88 (per Acct #240-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $246,372. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 91% of original construction cost.
99-01 Water ( Harley )( 158 ac. ) $769.91/LUE
49
This fee was initially implemented in June 2003 at $300.00/LUE and was revised to the current amount in May 2009. This CIP was constructed in two phases of sanitary sewer line construction in compliance with the proposed construction in the original report establishing the fee. Phase one crossed Wellborn Road and terminated at Old Wellborn Road consisting of 2,347 linear feet of 18-inch sewer line with a construction cost of $296,642. Phase two was completed in 2006 and continued the line along Old Wellborn Road and terminated across Rock Prairie Road West. Phase two consisted of 6,281 linear feet of 12-inch line and 2,062 linear feet of 18-inch line for a construction cost of $529,088 and a land cost of $87,133. The design cost for the combined phases was $148,023. The total actual cost was $1,091,886 which was less than the original report estimated at $1,596,137. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $11,032.20 for total amount of $51,067.10 (per Acct #253-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $745,524. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 72% of original construction cost.
03-02 Sanitary Sewer ( Steeplechase ) ( 715 ac. ) $357.74/LUE
A previous report showed changes in the projected densities in several of the
Impact Fee areas related to the Land Uses adopted with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 2009. As presented in the Table below, the densities expected are
significantly different in several of the Impact Fee Areas. An update to
incorporate these changes had been in progress but needed to consider the
Water and Wastewater Master Plans that were under development, as well as, a
City Wide Impact Fee Study that was underway. With the completion of both
projects, the update can now proceed.
Impact Fee
Area
Effective
Buildout
LUE
Current
Impact
Fee Rate
Anticipated
Buildout
LUEs
LUE
Adjustment
Total Fees
Collected
Remaining
Capital
Investment
to Recoup 92-01 Graham 1,551 $ 316.07 1,775 + 224 $323,502 $ 18,000 97-01 Spring Creek 4,425 $ 98.39 8,384 + 3,959 $564,310 $200,000 97-02B Alum 3,232 $ 59.42 2,139 - 1,093 $21,772 $182,000 99-01 Harley 450 $ 769.91 440 - 10 $64,741 $246,000 03-02 Steeplechase 2,838 $ 357.74 7,816 + 4,987 $51,067 $746,000
Total $1,025,392 $1,392,000 Attachments Land Use at Adoption Map per Impact Fee Area : Impact Fee Service Areas Map
Current Land Use Map per Impact Fee Area
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2i
Economic Development Master Plan – Contract for Professional Services
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution
selecting a professional contractor, Approving professional services contract, and
Authorizing the expenditure of funds for the development of an Economic Development
Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $94,885.
Relationship to Council Strategic Plan: Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and execution of the
professional services contract
Summary: In 2007, the City Council initiated the Comprehensive Planning process that
resulted in a new City Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2009. Concurrent with that process
was the intent to develop an expanded economic development chapter. Approximately
$92,000 was budgeted for this expanded chapter. For a variety of reasons, this effort was
not completed, the Comprehensive Plan contract was reduced by $90,000 and a simplified
economic development chapter was delivered. The City is now seeking to pursue the
development of an Economic Development Master Plan (one of the City’s many master plans
– water/wastewater master plans, parks and recreation master plan, bicycle, pedestrian,
and greenways master plan, etc) to more fully develop this portion of the City’s planning
efforts.
The preparation of an Economic Development Master Plan was included in the approved
FY12 Budget and will assist several of the City’s efforts outlined in the adopted Council
Strategic Plan. After issuing a Request for Qualifications, staff has identified a consultant
team for the project, developed a scope, and negotiated a contract amount. The project will
be lead by staff from the Planning & Development Services Department, who will be
responsible for creating the final product. PDS will be assisted by the City Manager’s Office
and the consultant team. This approach allows the City to secure a higher level of services
from the consultant team than envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan and will do so at
essentially the same cost as originally budgeted with the Comprehensive Plan.
Budget & Financial Summary: The FY12 Budget includes $75,000 from the Economic
Development Fund for this plan. The total costs are projected not to exceed $94,885. The
difference between the budgeted amount and the contract amount will need to come in the
form of a budget amendment. Funds exist in the ED Fund to fund the entire contract
amount.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution
2. Contract for Professional Services
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2j
Wind Watts Rate Decrease
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Massey, Director of Electric Utilities
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of
changes to the electric rate ordinance lowering the rates charged for Wind Watts wind
power effective March 1, 2012. (This item is also on the workshop agenda.)
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure – Meet or exceed all
state/federal standards.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the changes to the electric rate
ordinance.
Summary: Pursuant to discussions held at the City Council Planning Retreat on January 30
and 31, the Council asked staff to revise the electric rate ordinance by removing the
premium portion of the Wind Watts Wind Energy Rider that provided funds for green
initiatives.
Budget & Financial Summary: The premium portion of the wind watts rate generated
approximately $40,000 in FY11, which accounted for 75% of the total wind watts revenue.
This premium portion will no longer be applied to the wind watts rate.
Attachment:
Electric Rate Ordinance
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2k
Project Number ST1113
Northgate Pedestrian Safety Improvements – Phase I
Advance Funding Agreement No.2
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on an Advance Funding
Agreement (AFA) between the City of College Station and the State of Texas (TxDOT) for
the College Main Plaza and Patricia/Lodge Street Improvements.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Improving Mobility – Provide complete streets that
accommodate vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Ensure streets have features that
promote walk ability.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the AFA.
Summary: This project has been a corporative effort between the City of College Station,
TxDOT, Texas A&M University, and the Northgate Merchants to improve pedestrian safety in
the Northgate area. The first phase AFA for this project was approved by City Council on
June 23, 2011 and included funding for retractable bollards, traffic barrier along University
Drive, and powder coated traffic signal poles and mast arms. At the time of the first AFA,
the engineering design for these current improvements was not complete. This second AFA
includes funding for additional retractable bollards, brick pavers and drainage improvements
along College Main, conduit for future street lighting, powder coating of traffic signs, and
intersection improvements at Lodge and Patricia Streets.
The additional retractable bollards will be located along College Main south of Church Street
and at Lodge Street south of Patricia Street. This will allow the City to close off portions of
streets in the Northgate Area during times of high pedestrian use on the weekends and
provide a safer environment. The brick pavers along College Main will bring this section of
the roadway to the same grade as the existing sidewalks and will allow for pedestrians to
congregate in this area during times of high use. The intersection of Patricia and Lodge
streets will be improved by adding a wider turning radius to allow for delivery trucks to use
this route during business hours. These improvements are intended to be included in the
construction project that is currently ongoing and being managed by TxDOT. The project is
slated to be completed in the late spring according to TxDOT.
Budget & Financial Summary: The cost for these improvements is estimated to be
$418,125.00. The current project budget for the College Main Plaza Improvements, in the
amount of $692,000.00, is for engineering design and payment of the requested
improvements to TxDOT. $43,941.62 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a
balance of $648,058.38 for this AFA and remaining costs related to the project.
Attachments:
1. AFA
2. Location Map
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2L
Project Number ST1118
Rock Prairie Road Bridge
Advance Funding Agreement
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on an Advance Funding
Agreement (AFA) between the City of College Station and the State of Texas (TxDOT) for
the Rock Prairie Road Bridge Improvements.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Improving Mobility – Provide complete streets that
accommodate vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Seek federal and state funding to
construct facilities.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the AFA.
Summary: The scope of the Rock Prairie Road Bridge Improvements project is for
environmental clearance, design, and public engagement. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
prepared a traffic study of the Rock Prairie Road Corridor in 2011 to collect traffic data and
make infrastructure improvement recommendations to alleviate existing traffic congestion.
The corridor limits were generally bounded by Normand Drive to the west, Ponderosa Road
to the north, Graham Road to the south, and Stonebrook Drive to the east. The report
concluded that the Rock Prairie Road Bridge will be operating at an unacceptable Level of
Service by 2016 if the bridge is not expanded.
The Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization (BCSMPO) identified this
project as the number one priority project in their Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The
BCSMPO received $4.6 million in State Proposition 12 funds from TxDOT. The BCSMPO
voted to allocate those funds toward the construction of the Rock Prairie Road Bridge. As a
condition, the City is responsible for funding the engineering design and environmental work
on this project and TxDOT will manage the construction of the project. The City is obligated
to deliver final plans and specifications including environmental clearance by April of 2013.
Budget & Financial Summary: The current project budget for the Rock Prairie Road
Bridge Design, in the amount of $567,000, is for engineering design only. $454,597 has
been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $112,403 for other costs related
to the project.
Attachments:
1. AFA
2. Location Map
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
February 23, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2m
Resolution Awarding Bid and Approval of a Construction Contract for
Site Improvements in Georgie K. Fitch Park
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Schmitz, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution
awarding the bid and approval of construction contract #12-089, with VOX Construction,
L.L.C., in the amount of $95,625 for site improvements in Georgie K. Fitch Park, to include
sidewalks, area lights, trees, irrigation, signage, and a drinking fountain.
Relationship to Strategic Goal: Neighborhood Integrity ~ Long-term viable and
appealing neighborhoods
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution and award of the
construction contract with VOX Construction, L.L.C., for improvements in Georgie K. Fitch
Park in the amount of $95,625, with sixty (60) days of construction time.
Summary: This project is for improvements in Georgie K. Fitch Park, built in 1983. A
sidewalk will be added to form a jogging/walking loop around the front area of the park,
with area lights to be installed along this trail. The drinking fountain will be moved and
repaired so that it will become usable. Shade trees will be planted along the trail and along
the sidewalk on Balcones Street for beautification and to meet the City’s streetscape
ordinance. The existing basketball court lights will have controls added to help conserve
energy. An irrigation system will be added for the newly planted trees only. Accessible
ramps will be installed near the street to bring those up to the latest standards for ADA
rules.
Budget & Financial Summary: Five (5) sealed, competitive bids were received and
opened on January 23, 2012. The bid summary is attached. The project budget is
$103,500, and the recommended low bid is $95,625. Funds are available through
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Bid Tabulation #12-027
3. Site Plan
4. Construction Contract (on file in City Secretary’s office)
119
120
Brazos Paving Dudley Const.Palomares Const.TDT, Inc.VoX Const.
Bryan, Texas College Station, TX Bryan, Texas College Station, TX Bryan, Texas
Item Qty Unit Description
1 1 LS
Concrete sidewalks & ramps
(including removal of some walks &
earthwork) (Stockpile excess on
site)
47,585.00$ 35,900.00$ 44,475.00$ 50,097.36$ 35,249.00$
2 1 LS Electrical and nine (9) area lights 37,500.00$ 38,200.00$ 31,800.00$ 39,221.20$ 33,150.00$
3 1 LS Trees, topsoil & Hydromulching 12,257.00$ 5,200.00$ 5,750.00$ 7,179.60$ 4,481.00$
4 1 LS Park Sign 5,600.00$ 5,900.00$ 3,900.00$ 5,162.12$ 4,823.00$
5 1 LS Retaining block walls 2,870.00$ 3,100.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,146.44$ 2,543.00$
6 1 LS Silt Fencing 2,035.00$ 875.00$ 1,000.00$ 5,036.88$ 1,837.00$
7 1 LS Irrigation System 2,200.00$ 3,800.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,976.00$ 4,776.00$
8 1 LS
Relocation of drinking fountain.
(includes piping, valve, drain line
and concrete slab)
2,500.00$ 645.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,054.00$ 2,456.00$
TOTAL BASE BID 112,547.00$ 93,620.00$ 93,425.00$ 112,873.60$ 89,315.00$
Alternate
1 1 LS Crepe Myrtles & Irrigation 4,000.00$ 5,475.00$ 3,880.00$ 7,229.20$ 6,310.00$
TOTAL ALTERNATE 4,000.00$ 5,475.00$ 3,880.00$ 7,229.20$ 6,310.00$
TOTAL BASE BID + ALTERNATE 116,547.00$ 99,095.00$ 97,305.00$ 120,102.80$ 95,625.00$
Calendar Days for Completion 60 90 60 68 60
Certification Y Y Y Y Y
Section 3 Certification N Y Y Y Y
Bid Bond Y Y Y Y Y
Site Improvements for George K Fitch Park
Bid No. 12-027
Opened January 23, 2012
121
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
60' ROW COLLEGE STATION, TX. 77842REVISIONS:
AUG.16,2011WWW.CSTX.GOVPOST OFFICE BOX 9960 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION(979) 764-3412
Peter B.Vanecek
DATE:
SHEET:
1
OF 6 O:\1Planning\Acad Files\Detail Dwgs\Borders\college_station_color-2004.jpg24" X 36" PAPER SIZE
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY
R - 4, MULTI - FAMILY
R - 4, MULTI - FAMILY
286
284
282
280
278
EXISTING HOSE BIB IN A
CONCRETE METER BOX
EXISTING 1" WATER METER
LOCATION MAP
GENERAL NOTES:
ALL ROOF & GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED
FROM VIEW OR ISOLATED SO AS NOT TO BE VISIBLE FROM ANY PUBLIC ROW
OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITHIN 150' OF THE SUBJECT LOT,MEASURED FROM
A POINT FIVE FEET ABOVE GRADE.SUCH SCREENING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH
THE BLDG.ARCHITECTURE AND SCALE TO MAINTAIN A UNIFIED APPEARANCE.
EXTERIOR BLDG. & SITE LIGHTING WILL MEET THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 7.10
OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.THE LIGHT SOURCE SHALL NOT DIRECTLY
PROJECT LIGHT HORIZONTALLY.FIXTURES WILL BE MOUNTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT
THE PROJECTED CONE OF LIGHT DOES NOT CROSS ANY PROPERTY LINE.
100% OF GROUNDCOVER,DECORATIVE PAVING,DECORATIVE ROCK(NOT LOOSE),OR A PERENNIAL
GRASS IS REQUIRED IN PARKING LOT ISLANDS,SWALES AND DRAINAGE AREAS,THE PARKING
LOT SETBACK,RIGHTS OF WAY,AND ADJACENT PROPERTY DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
THE PROPERTY WITH DEVELOPMENT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP #48041CO182C
FEMA 100 YEAR
FLOOD PLAIN
284
284
286
PLAYGROUND
FEMA 500 YEAR
FLOOD PLAIN
SOUTHWOOD VALLEY VOL. 508, P. 571
GEORGIE K. FITCH PARK
RELOCATE EXISTING DRINKING
WATER FOUNTAIN
EXISTING AREA LIGHT
EXISTING
BASKETBALL
COURT LIGHTS
EXISTING 3
4" WATERLINE
EXISTING
34" WATERLINE
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE
25'
ELECTRIC EASEMENT
EXISTING BACKSTOPS
EXISTING
SHELTER
256 SQ.FT.
40'
ELECTRIC EASEMENT
EXISTING VEGETATION
BASKETBALL
COURT
GEORGIE K. FITCH PARK
INSTALL NEW 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK
EXPANSION JOINTS 30' O.C. AND SCORE JOINTS 6' O.C.
RE: DETAILS SHEET 6 OF 6
TOP OF WALKS TO BE 1" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING
SIDEWALKS
REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK AND CURBING AND
REPLACE WITH A NEW ADA RAMP
DOWEL INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK
RE: DETAIL SW1-02 SHEET 6 OF 6
DOWEL INTO EXISTING PICNIC SLAB
RE: DETAIL SW1-02 SHEET 6 OF 6
DOWEL INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK
RE: DETAIL SW1-02 SHEET 5 OF 5
DOWEL INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK
RE: SW1-02 NOTES SHEET 5 OF 5
RE: DETAILS AND SPECS
REMOVE AND HAUL OFF APROXIMATELY
450 SQFT OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK, 4' WIDE
EXISTING
EXISTING
DOWEL INTO EXISTING PICNIC SLAB
RE: DETAIL SW1-02 SHEET 6 OF 6
EXTEND WALL 20' RE: WALL NOTES
EXTEND WALL 7' FROM EXISTING
WALL. RE: WALL NOTES
EXTEND WALL 10' FROM EXISTING
WALL. RE: WALL NOTES
WALL NOTES:
1. RETAINING WALL EXTENSIONS TO BE PLACED ON A 4" CONCRETE FOOTING
2. EXTENDED WALLS TO STEP DOWN IN BLOCK HEIGHT TO MEET GRADE.
3. 4X8X12 BLOCKS AND (60) 2X8X12 CAPS
4.USE ADHESIVE (LIQUID NAILS TO GLUE BLOCKS TOGETHER
4" THICK CONCRETE BASE8"
RED PAVESTONE
CAP BLOCKS
RED PAVESTONE
WALL BLOCKS
9" X 12" X 4" THICK
INSTALL SILT FENCIHG
CONTR.TO INSTALL PVC SLEEVE
RE:DETAIL THIS SHEET
CONTR.TO INSTALL PVC SLEEVES
RE:DETAIL THIS SHEET
CONTR.TO INSTALL
PVC SLEEVE
CONTR.TO INSTALL
PVC SLEEVE,RE:DETAIL THIS SHEET
CONTR.TO INSTALL
EXIST.CONC.CURB
2 #3 REBARS,CONTINUOUS
EXIST.
WALL
PVC SLEEVE
Georgia K.Fitch Park
REMOVE EXIST.PARK SIGN
FOOTINGS,AND STEEL EDGING
INSTALL NEW SIGN RE:DETAIL
THIS SHEET
FITCH
PARK
FM 2
8
1
8
BAL
C
O
N
E
S
WELSHRIO
GRANDE
REMOVE EXIST.
SLAB & MOVE FOUNTAIN
EXTEND 3/4" PVC LINE,
DRAINLINE,& ADD BALL VALVE
10" VALVE BOX & CONC.SLAB
(AVAILABLE FROM
HOME DEPOT OR
LOWES)
INSTALL 4' X 4' CONC.SLAB
& PILOT ROCK TRASH CAN
INSTALL 4' X 4' CONC.SLAB
& PILOT ROCK TRASH CAN
ADD 1 ROW OF BLOCKS & 1 ROW
OF CAPS TO EXISTING WALL,30' LONG,(14" HT.)
PARK SIGN
RE:SPECIFICATIONS
RE:SPECIFICATIONS
SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS
DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND
BOTH SIDES OF WALKS
RE:SEEDING SPECS
PVC SLEEVE
TOP OF WALKS
TO BE 1" ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE
EXCAVATE 3-4"
PRIOR TO INSTALLING
CONCRETE
EXPANS.JOINTS
EXPANS.JOINTS
LOCATE WALK OUTSIDE OF WOODED AREA
MARK OUT WITH PARK PLANNERE
PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
& REPOUR 6' SIDE WALK
WALL TO BE
22" HT.MAX.
KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER
PHASE LINE
KC PROPCO,LLC.
MWM CORP.
PHASE SITE AREA=3.7 ACRES
TO MATCH EXIST.ON SITE
20" HT @ POINT TO TIE TO EXISTING
AND TAPER TO 6" HT.@ END OF WALL
16" HT AT TIE IN TO EXISTING
AND TAPER TO 6" AT END OF WALL BY EXPANS.JOINT
EXIST.SEAT WALL
FREESTANDING,16" HT.
ADD CAPS
INSTALL CAPS AT ALL WALLS
TOTAL PARK AREA (UP TO FM 2818)= 11.3 ACRES
11.3 ACRES
CUT HILL SLIGHTLY
CUT HILL SLIGHTLY
AUG.25,2011
GRADE VARIES
KEEP AT LEAST 1 BLOCK
& CAP ABOVE EXIST.GRADE
EXIST.
POWER
POLE
OVERHEAD HIGH TRANSMISSION
ELECTRICAL LINES
8'R
5'R
AND BREAKER PANEL
SIDEWALK SECTION
277 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION CROSS SLOPE
DIRECTION
CROSS SLOPE
DIRECTION
CROSS SLOPE
DIRECTION
CROSS SLOPE
DIRECTION
CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH TPDES PH II
REQUIREMENTS,AND SHALL SUBMIT COPY OF N.O.I.SENT IN TO TCEQ
TO THE CITY PRIOR TO RECEIVING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT CITY INSPECTOR TO INSPECT SIDEWALK
FORM FOR SLOPE CONFIRMATION PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE POUR.
L
SIDEWALK:
RUNNING SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 5%
CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE BETWEEN 1-2%
PLANS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE INSPECTED IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH TDLR
TAS CHAPTER 68
SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN IN
THIS AREA TO CONFIRM RUNNING SLOPE
DOES NOT EXCEED 5% MAX.
MINOR GRADING REQUIRED
E
RE:SIDEWALK RAMP DETAIL
EXIST.CURB CUT TO BE REPLACED WITH CURB & GUTTER.
CLEAN SAW CUT TO REMOVE ENTIRE GUTTER SECTIO,APPROX.10 LF.
INSTALL TYPICAL CURB& GUTTER WITH EXPANSION JOINTS & DOWELS
RE:SIDEWALK RAMP DETAIL
REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK AND CURBING AND
REPLACE WITH A NEW ADA RAMP
276 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
Oct. 3,2011
EXISTING 12" WATER MAIN
(3-4" EXCAVATION ?)
INSPECTION OF GRADES/FORMS REQUIRED BY CITY INSPECTOR
PRIOR TO POURS
122
February 23, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Annual Bid for Various Electrical Items and Electric Meters
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the annual agreement for
various electrical items and electric meters to be stored in inventory as follows: Stuart C. Irby $25,790.00
($21,700 to be decided in Tie-Break); HD Supply $1,600; KBS $156.147.10; Techline $790,691; Priester Mell
and Nicholson $76,852 ($21,700 to be decided in Tie-Break); Texas Meter & Device $7,438.80: Wesco $11,363;.
Total estimated annual expenditure is $1,048,181.90.
Recommendation(s): Recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications for an annual
estimated expenditures totaling $1,048,181.90.
I. Stuart C. Irby $ 25,790.00 ($21,700 to be decided in tie-breaker)
II. HD Supply $ 1,600.00
III. KBS Electric $156,147.10
IV. Techline $790,691.00
V. Priester Mell and Nicholson $ 76,852.00 ($21,700 to be decided in tie-breaker)
VI. Texas Meter & Device $ 7,438.80
VII. Wesco $ 11,363.00
Summary : These purchases will be made as needed during the term of the agreement. The various electrical
items and electric meters are maintained in Electrical Inventory in an inventory account and expensed as
necessary during the agreement period. The purchasing agreement period shall be for one (1) year with the option
to renew for two additional two (2) years.
The bid tabulation has resulted in two (2) bidders furnishing identical bids for one (1) of the S&C Wildlife Guards
items in Group H, Item H-2 both bid $217.00 ea. Local Government Code 271.901 "Procedure for Awarding
Contract if Municipality or District Receives Identical Bids" requires the governing body of the municipality to
enter into a contract with only one of the bidders, rejecting all other bids. If only one of the bidders submitting
identical bids is a resident of the municipality, the City must select that bidder; however, none of the bidders in
this case are local residents. The City must select from the identical bids by the casting of lots. The casting of lots
must be in a manner prescribed by the mayor and must be conducted in the presence of the Council. Line H-2
has an identical bid between Stuart C. Irby Co. and Priester Mell & Nicholson. The casting of lots is necessary
for this for one (1) item. All other items have a single apparent low bidder that staff is recommending award to.
Budget & Financial Summary: Nine (9) sealed, competitive bids were received and opened on February
2, 2012. Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Fund. Various projects may be expensed as supplies
are pulled from inventory and issued.
Attachments: Bid Tabulation #12-033
123
Succesful bid
Does not meet spec
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Unit Unit Total Total Total
Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Price Price Price Price Price Price
Group "A" Materials 15kV Underground Cable Accessories
Item No.Est. Qty Description Inv No.
A-1 40 ea Deadbreak T-OPII Connector 285-022-00036 Cooper 295.60$ 11,824.00$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 280.50$ 11,220.00$ Elastimold 260.00$ 10,400.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
A-2 75 ea Protective Cap 285-095-00004 Cooper 20.74$ 1,555.50$ Cooper 24.00$ 1,800.00$ Cooper 20.10$ 1,507.50$ Elastimold 18.70$ 1,402.50$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Richards Hibbell 21.41$ 21.36$ -$ 1,605.75$ 1,602.00$ -$
A-3 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow 285-082-00001 Cooper 24.27$ 4,854.00$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 23.60$ 4,720.00$ Elastimold 21.50$ 4,300.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Richards Hibbell 24.12$ 26.07$ 4,824.00$ 5,214.00$ -$
A-4 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow, Jacket Seal Type 285-082-______Cooper 32.32$ 6,464.00$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 29.85$ 5,970.00$ Elastimold 27.15$ 5,430.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Hibbel 32.31$ 6,462.00$ -$ -$
A-5 350 ea Loadbreak Bushing Insert 285-095-00006 Cooper 21.30$ 7,455.00$ Cooper 32.00$ 11,200.00$ Cooper 20.88$ 7,308.00$ Elastimold 19.00$ 6,650.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Richards Hibbell 33.72$ 23.41$ 11,802.00$ 8,193.50$ -$
A-6 15 ea Rotatable Two-Way Bushing Insert 285-095-00007 Cooper 104.80$ 1,572.00$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 99.44$ 1,491.60$ Elastimold 124.00$ 1,860.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Hibbel 143.25$ 2,148.75$ -$ -$
A-7 200 ea Elbow Cable Seal 285-082-00019 3M 8.17$ 1,634.00$ 3M 9.30$ 1,860.00$ 3M 8.98$ 1,796.00$ Elastimold 8.60$ 1,720.00$ 3M 9.80$ 1,960.00$ Canusa 8.00$ 1,600.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Richards Hibbell 3M 13.88$ 14.68$ 10.04$ 2,776.00$ 2,936.00$ 2,008.00$
A-8 75 ea Elbow Arrester 285-082-00005 Maclean 63.77$ 4,782.75$ MaClean 61.00$ 4,575.00$ Cooper 64.13$ 4,809.75$ Elastimold 59.00$ 4,425.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Hibbel MaClean 63.67$ 66.02$ 4,775.25$ 4,951.50$ -$
A-9 30 ea Parking Stand Arrester 285-082-00022 Cooper 162.84$ 4,885.20$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 152.80$ 4,584.00$ Elastimold 170.00$ 5,100.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$
A-10 50 ea Cable Terminator Cold Shrink Type 285-082-00010 3M 99.84$ 4,992.00$ 3M 103.00$ 5,150.00$ 3M 97.80$ 4,890.00$ 3M 94.15$ 4,707.50$ 3M 107.95$ 5,397.50$ Canusa 45.50$ 2,275.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 3M 110.53$ 5,526.50$ -$ -$
A-11 100 ea Cable Terminator 285-082-00003 Elastimold 40.90$ 4,090.00$ 3M 54.00$ 5,400.00$ 3M 52.19$ 5,219.00$ Elastimold 41.50$ 4,150.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$
A-12 250 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector 285-008-00007 Utilco 10.27$ 2,567.50$ Polaris 11.00$ 2,750.00$ CMC 9.44$ 2,360.00$ CMC 9.75$ 2,437.50$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Utilco 9.96$ 2,490.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$
A-13 100 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector 285-008-00008 Utilco 16.75$ 1,675.00$ Polaris 16.00$ 1,600.00$ Homal 16.30$ 1,630.00$ Thomas & Betts 18.25$ 1,825.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Utilco 16.40$ 1,640.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$
A-14 250 ea Gelport Insulated Secondary Connector 285-008-00012 Tyco 39.07$ 9,767.50$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Tyco 35.88$ 8,970.00$ Tyco 34.90$ 8,725.00$ Tyco 35.35$ 8,837.50$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Tyco 42.98$ 10,745.00$ -$ -$
A-15 40 ea Inline Splice 285-076-00002 3M 23.84$ 953.60$ 3M 23.70$ 948.00$ 3M 23.08$ 923.20$ 3M 22.00$ 880.00$ 3M 24.98$ 999.20$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 3M 25.58$ 1,023.20$ -$ -$
A-16 30 ea Inline Splice 285-076-00007 3M 297.35$ 8,920.50$ 3M 304.50$ 9,135.00$ 3M 288.00$ 8,640.00$ 3M 282.00$ 8,460.00$ 3M 317.62$ 9,528.60$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 3M 328.83$ 9,864.90$ -$ -$
A-17 50 ea Splice Re-jacketing Kit, cold shrink type 285-076-00005 3m 45.21$ 2,260.50$ 3M 46.00$ 2,300.00$ 3M 44.36$ 2,218.00$ 3M 43.00$ 2,150.00$ 3M 48.52$ 2,426.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 3M 49.67$ 2,483.50$ -$ -$
A-18 50 ea Underground Faulted Circuit Indicator 285-111-00002 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 Fisher Pierce 159.60$ 7,980.00$ SEL 127.00$ 6,350.00$ SEL 131.25$ 6,562.50$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid -$ -$ -$
Group A Total 80,253.05$ 46,718.00$ 86,237.05$ 80,972.50$ $35,711.30 8,005.00$ 64,036.85$ 22,897.00$ 2,008.00$
Group "B" Materials - Pad-mount Enclosure Junction Boxes & Pull Boxes
B-1 15 ea Pull Box, 36x60x48 285-045-00007 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR 972.00$ 14,580.00$ CDR 925.00$ 13,875.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR $1,056.09 $15,841.35
B-2 20 ea Pull Box , 48x96x48 285-045-00008 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR 2,610.00$ 52,200.00$ CDR 2,450.00$ 49,000.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR $2,821.70 $56,434.00
B-3 12 ea Pull Box Extension 24" for 48x96x48 285-045-00012 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR 1,746.00$ 20,952.00$ CDR 1,495.00$ 17,940.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR $1,864.25 $22,371.00
B-4 80 ea Secondary Pedestal 285-045-00009 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR 98.60$ 7,888.00$ CDR 94.50$ 7,560.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR $103.72 $8,297.60
B-5 5 ea Torsion Assist Lids 285-045-_____No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR 3,720.00$ 18,600.00$ CDR 3,500.00$ 17,500.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 CDR $4,203.74 $21,018.70
Group B Total $0.00 $0.00 114,220.00$ 105,875.00$ $0.00 $0.00 $123,962.65
Group "C" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00003 G&W 30,182.29$ 60,364.58$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 25,700.00$ 51,400.00$ G & W 29,566.00$ 59,132.00$ G & W 30,500.00$ 61,000.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Trayer $34,375.00 68,750.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-1 Alt 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 36,031.25$ 72,062.50$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 35,295.00$ 70,590.00$ 36,410.00$ 72,820.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 -$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-2 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00004 G&W 26,927.00$ 26,927.00$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 23,912.00$ 23,912.00$ G & W 26,377.00$ 26,377.00$ G & W 27,210.00$ 27,210.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Trayer $29,799.00 29,799.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-2 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel 32,776.04$ 32,776.04$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 32,100.00$ 32,100.00$ 33,121.00$ 33,121.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 -$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-3 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00005 G&W 30,229.17$ 30,229.17$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 39,829.00$ 39,829.00$ G & W 29,570.00$ 29,570.00$ G & W 30,547.00$ 30,547.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Trayer $34,568.00 34,568.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
c-3 Alt 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 30,229.17$ 30,229.17$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 35,300.00$ 35,300.00$ 36,457.00$ 36,457.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 -$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-4 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-_____G&W 40,770.84$ 40,770.84$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 35,009.00$ 35,009.00$ G & W 39,900.00$ 39,900.00$ G & W 41,200.00$ 41,200.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Trayer $44,453.00 44,453.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-4 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel 47,947.94$ 47,947.94$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 46,790.00$ 46,790.00$ 48,452.00$ 48,452.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 -$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Group C Total 341,307.24$ $0.00 150,150.00$ 339,759.00$ 350,807.00$ $0.00
Group "C-1A tp C-4A" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00008 G &W 39,257.30$ 78,514.60$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 26,383.00$ 52,766.00$ Elastimold 32,790.00$ 65,580.00$ G & W 39,670.00$ 79,340.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-2A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00009 G &W 35,354.17$ 70,708.34$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 23,986.00$ 47,972.00$ Elastimold 30,076.00$ 60,152.00$ G & W 35,726.00$ 71,452.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-3A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00010 G &W 40,333.84$ 80,667.68$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 41,392.00$ 82,784.00$ Elastimold 32,790.00$ 65,580.00$ G & W 40,757.00$ 81,514.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
C-4A 1 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-_____G &W 69,244.79$ 69,244.79$ No bid $0.00 $0.00 Cooper 36,446.00$ 36,446.00$ Elastimold 60,300.00$ 60,300.00$ G & W 69,973.00$ 69,973.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Total Group CA 299,135.41$ $0.00 219,968.00$ 251,612.00$ 302,279.00$ $0.00
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Unit Unit Total Total Total
Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Price Price Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Price Price Price Price Price Price
Group "D" - Powder Coated Steel Street Light Poles
D-1 15 ea Streetlight Pole, 37.5 ft.285-065-00004 Millerbernd 2,150.00$ 32,250.00$ Valmont 2,432.00$ 36,480.00$ Valmont 2,324.00$ 34,860.00$ Hapco 1,575.00$ 23,625.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont 2,594.00$ 38,910.00$
D-2 35 ea Streetlight Pole, 45 ft.285-065-00005 Millerbernd 2,397.00$ 83,895.00$ Valmont 2,980.00$ 104,300.00$ Valmont 2,927.00$ 102,445.00$ Hapco 1,720.00$ 60,200.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont 3,267.00$ ###########
D-3 30 ea Streetlight Pole, 35 ft.285-065-00014 Millerbernd 1,284.00$ 38,520.00$ Valmont 1,360.00$ 40,800.00$ Valmont 1,348.00$ 40,440.00$ Hapco 1,111.00$ 33,330.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont 1,490.69$ 44,720.70$
D-4 25 ea Breakaway Base 285-065-00021 Millerbernd 496.46$ 12,411.50$ Valmont 414.00$ 10,350.00$ Valmont 424.00$ 10,600.00$ Hapco 379.00$ 9,475.00$ Utiliti Metals 431.00$ 10,775.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont 440.69$ 11,017.25$
Total Group D 167,076.50$ 191,930.00$ 188,345.00$ 126,630.00$ $10,775.00 $0.00 ###########
Group E - Lamps & Light Fixtures
E-1 100 ea Light Fixture, 100 watt 285-056-00011 Cooper 103.15$ 10,315.00$ GE 112.00$ 11,200.00$ Amer. Elect 86.57$ 8,657.00$ Amer. Elect 86.55$ 8,655.00$ Cooper 105.50$ 10,550.00$ GE #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper 109.41$ 10,941.00$
E-2 100 ea Light Fixture, 200 watt 285-056-00006 Cooper 116.84$ 11,684.00$ GE 126.00$ 12,600.00$ Amer. Elect 98.80$ 9,880.00$ Amer. Elect 98.85$ 9,885.00$ Cooper 119.25$ 11,925.00$ GE #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper 123.65$ 12,365.00$
E-3 100 ea Light Fixture, 400 watt 285-056-00007 Cooper 140.29$ 14,029.00$ GE 177.00$ 17,700.00$ Amer. Elect 135.27$ 13,527.00$ Amer. Elect 135.20$ 13,520.00$ Cooper 143.25$ 14,325.00$ GE #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper 148.47$ 14,847.00$
E-4 40 ea Decorative Light Fixture, 100 w 285-056-00008 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Hadco 990.00$ 39,600.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
E-5 20 ea Decorative Light Fixture, LED 285-056-_____No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Hadco 1,610.00$ 32,200.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Group E Total 36,028.00$ 41,500.00$ 32,064.00$ 103,860.00$ 36,800.00$ ##########
Group F - Crossarm Braces
F-1 60 ea HD Dead End 8'285-047-00088 MacLean 202.15$ 12,129.00$ Aluma Form 192.00$ 11,520.00$ PUPI 184.00$ 11,040.00$ Shakespeare 187.00$ 11,220.00$ PUPI 198.75$ 11,925.00$ PUPI #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Alumaform Maclean 205.88 221.18 12,352.80$ 13,270.80$ -$
F-2 150 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 8'285-047-00093 MacLean 99.75$ 14,962.50$ Aluma Form 94.00$ 14,100.00$ PUPI 78.25$ 11,737.50$ Shakespeare 87.00$ 13,050.00$ PUPI 81.75$ 12,262.50$ PUPI #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Alumaform Maclean 101.05 108.23 15,157.50$ 16,234.50$ -$
F-3 100 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 10'285-047-00094 MacLean 102.75$ 10,275.00$ Aluma Form 114.00$ 11,400.00$ PUPI 90.74$ 9,074.00$ Shakespeare 107.00$ 10,700.00$ PUPI 95.00$ 9,500.00$ PUPI #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Alumaform Maclean 122.1 108.23 12,210.00$ 10,823.00$ -$
F-4 20 ea HD Deadend 10'285-047-00099 MacLean 247.00$ 4,940.00$ Aluma Form 211.00$ 4,220.00$ PUPI 211.70$ 4,234.00$ Shakespeare 207.00$ 4,140.00$ PUPI 221.00$ 4,420.00$ PUPI #######5,520.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Alumaform Maclean 228 221.18 4,560.00$ 4,423.60$ -$
Group F Total 42,306.50$ 41,240.00$ 36,085.50$ 39,110.00$ 38,107.50$ ##########44,280.30$ 44,751.90$
Croup G - Meter Sockets
G-1 60 ea Meter Socket, Overhead, 200 amp 285-063-00003 Milbank 29.17$ 1,750.20$ Milbank 30.00$ 1,800.00$ Milbank 27.65$ 1,659.00$ Durham 33.25$ 1,995.00$ Milbank 31.00$ 1,860.00$ Milbank 29.40$ 1,764.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Durham 33.60$ 2,016.00$
G-2 400 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp 285-063-00004 Milbank 34.39$ 13,756.00$ Milbank 36.00$ 14,400.00$ Milbank 34.40$ 13,760.00$ Durham 45.25$ 18,100.00$ Milbank 37.60$ 15,040.00$ Milbank 34.38$ ##########No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Durham 44.98$ 17,992.00$
G-3 25 ea Meter Socket, URD or O/H, 320 amp 285-063-00006 Milbank 156.07$ 3,901.75$ Milbank 152.00$ 3,800.00$ Milbank 143.00$ 3,575.00$ Durham 167.85$ 4,196.25$ Milbank 157.75$ 3,943.75$ Milbank #######3,725.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Durham 167.43$ 4,185.75$
G-4 25 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp 285-063-00008 Milbank 97.27$ 2,431.75$ Milbank 96.00$ 2,400.00$ Milbank 92.00$ 2,300.00$ Durham 123.35$ 3,083.75$ Milbank 100.55$ 2,513.75$ Milbank 95.00$ 2,375.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Durham 123.17$ 3,079.25$
G-5 25 ea Meter Socket Bases, 13 Terminal 285-063-00011 Milbank 165.69$ 4,142.25$ Milbank 161.00$ 4,025.00$ Milbank 153.00$ 3,825.00$ Durham 160.20$ 4,005.00$ Milbank 169.25$ 4,231.25$ Milbank #######4,000.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Durham 160.16$ 4,004.00$
G-6 10 ea Meter Socket, Duplex Type 285-063-00013 Milbank 152.10$ 1,521.00$ Milbank 146.00$ 1,460.00$ Milbank 140.10$ 1,401.00$ Durham 124.15$ 1,241.50$ Milbank 153.75$ 1,537.50$ Milbank #######1,450.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Group G Total 27,502.95$ 27,885.00$ 26,520.00$ 32,621.50$ 29,126.25$ ##########31,277.00$
Croup H - Miscellaneous Materials
H-1 72 ea Pole Setting Foam 285-065-00019 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 BMK 79.00$ 5,688.00$ Gra Servcices 73.50$ 5,292.00$ BMK 81.75$ 5,886.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 Poly-set 70.00$ 5,040.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
H-2 100 ea S&C Wildlife Guards 285-102-00003 S&C 217.00$ $21,700.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 S&C 219.00$ 21,900.00$ S&C 235.00$ 23,500.00$ No Bid $0.00 $0.00 S&C #################No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Group H Total $21,700.00 5,688.00$ 27,192.00$ 29,386.00$ $0.00 ##########
Group I - Meters
I-1 1000 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 no Demand 285-061-00064 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 27.50$ 27,500.00$ Itron 22.80$ ##########Landis+Gyr 23.85$ ##########No Bid $0.00 Vision Vision Metering 38.83$ 60.51$ 38,830.00$ 60,510.00$
I-2 100 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00058 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 151.25$ 15,125.00$ Itron #################Landis+Gyr #################No Bid $0.00 Elster 113.63$ 11,363.00$ -$
I-3 20 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand 285-061-00008 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 275.50$ 5,510.00$ Itron #######2,600.00$ Landis+Gyr 94.10$ 1,882.00$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 125.84$ 2,516.80$ -$
I-4 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand 285-061-00005 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 304.75$ 12,190.00$ Itron #######5,200.00$ Landis+Gyr 94.10$ 3,764.00$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 126.97$ 5,078.80$ -$
I-5 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand 285-061-00050 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 151.25$ 6,050.00$ Itron #######5,200.00$ Landis+Gyr #######5,506.00$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 147.72$ 5,908.80$ -$
I-6 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00052 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 151.25$ 6,050.00$ Itron #######5,200.00$ Landis+Gyr #######5,506.00$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 147.72$ 5,908.80$ -$
I-7 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand 285-061-00060 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 160.25$ 1,923.00$ Itron #######2,016.00$ Landis+Gyr #######1,792.80$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 170.00$ 2,040.00$ -$
I-8 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00056 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No bid $0.00 $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00 GE 160.25$ 1,923.00$ Itron #######1,560.00$ Landis+Gyr #######1,651.80$ No Bid $0.00 Elster 161.36$ 1,936.32$ -$
Group I Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 76,271.00$ ####################
ü Adden 1 only
Wesco
ü
Trayer
Trayer Wesco
ü
Texas Meter & Device
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Priester Mell & Nicholson Texas Meter & Device Techline TEC
Note: Items B-1 through B-5 Freight allowed on 6000.00
Combined shipments.
Note: Valmont freight allowed on 11,000.00 orders only
Note: H-1 25# Kit Part a & Part B in same bucket
ü
ü
HD Supply KBS Electric
Acknowledged Addendums 1 & 2
Delivery Date (Calendar Days)Base Bid
ü
ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR VARIOUS ELECTRICAL ITEMS
BID TABULATION #12-033 - OPENED THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 @ 2:00PM
ELECTRICAL
Estimated Annual Quantities
ü
TEC Priester Mell & Nicholson
ü
Stuart C. Irby Co HD Supply KBS Electric Techline
Certification of Bid
Stuart C. Irby Co
124
February 23, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Rock Prairie Road West Right-of-Way Project (ST1025)
Resolution Determining Need
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a
Resolution determining the public necessity to acquire right-of-way and easements along
Rock Prairie Road West, between State Highway 6 and Normand Drive.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Improving Mobility – Plan for infrastructure necessary to
meet projected growth and physical development. Provide complete streets that
accommodate vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution.
Summary: Included in the 2008 Bond Election is a project to acquire additional right-of-
way (ROW) along Rock Prairie Road, west of State Highway 6. The intent is to secure the
ROW needed for additional travel lanes along Rock Prairie Road West, so that the City can
proceed with design and construction of the necessary improvements along the corridor to
complement the new grade separation at State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road, currently
in design.
Additional ROW and adjacent easements are required for the widening of the roadway and
the installation of medians, multi-use paths and other improvements on Rock Prairie Road,
between State Highway 6 and Normand Drive. The widening of the road is anticipated to
alleviate traffic congestion, while the installation of medians and pathways will allow for
improved safety and pedestrian mobility which is anticipated to increase as the College
Station Medical District develops. Approval of this Resolution will allow the City’s Land
Agent to begin negotiations for the purchase of the needed ROW and easements.
Budget & Financial Summary: The current budget for the Rock Prairie Road West ROW
Project is $740,000. Funding for this project is from the 2008 general obligation bond
authorization. Funds in the amount of $108,967.56 have been expended or committed to
date, leaving a balance of $631,032.44 for remaining ROW purchases and related expenses.
This project budget is for land acquisition only. Funds for construction are not currently
budgeted.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Determining Need with Exhibit “A”
2. Project Map
125
126
127
128
129
130
LONGMIRE DR
ROCK PRAIRIE RDF
R
O
N
T
A
G
E 6
R
D
L
O
N
G
LE
AF C
R
N
OR
MA
N
D
D
R
BLU
E
STE
M C
RPONDEROSA DRL
O
D
G
E
P
O
LE C
R
BIRMINGHAM RDOFFRAMP 6E
A
R
L R
U
D
D
E
R F
W
Y
GRAMMA CTE
A
R
L R
U
D
D
E
R
F
W
Y
Rock Prairie Road West ROW Project Map
¯Project Limits Acquisition Limits
131