HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 3
Consent No. 2a - Minutes
Coversheet revised 7
July 25 Special Workshop 8
July 26 Workshop 12
July 26 Regular 19
Consent No. 2b - Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, General
Provisions, Section 29 of the Code of Ordinances Removing
References to City Cemetery Committee and its Duties
Coversheet revised 24
Parks - cemetery committee ordinance SIGNED 25
Consent No. 2c - Community Development PY 2012 (FY 2013)
Action Plan and Budget
Coversheet updated 28
Resolution 29
Proposed Budget 30
Plan Development Process 31
Public Service Funding 32
Public Facility Funding 33
CD Goals 34
Final Comments and Revisions 36
Consent No. 2d - Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control Construction
Contract
Coversheet revised 37
Resolution 38
Bid Tab 39
Project Map 40
Consent No. 2e - Call Public Hearing on FY 12 - FY 13
Proposed Budget
Coversheet revised 41
Consent No. 2f - Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project
Design Contract Change Order #3
Coversheet revised 42
Change Order #3 for Bleyl & Associates 43
Consent No. 2g - Renewal of Annual Service Agreement for
Auto Paint & Body Repairs
Coversheet revised 44
Signed Renewal Acceptance 45
Consent No. 2h - Street Sweeping Services - Rejection of
Request for Proposal No. 12-071
Coversheet revised 46
Regular No. 1 - Lick Creek Greenway Trail Project Update
Coversheet revised 47
Project Location Map 48
1
Regular No. 2 - Project Number PW1201 Conference Center
Evaluation
Coversheet revised 49
Regular No. 3 - Ordering November Election
Coversheet Updated 50
Regular No. 4 - Public Hearing on UDO Amendment for Park
Land Dedication Land and Development Fees
Coversheet revised 52
Proposed Calculations 53
Redline Version 56
Parks Board Minutes 57
P&Z Minutes 60
Ordinance 62
Regular No. 5 - Public Hearing on Sidewalks – UDO
Amendment and Policy Discussion
Coversheet revised 65
BPG Minutes 68
P&Z Minutes 69
Red-Line Version of Ord 71
Ordinance 75
Regular No. 6 - Public Hearing on 5-ft Public Utility Easement
Abandonment – 317, 319 & 321 Redmond Drive
Coversheet revised 80
Vicnity Map 81
Location Map 82
Ordinance 83
Ordinance Exhibit 85
Regular No. 7 - Report of the City Council Ad Hoc Committee
for Compensation and Benefits
Coversheet revised 87
2
Mayor
Nancy Berry
Mayor Pro Tern
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, August 09,2012 at 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance, 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
At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Consent Agenda Item. Individuals
who wish to address the City Council on a consent 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.
2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists 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:
July 25,2012 Special Workshop
July 26,2012 Workshop
July 26, 2012 Regular Council Meeting
b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Chapter 1. General Provisions, Section 29 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas will be amended as set out in Exhibit "A",
removing references to the City Cemetery Committee and its duties, and transferring those duties and
responsibilities to the City Manager or his delegate.
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, August 9,20 12
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution adopting the
Community Development PY 2012 (FY 2013) Action Plan and Budget.
d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to award the construction contract for the Wolf Pen Creek
Erosion Control Project (SD-1102) to Dudley Construction, Ltd. in the amount of $194,298.40.
e. Presentation, possible action and discussion on calling a public hearing on the City of College Station
2012-2013 Proposed Budget for Thursday August 23, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council
Chambers.
f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion for a change order to Contract #09-153 with Bleyl &
Associates for the Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project in the form of a deduction of $5 1.271.54.
g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the renewal of a service contract with Cal's Body
Shop for annual autonlobile and truck paint and body repairs in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00.
h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Street Sweeping Services and the rejection of
Request for Proposal No. 12-07 1.
Regular Agenda
At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Regular Agenda Item. 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. Registration forms are available in the
lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary.
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
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 conlnlents 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 regarding the Lick Creek Greenway Trail Project.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a report related to the Conference Center provided by
Hawkins Architecture under Professional Service Contract 12-232.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance ordering a General and Special Election to
be held on 1Vovelnber 6, 2012 for the purpose of electing a City Council Member, Place 4, a City
Council Member, Place 6, and to submit proposed amendments to the City Charter to the voters;
establishing early voting locations and polling places for this election; and making provisions for
conducting the election. (Presentacion, posible acci6n y discusion acerca de una ordenanza que ordene
Elecciones Generales y Especiales a celebrarse el 6 de noviembre de 201 2 con el proposito de elegir un
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, August 9,20 12
Miembro del Consejo de la Ciudad, Puesto Numero 4, un Miembro del Consejo de la Ciudad, Puesto
Numero 6, y para presentarles a 10s votantes las enmiendas propuestas a 10s Estatutos de la Ciudad;
estableciendo 10s sitios de votaciones anticipadas y 10s centros de votaciones para estas elecciones; y
elaborando las provisiones para llevar a cab0 las elecciones.)
4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter
12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 8.7, Appendix I "Park Land Dedication and
Development Fees" of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College Station, Texas.
5. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Chapter
12, "Unified Development Ordinance", Section 8.2.K "Sidewalks" of the Code of Ordinance of the City
of College Station, Texas.
6. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving an ordinance vacating and
abandoning a 995.6 square foot, 5-foot wide public utility easement, which is located on Lots 9, 10 & 11
of Block 3 of the Redmond Terrace, First Installment Subdivision according to the plat recorded in
Volume 188, Page 295 of-the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a report from the City Council Ad Hoc
Committee for Compensation and Benefits.
8. Adjourn.
If litigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held.
APPROVED:
City Manager ['
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, August 09, 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.
Posted this 3rd day of August, 2012 at 5.00 p.m.
Mh
City ~ecretafj)
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, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,
www.cstx.~ov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice
and Agenda were posted on August 3, 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
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9.20 12
Dated this day of ,2012 By
Page 4
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of ,2012.
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.~ov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
August 9, 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:
· July 25, 2012 Special Workshop
· July 26, 2012 Workshop
· July 26, 2012 Regular Council Meeting
Attachments:
· July 25, 2012 Special Workshop
· July 26, 2012 Workshop
· July 26, 2012 Regular Council Meeting
7
SM072512 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
JULY 25, 2012
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields, absent
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles, arrived at 4:15 p.m.
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
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Special Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:12 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in the Council Chambers
of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation and discussion of results of a formal College Station Citizen Survey recently
commissioned by the City Manager's Office.
Jay Socol, Director of Public Communications, reported the last survey done in College Station
was in 2005. The purpose of the citizen assessment study was to identify key measures of
quality of life, public safety and service delivery. The input from citizens will assist the City
Council in resource allocation, budget and policy decisions.
Colin Killian, Public Communications Office, reported on how the study was conducted and the
data collected. The sampling plan included a mailed survey to 8,000 households proportionately
distributed within four geographic areas. Households had the option of completing the mailed
8
SM072512 Minutes Page 2
survey or completing the survey online via the City website. A total of 342 responses were
received via the mailed survey and 511 from the online survey. The margin of error of this
sample size (853) at a 95% confidence level is plus or minus 3.4%. Colin then presented
detailed survey tables. Providing public safety (police, fire) received the highest
importance/quality ratings for City services, followed closely by street and road maintenance.
Service prioritization indicates the City will need to maintain spending for public safety,
managing trash and recycling, providing pathways (sidewalks, trails), and maintaining the
appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities. Additional dollars may be required for
maintaining streets/roads, attracting businesses and jobs, managing traffic congestion, enforcing
traffic laws, programs to retain/support existing businesses, managing storm water drainage, and
code enforcement services.
Key findings related to quality of life indicate that 92% of respondents are very or somewhat
likely to recommend College Station as a place to live. When asked what they valued most from
living in College Station, respondents listed:
· 25% - Small town feel but has quality services of a larger city (entertainment, cultural,
religious, etc.)
· 23% - Friendly people, family friendly, good quality of life
· 20% - Quality education opportunities (schools, Texas A&M University), college
atmosphere, proximity to TAMU
· 15% - Safety, low crime.
Regarding what type of retail/commercial development is desired, respondents answered:
· 17% - More up-scale retail/restaurants including specialty retail and better diversity of
sit-down restaurants
· 13% - Attract businesses - technology, manufacturing, health care and light industry
business to new commercial/office developments
· 13% - Retail “Village” or “Town Center” type retail with entertainment and leisure
venues that is family friendly (including a “downtown” College Station utilizing a mixed
use concept).
In answer to “If you could change one thing about College Station”, 17% of the respondents
replied they would like to see traffic congestion addressed, stricter traffic laws, and to bring back
red light cameras.
About half (58%) of respondents reported they have had contact with a city employee in the past
12 months. Of those, a majority (89%) of respondents who had contact with a city employee
said their courtesy, knowledge and responsiveness was excellent or good. One third of
respondents feel crime in College Station is decreasing or staying the same. However, half
(51%) of respondents feel crime in College Station is increasing.
A majority of respondents prefer to utilize multiple methods to get information about local city
government. The three most important methods of communication were the local newspaper,
local TV stations, and the City website. 27% of responses praised the City’s communication
efforts and feel they do an outstanding job. 14% saw the need for an email newsletter with
voluntary sign up with information on past/future events.
9
SM072512 Minutes Page 3
On a four-star value rating, 80% of respondents rated College Station a “3” value or higher,
which is comparable to cities of similar size. More than one-third (37%) rated College Station a
value of “4”.
Respondent demographics indicate survey respondents are highly educated. 78% have completed
college or have a graduate or advanced degree. 81% of respondents live in single-family homes,
while the remaining respondents live in an apartment, town home, apartment or duplex.
Conclusions drawn from the survey indicate that College Station, as a city and community, is
highly valued by its residents with regard to quality of life, quality of City services, the direction
the City is headed as a community, and the overall value of services for the tax dollars they pay.
Residents value College Station most because it is a clean, progressive, quiet and safe
community with an abundance of core services while maintaining the small town feel. The top
priorities with which the City should continue emphasis (as rated by the citizens) includes public
safety, managing trash and recycling, providing pathways (sidewalks, trails), and maintaining
appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities. Citizens rated several areas for improvement,
such as maintaining streets and roads, attracting businesses and jobs, managing traffic
congestion, enforcing traffic laws, etc. Citizens rated other services as less important and
needing less emphasis, such as providing a variety of recreation programs, special events, and
library services.
No action was required by Council.
3. Presentation, possible action. and discussion regarding the Council's Strategic Plan
(2012).
Bob Cowell, Executive Director of Development Services, presented this item as a mid-year
review. The vision was established through multi-year Comprehensive Planning effort through a
community vision, indentifying the type of College Station we want now and into the future. He
briefly reviewed the Council’s Mission Statement and six key initiatives. He reminded Council
that last year we reset the planning calendar so that the retreat and strategic plan update would
occur prior to the budget preparation by staff. This adjustment means that even though we have
talked quite a bit about the strategic plan, we are working with the same plan for a longer time
than will be the case going forward. Under the revised schedule, January/February will be when
the retreat and update occur. May will be when the Departments update their business/service
plans in anticipation of budget submittals. July will serve as the mid-year review before heading
into budget workshops. August will be budget workshops; the City Manager’s budget is built
around the strategic direction provided by Council at its retreat, and the Budget will be approved
in September. Quarterly reports on the strategic plan will be provided by the City Manager with
the focus on performance measures, which also are being updated. Bob then provided some
examples of some of the strategies/actions that have been initiated or completed based on the
plan to demonstrate the link of these actions to the plan as a real guide to what actually gets
done. There are still a few items pending, and one or two that have not been discussed at all,
such as cost recovery policies.
10
SM072512 Minutes Page 4
Staff requested affirmation from the Council that the plan is accurate and is working. The
Budget (based on this plan) will come forward in August, and then we will move to department
plans. In January, we will have more in-depth discussions of the strategic plan update.
No action was required from Council.
4. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.074-Personnel, City Council convened
into Executive Session at 4:25 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in order to continue discussing
matters pertaining to:
A. Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal of a public officer; to wit:
· City Manager
The Executive Session adjourned at approximately 5:35 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2012.
No action was required from Executive Session.
5. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Special Workshop of
the College Station City Council at approximately 5:38 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2012.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
11
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
JULY 26, 2012
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields, absent
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
1. 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 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the
City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney,
§551.072-Real Estate, and §551.087-Economic Incentive Negotiations, the College Station City
Council convened into Executive Session at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2012 in order to
continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
12
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 2
· 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 a1 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. 11-0025 16-
CV-272, in the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
· Patricia Kahlden, individ. and as rep. of the Estate of Lillie May Williams Bayless v.
Laura Sue Streigler, City of College Station and James Steven Elkins, No. 1 1-003172-
CV-272,in the 272'IdDistrict Court of Brazos County, Tx.
· Claim and potential litigation related to a June 24, 201 1 collision with a city vehicle.
B. Deliberation on the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property; to wit:
· Property located generally northwest of the intersection of First Street and Church
Avenue in College Station.
C. Deliberation on commercial or financial information that the City Council has received from
a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the city;
to wit:
· Administrative Services in College Station Business Park
· Behavioral healthcare facility
The Executive Session adjourned at 5:52 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2012.
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
No action was required from Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
No items were pulled.
5. Presentation and discussion regarding an update on the Economic Development Master
Plan.
Steve Spillett and Lawrence Stein, with CDS Spillett Market Research, presented an overview of
the Economic Development Master Plan general process. Phase One: Base Analysis and
Existing Conditions addressed economic and demographic trends and sector overviews. Phase
Two: Evaluation of Opportunities and Constraints will addressed a survey of area businesses;
economic development organization, policies, and incentives; and entertainment districts and
redevelopment. Phase Three: Goals and Strategies will be led and authored by staff, with the
advice of consultants.
Data gathered during the research process was obtained from the Census, the American
Community Survey, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
13
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 3
among others. Interviews were conducted with business owners and bankers, economic
development organizations, tourism organizations, and commercial real estate professionals.
Opportunities and advantages include the TAMU graduate stream, the City’s infrastructure and
public services, College Station ISD’s reputation, the affordable cost for a good suburban
lifestyle, the quality of life for families and older residents, and the active pursuit of targeted
industries, especially knowledge-based industries. Challenges and barriers were identified as: a
limited commercial air service, a large stock of older multi-family housing, the larger metros’
appeal to new graduates and young adults seeking career path opportunities, the energy industry
consolidation in Houston, budget risks for publicly-sponsored ventures, and there is no real cost-
of-living advantage over the suburbs of large metropolitan areas. Additional challenges include
the relatively small size of the “adult market” to offset the impact of the student population,
travel is necessary for destination-quality retail and culture, and the possible trade-offs for high
development standards.
Our fastest-growing industries are restaurants/bars and the health care industry. There is a
significant dependence on the government/public sector, and our unemployment rate is lower
than Texas overall. There has been a 38.2% increase in population from 2000 to 2010. Over
30% have higher education levels. There is a concentration of affluent older households, with
38% of the households headed by individuals age 25 or older with an income of $75,000 or
more. 82.8% of the metro-area residents within the life, physical, or social science occupations
live in College Station. The pay for most occupation categories is lower than the state average.
Retail and commercial is experiencing a small spending recovery at the gross level, but the
spending per capita is remarkably low. There is some question as to whether there is an internet
sales threat, and there is regional competition. There is some potential for increased “adult”
retail, and we have relatively high lease rates.
As for office/industrial uses, the demand for space is stagnant or declining. In the long term, as
the population grows, there will probably be incremental growth for local professional services.
For industrial uses, employment growth has stopped since the recession, with facilities focusing
in Bryan.
Healthcare and wellness continues to be a significant part of the local economy with 20% of the
job base in the greater Brazos Valley region. Job growth for 2008-2018 is projected to be 30%.
College Station residents have a high rate of insurance coverage, attracting health care uses.
Some of the new facilities and entities include HSC, Scott and White, and the MED campus.
Technology is part of the economic development focus though it is still a small part of our
economy. Biosciences are the most visible, and digital/software developers are more under the
radar. Staffing recruitment challenges include competition with major metro areas and the
research vs. commercialization experience.
Hospitality and entertainment has been impacted by the recession. There is a change in the types
of organizations coming to College Station; facilities are limited for meetings, and there is major
competition from larger metro areas. The leisure tourism market revolves around TAMU and
amateur sporting events. There is potential for non-student entertainment.
14
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 4
We have a large number of government and higher education employers in area; nearly 20% of
the populace is employed in education, training, and library occupations. Per the Texas
Workforce Commission, the state government is the largest industry by employment in
Bryan/College Station area.
Construction and development has a sizable employment sector. Permitting ranges from
$200,000,000 to $500,000,000 valuation annually, and significant land exists in and near the
City. Annual gross sales of goods related to construction ranged from $60,000,000 to
$110,000,000 in the period from 2002 to 2011.
The Council recessed the Workshop at 7:02 p.m. in order to open the Regular Council meeting
on time.
The Council reconvened the Workshop at 7:36 p.m.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor's
Payroll Policies and Procedures Audit.
Ty Elliot, Internal Auditor, presented his findings in the Payroll Policies and Procedures Audit.
Over 25,000 paychecks for $40 million are processed by the City each year to pay over 1,000
full-time, part-time, and seasonal City employees. Therefore, a comprehensive payroll audit was
conducted from March through May 2012. The audit report had three main areas of findings: (1)
ghost employees, (2) information systems, and (3) sick leave.
One of the first areas investigated were ghost employee schemes. Ghost employees are
individuals listed in the payroll register, who are not providing services, but who are receiving a
payroll check. In order for a ghost employee scheme to work, three things must happen: (1) the
ghost must be added to the payroll, (2) timekeeping and wage rate information must be collected,
and (3) a paycheck must be issued to the ghost and the check must be delivered to the perpetrator
or an accomplice. No evidence of fraud was found; however, a risk was found when a ghost
could be added to the payroll. When an employee ends employment, the HR department relies
upon the departing employee, or the departing employee’s department, to inform the City of the
departure. In addition, the process of timely removing employees from the payroll is not always
effective. For example, 97 employees were found who remained on the payroll for an average of
526 days after receiving their final paycheck. Manual timekeeping processes and practices allow
some department supervisors custody over the paper timesheets of their employees.
Consequently, these supervisors have the ability to (1) receive or create the paper timesheets of
former employees who have not been timely removed from the payroll, (2) manually record time
(not actually worked), and (3) then approve the timesheet for processing.
Additionally, it was discovered that incomplete direct deposit change forms were processed
without identifying criteria such as SSN, previous bank account information, or an attached
voided check. It was also found that these forms could be submitted without the employee
being required to appear in person. Therefore, an employee’s supervisor has the ability to change
a former employee’s direct deposit bank account to the supervisor’s own account by submitting
15
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 5
an incomplete payroll direct deposit form that contains only the former employee’s name and the
supervisor’s own bank account information. In response to the audit, the Department of Finance
has implemented a policy requiring all employees desiring to make direct deposit changes to
submit completed forms in person to authorized Payroll staff.
Next, they examined payroll information systems, in other words, the computer system used to
manage the City’s payroll processes. Forty-one employees, primarily payroll timekeepers, were
found who had the power to alter paycheck amounts; most of them had no need for this type of
system access. When this control deficiency was found, an interim audit report was issued to
management on February 24, 2012. Management acted immediately to change system
functionality to mitigate the risk. Last year’s transaction history of these forty-one employees
has since been examined, and no evidence of material fraud was discovered.
Part of the scope of the audit included a review of sick leave. Most city employees are given
twelve days of sick leave a year and use approximately nine days on average a year. As a result,
the City’s sick leave policy costs over a million dollars a year. Therefore, the potential for sick
leave abuse was investigated. Some indications of sick leave abuse were found. Ty presented a
table showing employees who ended their employment with the City in the last four years and
received a vacation payout. Those employees were broken into groups based on the percentage
of the sick leave used during their employment. There were a disproportionately large number of
employees who used more than 95% of their sick leave and received a vacation payout. Overall
the table does not describe actual sick leave abuse, but rather it serves as a possible indicator that
some employees may be using sick leave in lieu of vacation time as they approach retirement.
The indicators in the report may deserve additional review by management.
Five recommendations were addressed strengthening controls related to process improvement or
information systems. Management concurred with all five of the control related
recommendations and has begun implementing many of them. It was also recommended that
management investigate implementing an automated timekeeping solution to eliminate the use of
paper timesheets and the cumbersome, time consuming, manual process, while also reducing
many of the risks associated with human error and fraud. An automated timekeeping system also
provides more detailed records than a manual system and increases accountability. A
representative from Kronos met with management on June 27, and management is currently in
the process of evaluating the feasibility of implementing such a system. Another
recommendation related to trigger points was not approved by management. A trigger point is a
mandatory action to be taken when an employee reaches the trigger point. For example, some
cities require their employees to certify each sick day taken after reaching the trigger point of
five sick days taken in a year. Other organizations require employees to review their sick leave
usage with their supervisor after reaching the trigger point.
The Council recessed the Workshop at 7:02 p.m. in order to open the Regular Council meeting
on time.
The Council reconvened the Workshop at 9:54 p.m.
16
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 6
7. Council Calendar
· July 27 Scott & White Hospital Tour on Rock Prairie, 9:00 a.m.
· August 2 P&Z Workshop/Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. (Katy-Marie
Lyles, Liaison)
· August 8 BV Food Bank's Feast of Caring at Brazos Center, 11:00 a.m.
· August 9 City Council Executive/Workshop/Regular Meeting at 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00
p.m.
Council reviewed the Council calendar.
8. 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.
There were no requests.
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter
Board, Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, 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, Code Review Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Design
Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association,
Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Neighborhood Parking Taskforce, 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.
Mayor Berry reported on BVSWMA and an Open House she attended.
10. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the
College Station City Council at 9:56 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2012.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
17
WKSHP072612 Minutes Page 7
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
18
RM072612 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
JULY 26, 2012
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields, absent
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 7:19 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 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.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Mayor Berry and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the
City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the absence request from Jess
Fields. The motion carried unanimously.
Special Presentation by the Museum of the American GI.
The Arts Council of the Brazos Valley presented a brief film, entitled, Museum of the American
GI. Brent Mullins, president of the Museum of the American GI, stated they are the best
19
RM072612 Minutes Page 2
unknown museum in the Brazos Valley, with the most unique collection of military vehicles and
equipment in the southern United States. They are in the process of building their permanent
building south of College Station, close to the Texas World Speedway. They want this to be one
of the area’s ultimate destinations, alongside the George Bush Library, the African American
Museum, and the Museum of Natural History. He stated they need help building the museum.
College Station is their home and where they will build the museum. They have been working
on this for ten years, and this will happen. He requested funding from the HOT funds. The
museum will be a landmark in southern College Station; where they are located on Highway 6,
over 80,000 cars pass by. Their business is to make money, attract visitors, and put people into
area hotels. They have raised over $300,000 towards this building. This is only enough for the
basic frame and structure. He asked the Council to consider a matching grant for what they have
already raised. If the Council would double that, they could be open by next fall.
Citizen Comments
Michael Gerst, 3923 Hawk Owl Cove, presented a brief PowerPoint, showing the flooding, mud,
debris and fallen trees alongside Lick Creek. He stated that the Lick Creek bottomland is a
FEMA flood zone, and any path in this bottomland will be strewn with mud and debris that will
impede foot and bicycle traffic and require prompt and costly maintenance. There are other
serious impediments to pedestrian and bicycle traffic than just mud, trash and debris. Fallen trees
are a common occurrence, and trees fall to block the footpath. He noted the HOA is not required
to keep and clear a foot path. They do so because their volunteers want to. If the City accepts the
dedication and builds a path in that bottomland, the requirement to keep the path passable will
become an expensive and recurring responsibility. The alternative is to put the path at street
level where flooding, debris buildup and falling trees will not be an issue.
Jerome Rektorik, 437 Chimney Hill Drive, asked the Council to consider designating the entire
cul de sac area on the south southwest end of Chimney Hill as a No Parking zone for fire safety.
The fire hydrant is located there behind the old Albertsons. The adjacent area is heavily
wooded, and there have been several occasions when cars have been parked all around the cul de
sac. If a fire happened at that time, the fire department would not be able to get to the fire
hydrant. There is a large cement pad close by that is suitable for parking.
CONSENT AGENDA
2a. Presentation. possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
· July 12,2012 Workshop
· July 12. 2012 Regular Council Meeting
2b. Presentation, possible action. and discussion regarding Resolution 07-26-12-2b,
approving an annual blanket purchase order with Boundtree Medical L.L.C. for
$65,000.00 for EMS supplies.
2c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 07-26-12-2c,
approving the award of bid 12-073 Brazos Paving, Inc. to provide an annual contract for
the excavation of the depleted asphalt, and installation of emulsified asphalt and Type D
20
RM072612 Minutes Page 3
hot mix asphalt for the maintenance of streets in an amount not to exceed $923,200.00, and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the renewal agreement on behalf of the City
Council.
2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a contract between
the City of College Station and Bryan Texas Utilities in the amount of $60,000 for the
purposes of BTU temporarily operating College Station's electric transmission system and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City Council.
2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Inter-Local Agreement
(ILA) with the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) regarding School
Resource Officers (SRO).
No items were pulled for a separate vote.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion carried unanimously.
The Regular Meeting was recessed at 7:36 p.m. in order to complete am item from the
Workshop.
The Council reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:54 p.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Public Hearing, presentation and discussion to receive comments regarding the proposed
amendments to the City Charter. A quorum of the Citizen’s Charter Review Advisory
Commission may be present.
A quorum of the Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission was present: Lynn McIlhaney,
Terry Childers, Chuck Ellison, Buck Prewitt, Tony Jones, and Brian Bochner.
At approximately 7:54 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Ives, 3943 Blue Jay Court, expressed his support for the proposed recall guidelines. He has
been concerned about the impact of recall on government here and across the country. He agrees
there needs to be a reasonable means to remove the incompetent and corrupt, but he believes it is
anti-democratic for a vocal and disruptive minority to play the system in an effort to overturn the
will of the majority.
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Verde, expressed his dismay that the proposed recall guidelines will
make the process even more difficult. It is already very difficult. This is putting the citizens at
risk by not letting the citizens control the Council. The citizens need to have the chance to do
something when the Council does something that could hurt the community, but that is not
21
RM072612 Minutes Page 4
possible under these criteria. Limiting the number of people that can sign the petition is
dangerous for neighborhood issues and makes it impossible for them to get enough signatures.
Marianne Oprisko, 11282 Hickory #6, said she had run an unsuccessful petition for the recall of
Mayor McIlhaney. These guidelines will make it even more difficult. Recently the Council
approved an apartment complex in a City already overbuilt with apartments. The rents there are
$700-$800. She lives down the street, and the landlord is talking about a 25% increase because
someone is getting that amount down the street. She has noticed that every time the Council has
problem with money, they look for that million dollar property to annex.
Lynn McIlhaney, Chair of the Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, provided some
history of the process.
Chuck Ellison, Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, provided insight related to
“incompetence” and “conflict of interest”. Regarding grounds for recall, the intent was not to
make recall harder, but to make it for a good reason.
Buck Prewitt, Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, briefly outlined an example of
“indirect” conflict of interest.
Terry Childers, Vice Chair of the Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, remarked on
his concerns related to the issue of “conflict of interest” and expressed his desire to maintain a
higher standard.
Les Fiechtner, 1213 Baywood Court, expressed his concern with the proposed recall guidelines.
There are times the Council disregards what the citizens really want to happen. Requiring people
to have actually voted in the election the Councilmember was elected, not only makes it more
difficult, but it also disenfranchises certain voters. He would like to see elections based on
districts. There is no one from his area of the City that sits on the council.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, stated her concern is that the general populace has not
been part of the process. She would like to see this go forward, but for there to be a format
where the Commission members can present the information in a non-biased way.
Tony Jones, Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, addressed the reasons for a recall.
There need to be some criteria otherwise it will be hard to get people to run. The Commission
looked at our peer cities to see how they were doing this. He also briefly discussed elections by
district and conflict of interest.
Judith Beckmann, 9301 Amberwood Court, there has been a lot of talk about people
understanding what they are signing. Putting restrictions on what members can be recalled for is
insulting to the people. As for taking away the right from those who did not vote, she noted that
if she didn’t vote for a bond issue, she is still expected to pay for it.
22
RM072612 Minutes Page 5
Brian Bochner, Citizens’ Charter Review Advisory Commission, noted that in addition to recall,
there are two other methods the citizens can use: either Initiative to get something new, or
Referendum to repeal something that has passed.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m.
Council consensus was to direct staff to go forward with the following:
· Gender Neutral language (as recommended)
· Franchise Agreements (from three to two readings)
· Recall (add grounds as recommended; leave the formula for the number of signatures
required as it currently is within the Charter)
· Conflict of Interest (MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a
second by Mayor Berry, the City Council voted four (4) for and two (2) opposed, to
replace the current language with state law. The motion carried.)
2. Adjournment.
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the
City Council at 9:54 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2012.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
23
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 29 of the Code of
Ordinances Removing References to City Cemetery Committee and its Duties
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Schmitz, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
Agenda Caption: Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 29 of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas will be amended as set out in Exhibit “A”, removing
references to the City Cemetery Committee and its duties, and transferring those duties and
responsibilities to the City Manager or his delegate.
Relationship to Strategic Goal: Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance revisions.
Summary: In the Sunset Advisory Commission’s final report to City Council dated June 14,
2012, the Commission stated that they found that the Cemetery Committee had completed
its charge and responsibilities to the City, and any further direction regarding City cemetery
matters could be handled by City staff. The Sunset Advisory Commission found that
Cemetery Committee meetings were held infrequently and the major projects listed by
committee member questionnaires had been completed. The Sunset Advisory Commission
recommended City Council sunset the Cemetery Committee, which they did at the June 14,
2012 regular meeting. Due to this action, Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 29 needs
to be revised to reflect this action.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Exhibit “A” - Ordinance
24
25
26
27
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
Community Development PY 2012 (FY 2013) Action Plan and Budget
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, Director of Planning and Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution
adopting the Community Development PY 2012 (FY 2013) Action Plan and Budget.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.5 Develop revenue streams independent of the General Fund;
Goal II. 1 Preserving and restoring older neighborhoods; Goal III. 12 Housing affordability
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of a resolution adopting the proposed Plan and
Budget, authorizing new allocations and expenditure of remaining balances, and for the City Manager to
execute all necessary documents.
Summary: The action requested is approval of a resolution adopting the proposed Plan and Budget as
presented at the June 28, 2012 Council Meeting. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requires the Plan and Budget be received by August 16th, therefore approval is
required on this agenda to meet the required application deadline. Amounts available next year include
$978,155 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, $408,875 in HOME Investment
Partnership Grant (HOME) funds, and various carry-over amounts from previous allocations.
Council reviewed the Plan and Budget at its June 28th meeting. A public comment period has been
completed and comments received are included in the Plan. The Plan and Budget were developed with
input received from a series of public hearings, and program committee meetings. Information from the
City’s 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan was also used in preparing this year’s Plan. Plan goals and
objectives were developed in accordance with the Department’s Strategic Business Plan to best meet the
unique needs of lower-income citizens, and to provide support for families working towards self-
sufficiency. Each year the City must submit to HUD an Action Plan that includes descriptions of projects
and activities to be carried out with grant funding. The proposed Plan and Budget were developed in
accordance with HUD grant requirements and are now being presented for approval.
CDBG and HOME funds may only be used to: (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons; (2) aid in
the elimination of slum and blighting influences, and/or; (3) meet a particular urgent need. Further, CDBG
funds may be used to meet local needs through a wide range of community development activities, while
HOME funds may only be used for affordable housing activities.
Historically, the City has utilized these funds for a variety of programs and activities, including: affordable
housing programs (homebuyer assistance, security deposit assistance, rehabilitation, new construction,
and minor repairs); funding of direct services to low-income families; demolition; and park, street,
infrastructure and public facility improvement in low-income areas of the city.
Budget & Financial Summary: See attached financial summaries for the proposed PY 2012 Budget for
CDBG and HOME funds. Staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the proposed plans and/or
budget
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Resolution for Program Year 2012 Action Plan and Budget
Attachment 2: Proposed PY 2012 Community Development Budget Summary
Attachment 3: Plan Development Summary
Attachment 4: Proposed PY 2012 Public Service Funding Recommendations
Attachment 5: Proposed pY 2012 Public Facility Funding Recommendations
Attachment 6: PY 2010 – 2014 Community Development Goals
Attachment 7: Comments and Final Revisions on Proposed PY 2012 (FY 2013) Action Plan and Budget
(Draft Action Plan and Budget provided to Council in the June 28, 2012 Agenda Packets)
28
29
Attachment 2: PY 2012 Proposed Community Development Budget
PROJECT CDBG & HOME
CARRY-OVER
CDBG & HOME NEW
ALLOCATIONS
CDBG & HOME
TOTAL PROPOSED
Owner-Occupied
Rehabilitation $15,000 $195,000 $210,000
Demolition $10,000 $0 $10,000
Interim Assistance $5,000 $0 $5,000
Homebuyer Assistance $176,870 $0 $176,870
CHDO $142,779 $61,331 $204,110
Construction $1,579,926 $0 $1,579,926
Housing Services $26,252 $0 $26,252
Rental Rehabilitation $0 $56,657 $56,657
Code Enforcement (PDS) $0 $109,200 $109,200
Tenant Based Rental
Assistance $79,466 $70,000 $149,466
CHDO Operating
Expenses $13,478 $0 $13,478
Public Service Agency
(See Attachment 3) $0 $146,723 $146,723
Public Facility
(See Attachment 4) $1,190,340 $521,382 $1,711,722
Grant Administration $0 $226,737 $226,737
CDBG &HOME
Total Proposed $4,626,141
Recaptured Funds/
Program Income $20,000*
Total Community
Development Budget $4,646,141
*To be utilized for Rental Rehabilitation is realized
30
Attachment 3: Consolidated Plan and Budget Development Process Summary, PY 2012
Event Date
Pre-proposal workshop for agencies Feb. 10, 2012
Public hearing on Consolidated Plan and Budget (Lincoln Center) Mar. 6, 2012
JRFRC proposals due Mar. 23, 2012
JRFRC Meeting Apr. 5, 2012
Apr. 12, 2012
Apr. 20, 2012
May 3, 1012
May 16, 2012
JRFRC Public Service Agency public hearings May 23, 2012
May 24, 2012
First presentation of Consolidated Plan and Budget to City Council June 28, 2012
30-Day Public Comment Period begins July 2, 2012
Public hearing to present goal and objectives and public comments July 10, 2012
regarding the proposed PY 2012 Annual Action Plan (Lincoln Center)
30-Day Public Comment Period ends Aug. 1, 2012
Request council approval by consent agenda of 2012 Annual Action Plan Aug. 9, 2012
and Budget
2012 Annual Action Plan due to HUD no later than Aug. 16, 2012
31
Attachment 4: PY 2012 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations
Agency Program Requested Recommended
Funding Funded Items
Client #’s
/Cost per
Client
Funding City
Voices for Children
Court-
Appointed
Special
Advocates
$24,818 $21,209
Volunteer
Coordinator,
Education
Coordinator, and
Prevention
Materials
875
$24.24 CS
Scotty’s House Brazos Valley
Child Advocacy Center
Brazos County
counseling
services
$17,740 $15,000 Salary, FICA 80
$187.50 Bryan
Brazos Maternal & Child Health
Clinic, Inc.
The Prenatal
Clinic
$37,280 $26,000
Medical Supplies,
Ultrasounds,
Personnel
950
$27.37 CS
Twin City Mission, Inc.
Manager/Client
Assistance
Program
$37,702 $26,000
Case Manager
Direct Salary/Client
Assistance
500
$52.00 Bryan
Family Promise of Bryan-
College Station
Case
Management $20,000 $16,000 Personnel 60
$266.67 Bryan
Brazos Valley Rehabilitation
Center
Autism
assessment,
Research and
Intervention
Clinic
$26,891 $20,200
Salaries, FICA,
program
equipment/supplies
30
$673.33 Bryan
Unity Partners dba Project
Unity
Safe Harbor
Supervised
Visitation
Program
$28,000 $21,000
Personnel, Fringe,
Space Rental,
Security
400
$52.50
College
Station
Mental Health Mental
Retardation Authority of
Brazos Valley
Mary Lake
Drop-in Center $33,006 $24,606
Salary (No Fringe),
Utilities,
Telephone, Auto,
maintenance
48
$512.63 CS
Big Brothers Big Sisters of
South Texas
Big Brothers
Big Sisters of
the Brazos
Valley
$12,000 $10,000 Personnel 115
$86,96 CS
Brazos Valley Counseling
Services
BV Counseling
Services $16,948
$13,700
($742 – Bryan
$12,958 - CS)
Personnel,
Software, Materials
250
$51.83 Bryan & CS
Brazos County Rape Crisis
Center, Inc., dba Sexual
Assault Resource Center
(SARC)
Individual
Counseling and
Accompaniment
$10,000 $7,500 Counseling 140
$53.57 Bryan
Total $264,385 $201,215
City Department Programs
Kids Klub $19,950 CS
Lincoln Center $11,000 CS
32
Attachment 5: PY 2012 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations
Activity Recommended
Funding Description
Cooner Street Rehabilitation $1,078,515
Funds will be used to rehabilitate Cooner Street east of Texas Avenue South.
The project scope will include the replacement of existing wastewater, water,
and roadway infrastructure. Funds will be used to design the utility
rehabilitation and the design and construction of the street reconstruction.
Wellborn Road Sidewalks $316,158
FY 12 funds were used to design a new sidewalk on the east side of Wellborn
Road extending from Luther Street to Southwest Parkway. FY 13 funds will be
used for acquisition of easements and construction.
University Drive Sidewalks $232,213
FY 12 funds were used for the design of a new eight foot sidewalk on the south
side of University Drive East between Texas Avenue South and approximately
Lions Park. FY 13 funds will be used for the acquisition of easements and
construction.
Southwest Park
Improvements – Phase 2 $84,836
FY 12 funds and funds remaining from the College Main Street Rehabilitation
will be used for the Phase 2 improvements that include the development of the
park to include: a picnic plaza, site furniture, lights along the hike/bike trail
(Phase 1), signage, and exercise equipment.
Total $1,711,722
33
Attachment 6: PY 2010 – 2014 Community Development Goals
Housing
Goal: Ensure adequate housing assistance for lower income homeowners.
Strategies:
- Encourage and facilitate maintenance of residential units by L/M income homeowners through residential
rehab loans.
- Acquire real property for future development of affordable housing, parks, or other activities that enhance
neighborhoods.
- Encourage and facilitate the removal and replacement of dilapidated structures and/or address community
emergencies.
- Utilize code enforcement regulations to maintain the integrity of older neighborhoods.
Goal: Retain and expand affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income
homebuyers.
Strategies:
-Encourage and support programs and projects that provide financial assistance to L/M income purchasers
of existing or new affordable homes.
- Encourage and support programs and projects that provide education and counseling to lower-income
home-owners and homebuyers.
- Encourage and support programs and projects that construct new housing units for L/M homebuyers.
Goal: Ensure adequate affordable rental housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income
families and individuals.
Strategies:
- Encourage and facilitate the rehabilitation of affordable rental units.
- Encourage and facilitate the construction of new affordable rental units.
Homelessness and Special Needs
Goal: Address the needs of homeless persons to make the transition to permanent housing and
independent living and help families avoid becoming homeless.
Strategies:
-Preventing homelessness:
- Provide assistance for low-income households to secure and sustain safe, decent affordable
housing.
-Outreach and assessment:
- Foster coordination, collaboration, and increased resources to assess community needs,
available services, and service gaps. Use this information to target and improve service provision.
-Emergency and transitional shelter:
- Encourage and support programs and agencies that supply or seek out emergency and/or
transitional shelter for families and individuals.
-Transition to permanent housing and independent living:
- Assist homeless persons in meeting various human and health service needs as well as provide
training and counseling opportunities to help with the transition to self-sufficiency.
34
Goal: Ensure adequate affordable housing opportunities and supportive services for the lower
income special needs populations.
Strategy:
- Encourage and facilitate organizations that provide social and/or housing services to special needs
populations.
Non-Housing
Goal: Encourage and support the delivery of health and human services to assist families in
reaching their fullest potential.
Strategies:
- Encourage and support nonprofit providers of health care, dental care, and mental health care to deliver
programs to qualified L/M families/persons.
- Encourage continued development and facilitate development of new or enhanced senior citizen
programming.
- Facilitate development of affordable childcare and youth programs.
- Ensure that the provision of other health and human services is approached within a comprehensive
framework to enable families and individuals in breaking the cycle of poverty.
- Encourage new or enhanced transportation programs that assist L/M income persons to address their
mobility needs.
Goal: Provide safe, secure, and healthy environments for families and individuals.
Strategies:
- Improved accessibility to programs serving L/M income individuals and families through rehabilitation or
expansion of public or private facilities.
- Rehabilitation and expansion of infrastructure including water and sewer lines, street, and sidewalk, and
flood drain improvements.
- Improve or expand park facilities including green space, neighborhood parks, and recreational facilities.
- Improve transportation facilities to increase the accessibility of health and human services and basic needs
for L/M income persons.
Goal: Development of a strong and diverse economic environment to break cycle of poverty.
Strategies:
- Rehabilitate and/or develop new spaces for businesses to better realize job creation.
- Support and expand community wide training and employment activities targeting low/mod households.
35
Attachment 7: Comments Received & Final Revisions on the Proposed FY 2012 Action Plan &
Budget
Comments Received During the July 10th Public Hearing:
· MHMR thanked the City of College Station for all of your hard work on bringing the much needed CDBG
funding to our community. They encourage the City to continue these funds at the 15% level for public
service.
· Project Unity indicated that they appreciate that the City of College Station consistently funds public
service up to the full 15% allowed. The entire Brazos Valley and the City of College Station benefit from
this civic commitment. Thank you.
Comments Received During the 30-Day Public Comment Period:
· No comments received
Final Revisions Made to the Proposed PY 2012 Action Plan and Budget:
v Update the Table of Contents
v Update to Section 7.2 - Texas Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program to include 2012 information
v Update to Section 9.0 Program Monitoring in response to HUD monitoring visit held July 16th – 18th
v Comments and responses to comments from the July 10, 2012 Public Hearing added
v Appendix H: Public Notice in The Eagle was added
v Updated the budget increasing HOME possible program income for rental rehabilitation projects
NOTE: Comments were received from local agency representatives at the July 10, 2012 Public Hearing and
during the 30-Day Public Comment Period. There are no changes to the specific program / project allocations as
recommended at the June 28th Workshop. Only the above noted updates, public comments, and responses to
comments were made to the draft as previously presented to Council.
36
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control
Construction Contract
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to award the construction
contract for the Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control Project (SD-1102) to Dudley Construction,
Ltd. in the amount of $194,298.40.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core
Services and Infrastructure – Protect existing infrastructure with erosion control and slope
stabilization measures along Wolf Pen Creek in the upper trails area.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends award to Dudley Construction, Ltd. in the amount
of $194,298.40.
Summary: The Wolf Pen Creek Upper Trails project was completed in 2006 and included
multiuse paths, landscaping, irrigation, and minor drainage improvements. Since then the
creek has undergone its normal geomorphological processes causing erosion in some places
and deposition in others. This project is the first phase of erosion control projects in Wolf
Pen Creek to address localized erosion and slope stabilization issues that threatens existing
infrastructure along the Upper Trails. The project includes grading, the installation of
interlocking blocks and turf reinforcement mats for slope stabilization, and the re-
establishment of vegetation as erosion control measures.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $312,000 are budgeted for this
project. Funds in the amount of $33,906.44 have been expended or committed to date,
leaving a balance of $278,093.56 for construction of the project. Dudley Construction. Ltd.
was the lowest of the two bids received for this project at $194,298.40.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Bid Tab
3. Project Map
4.
37
RESOLUTION NO._______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS, APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE WOLF PEN
CREEK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE
OF FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas, solicited bids for the construction phase of the
Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control Project; and
WHEREAS, the selection of Dudley Construction, Ltd. is being recommended as the lowest
responsible bidder for the construction services related to the Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control
Project; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1: That the City Council hereby finds that Dudley Construction, Ltd. is the
lowest responsible bidder.
PART 2: That the City Council hereby approves the contract with Dudley
Construction, Ltd. for $194,298.40 for the labor, materials and equipment
required for the improvements related the Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control
Project.
PART 3: That the funding for this Contract shall be as budgeted from the Drainage
Utility Fund in the amount of $194,298.40.
PART 4: That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute this
Contract.
PART 5: That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage.
ADOPTED this day of , A.D. 2012.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Secretary MAYOR
APPROVED:
City Attorney
38
City of College Station - Purchasing Division
Bid Tabulation for #12-079
"Wolf Pen Creek Erosion Control Project - Phase 1"
Open Date: Friday, July 20, 2012 @ 2:00 p.m.
ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1 1 L.S.
MOBILIZATION: INSURANCE, BONDS, TRAFFIC
CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION STAKING, LOCATE
EXISTING UTILITIES, DIGITAL PICTURES $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $19,775.00 $19,775.00
2 1 L.S.
EQUIPMENT & MATERIAL STAGEING & ACCESS:
SECURITY FENCING, RESTORATION UPON COMPLETION $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,348.00 $3,348.00
3 1 L.S.
SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM; INSTALL,
MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $1,024.00 $1,024.00
4 1 L.S.
PEDESTRIAN FENCING AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SAFE
PASSAGE FOR PUBLIC $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $4,111.00 $4,111.00
5 9578 S.F.
CLEARING & GRUBBING OF TREES AND UNDERBRUSH
AND REMOVAL FROM SITE $1.60 $15,324.80 $4.00 $38,312.00
6 1 L.S.
TREE PROTECTION FENCING: INSTALL, PROTECTION,
MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $4,053.00 $4,053.00
7 9578 S.F.
FINE GRADING & COMPACTION / PREPERATION OF
SUBGRADE FOR BLOCK, TRM, ROCK RIP RAP $1.20 $11,493.60 $1.00 $9,578.00
8 450 C.Y.
EXCAVATON - CUT - IN PLACE - REMOVED FROM SITE $35.00 $15,750.00 $65.00 $29,250.00
9 75 C.Y.
SELECT FILL - DENSITY CONTROLLED - REMOVE ALL
ORGANICS & UNSTABLE MATERIAL PRIOR TO
BEGINNING FILL - IN PLACE $32.00 $2,400.00 $123.00 $9,225.00
10 7989 S.F.
4" SHORETEC SHOREBLOC BD-400 OPEN CELL MAT
W/POLYESTER CABLES & SKAPS GT110 10 OZ. NON
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC, (OR AN APPROVED EQUAL) IN
PLACE FILLED WITH SOIL IN CELLS, SEEDED,
WATERED, MAINTENANCE AND ESTABLISH HEALTHY
COVER $10.00 $79,890.00 $9.00 $71,901.00
11 1 L.S.
GROUT FOR BLOCK VOIDS - VOIDS LARGER THAN 3-
INCH SHALL BE FILLED WITH GROUT PER
SPECIFICATION 02279 IN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,850.00 $2,850.00
12 162 S.Y.
RECYCLEX TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM) BY
AMERICAN EXCELSIOR COMPANY (OR APPROVED
EQUAL) INCLUDES TOPSOIL, SEEDBED, SEEDING
(UNDER MAT), WATERING MAINTENANCE AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTHY GROUND COVER.
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATIONS $30.00 $4,860.00 $91.00 $14,742.00
13 18 S.Y.
ROCK RIP RAP (COMMON) 4-18 INCH GRADATION,
TXDOT ITEM NO. 432 DRY, W/SCAPS GT-180 8 OZ NON
WOVEN GROUND STABILIZATION FABRIC (OR
APPROVED EQUAL) RIP RAP AND FABRIC SHALL BE
HAND PLACED AND CONFORM TO THE FINAL GRADES
AND ADJACENT NATURAL GROUND $200.00 $3,600.00 $371.00 $6,678.00
14 1 L.S.
REVEGETATE: ALL AREAS AFFECTED BY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE RESTORED TO
PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS OR BETTER, FINAL
GRADING, TOPSOIL, HYDROMULCH, WATERING,
MAINTENANCE UNTIL A HEALTHY GROUND COVER IS
ESTABLISHED $5,180.00 $5,180.00 $2,676.00 $2,676.00
BASE BID
$194,298.40 $217,523.00
Certification of Bid
TOTAL BASE BID (ITEMS 1-14)
Dudley Construction, Ltd.
(College Station, TX)
Mike Larsen Company
(San Marcos, TX)
Bid Bond
Acknowledged Addendums
Page 1 of 139
‘‘OAKS HOLLEMAN DRIVE EASTDARTMOUTH STREETHARVEY ROADRICHARDS STREETCREST STREET±LegendLocationsWolf Pen Creek Erosion Control (SD-1102)1 in = 200 ftCreek‘40
August 09, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
Call Public Hearing on FY 12 - FY 13 Proposed Budget
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on calling a public hearing
on the City of College Station 2012-2013 Proposed Budget for Thursday August 23, 2012 at
7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the City Council call a public hearing on the
City of College Station 2012-2013 Proposed Budget for Thursday August 23, 2012 at 7:00
PM in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Summary: State law says that notice of the public hearing on the budget must be made
no less than 10 days prior to the meeting for the public hearing. After the public hearing
the Council may insert or delete items or may increase or decrease items so long as the
total of any increases or insertions do not increase the total budget by 3% or more.
Budget & Financial Summary: The proposed budget will be available for review.
Attachments:
N/A
41
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project
Design Contract Change Order
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion for a change order to
Contract #09-153 with Bleyl & Associates for the Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation
Project to reduce the contract by $51,271.54.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Neighborhood Integrity- Continue investments in
maintaining and rehabilitating infrastructure and facilities in neighborhoods.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this change order.
Summary: Construction of Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project was completed in
December 2011. The Engineer has since been involved with completing the post
construction portion of their contract in the form of completing the record drawings for the
project and assisting with warranty items, as needed. At the conclusion of their work, the
engineer had a total of $51,271.54 budgeted in their contract for time and services that
were not ultimately used to complete the project. This change order will allow for the
Purchase Order to be reduced to $0.00 and the contract to be closed.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $4,950,045 are currently budgeted
for this project in the Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Funds.
Following the reduction of this PO, the total expenditures on the project will be $4,743,786.
The project balance will be utilized for other Water and Wastewater capital projects.
Attachments:
1. Change Order #3 for Bleyl & Associates
2. Project Location Map
42
43
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Renewal of Annual Service Agreement for Auto Paint & Body Repairs
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the renewal of a
service contract with Cal’s Body Shop for annual automobile and truck paint and body
repairs in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core
Services and Infrastructure. Wise stewardship of the financial resources provided to the City
resulting in its ability to meet current service demands and obligations without
compromising the ability of future generations to the same.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Staff recommends approval the
renewal of the service agreement.
Summary: The Fleet Division of the Public Works Department does not have the internal
resources to make automotive paint and body repairs to damaged vehicles in our fleet. In
FY11, staff solicited sealed competitive bids for this service. Four (4) sealed bids were
received and Cal’s Body Shop submitted the lowest responsible bid. Cal’s Body Shop agrees
to the first renewal of two available renewals in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00.
The table below shows budget and actual expenditures for three prior years:
Year Budget Actual Spent
2010 $56,250 $52,299
2011 $56,239 $56,239
2012 YTD $60,000 $53,580
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available in the Property and Casualty Fund.
Attachments:
1) Signed Renewal Acceptance
44
45
August 9, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Street Sweeping Services
Rejection of Request for Proposal No. 12-071
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Street Sweeping
Services and the rejection of Request for Proposal No. 12-071.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure - Efficiently, effectively,
and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains
citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and
physical development.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that RFP No. 12-071 be rejected and that
Street Sweeping Services continue to be provided in-house by City crews and equipment.
Summary: Currently, the City employs two equipment operators and owns two street
sweeping units that cover all curb and gutter streets within the City on a regular monthly
schedule. Approximately 6,000 curb miles are swept each year at 500 miles per month. As
part of the Public Works Department’s continuing efforts to ensure we are providing our
services at the best possible value, a Request for Proposal was issued on June 8, 2012 for
Street Sweeping Services.
The total direct cost of the City’s existing Street Sweeping operations as described above is
$230,178. Two vendor proposals were submitted for Request for Proposal No. 12-071 as
follows:
Vendor Headquarters Cost per Curb Mile Total Annual Cost
Mr. Dirt of Texas Grand Prairie, TX $49.96 $ 388,500
Offsite Sweeping, Inc. Phoenix, AZ $16.91 $ 131,492
Upon evaluation of the proposals, staff determined that the proposal from Mr. Dirt of Texas
demonstrated the competence and qualifications required for Street Sweeping Services,
however the proposal exceeds the City’s current cost to provide this service. Staff
determined that the proposal from Offsite Sweeping, Inc. fails to demonstrate the
competence and qualifications needed to perform the Street Sweeping Services for the City.
Staff recommends that the street sweeping services continue to be provided by the City
employees and that both proposals received for the Request for Proposal No. 12-071 be
rejected.
Budget & Financial Summary: Street Sweeping services are budgeted and paid for in the
City’s Sanitation Fund. This item does not have any financial impact on these funds.
Attachments: None
46
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Lick Creek Greenway Trail Project Update
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Lick Creek
Greenway Trail Project.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal IV, Improving Multimodal Transportation –
Improving quality of life by providing alternative routes for transportation and increasing
connectivity to major thoroughfares and trail systems, as well as providing access to
recreational facilities throughout the City.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends proceeding with the design of the complete
multi-use path utilizing the Consultant’s preferred alignment for Segments “B” (SH6 to W.D.
Fitch) and Segment “C” (W.D. Fitch to Lick Creek Park) and an “on-street” option for
Segment “A” (Creek View Park to SH6).
Summary: The Lick Creek Greenway Trail project was approved as part of the 2008 GOB
election to construct approximately 4 miles of multi-use paths along Lick Creek from Creek
View - Westfield Park to Lick Creek Park connecting residential neighborhoods and CSISD
property. This project is also on the City's Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
Halff Associates, Inc. (Halff) was engaged in September 2011 to conduct a preliminary
design and route analysis for the proposed trail. Several meetings were held to gather input
from the public. Halff’s recommendation for the preferred route is based on consideration of
several factors, including pedestrian and user safety, project development costs,
environmental concerns, connections to major thoroughfares and trail systems, as well as
feedback from the public and potential users. City staff and the design team conducted
several public meetings in an effort to get input on the trail alignment.
In April 2012, a majority of the Springbrook HOA voted in favor of a proposition to allow the
HOA Board to negotiate with the city to dedicate approximately 18 acres of “common area”
owned by the HOA to allow the trail to be constructed. Some homeowners have expressed
strong opposition to the land dedication, and the neighborhood and HOA continued to
address issues related to the land dedication.
During a project update at the May 24, 2012 meeting, Council expressed a desire for staff
to return after 60 days to allow the SHOA additional time to gather more information and
look into their issues further. Staff is of the understanding that the same concerns still
remain, and therefore, is recommending proceeding with detailed design of the complete
trail utilizing the Consultant’s preferred alignment for Segments B and C and an on-street
option for Segment A in lieu of the alignment through the common area.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $4,410,000 are budgeted for this
project from the Streets Capital Projects Fund, with $100,000 budgeted for the preliminary
design study phase. A total of $82,967 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a
balance of $4,327,033 for design and construction.
Attachments:
Project Location Map
47
48
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Project Number PW1201
Conference Center Evaluation
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a report provided by
Hawkins Architecture under Professional Service Contract 12-232.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure - Plan for and invest in
infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel and equipment necessary to meet projected
needs and opportunities.
Recommendation(s): This update is intended to keep the Council informed, and does not
include any recommendations. Staff requests that the City Council simply receive the
presentation.
Summary: On May 31, 2012, Hawkins Architecture was authorized to complete an
evaluation of the City of College Station Conference Center located at 1300 George Bush
Drive. The scope of the evaluation was to identify areas of the Conference Center that need
to be upgraded to meet current building code and prepare a construction cost estimate for
the proposed corrections. The evaluation included Texas Accessibility Standards and
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, structural systems, mechanical, electrical,
plumbing, and current building code.
On July 5, 2012, Hawkins Architecture notified the City of significant structural issues with
the building and recommended the facility be closed for safety. Staff will present a
summary of the findings and conclusions identified in the report.
Budget & Financial Summary: The budget for this project is currently $25,000. The
contract with Hawkins Architecture for the evaluation is in the amount of $11,000.00.
Attachments:
1. None
49
August 9, 2012
(El 9 de agosto de 2012)
City Council Regular Agenda Item No. 3
(Agenda de Acuerdo del Consejo de la Ciudad)
Ordering November Election
(Ordenando Elecciones en Noviembre)
To: David Neeley, City Manager (Administrador de la Ciudad)
From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary (Secretaria de la Ciudad)
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance ordering a
General and Special Election to be held on November 6, 2012 for the purpose of electing a City
Council Member, Place 4, a City Council Member, Place 6, and to submit proposed amendments
to the City Charter to the voters; establishing early voting lcoations and polling places for this
election; and making provisions for conducting the election. (Presentación, posible acción y
discusión acerca de una ordenanza que ordene Elecciones Generales y Especiales a celebrarse
el 6 de noviembre de 2012 con el propósito de elegir un Miembro del Consejo de la Ciudad,
Puesto Número 4, un Miembro del Consejo de la Ciudad, Puesto Número 6, y para presentarles
a los votantes las enmiendas propuestas a los Estatutos de la Ciudad; estableciendo los sitios de
votaciones anticipadas y los centros de votaciones para estas elecciones; y elaborando las
provisiones para llevar a cabo las elecciones.)
Summary: The Council hosted Public Hearings on July 12 and 26 to receive public comment
on the proposed amendments to the City Charter.
(Resumen: El Consejo de la Ciudad realizó Audiencias Públicas el 12 y el 26 de julio para
recibir los comentarios públicos acerca de las enmiendas propuestas a los Estatutos de la
Ciudad.)
Financial Summary: This election could cost the County $115,000. We will have to pay a
proportionate share of the expenses.
(Resumen Financiero: Estas elecciones podrían costarle al Condado $115,000. Tendremos que
pagar una parte proporcional de los gastos.)
Attachments:
· Draft Ordinance Calling the General and Special Election for November 6, 2012
(Ordinance in English and Spanish will be provided to Council at the meeting both
translations will be posted on the web Thursday)
(Adjuntos:
· Borrador de la Ordenanza Convocando Elecciones Generales y Especiales para el 6 de
noviembre de 2012 [La ordenanza en inglés y español será proporcionado al Consejo en
la junta, las dos traducciones serán anunciadas en el web el jueves]
50
51
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 4
UDO Amendment for Park Land Dedication Land and Development Fees
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Schmitz, Director of Parks & Recreation
Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 8.7, Appendix I
“Park Land Dedication and Development Fees” of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College
Station, Texas.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City, Core Services and
Infrastructure, and Neighborhood Integrity
Recommendation(s): The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board considered these revisions at
their July 10th meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the revisions as proposed by
staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their July 19th meeting and
voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
Summary: Compared to previous revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Park
calculations differ due to the census bureau only conducting a short form census and not being
able to provide independent single family and multi-family person per household numbers. An
overall person per household number was provided. Thus the calculations for single family and
multifamily are the same in each; Neighborhood Park Land (fee in lieu), Community Park Land
(fee in lieu) and Neighborhood Park Development.
The proposed Community Park Development fees were derived from giving developers a 75%
discount on the single family community park development cost. The multi-family community
park development fee was calculated using 50% of the community park development cost. The
calculations reflect the new neighborhood and community park standards. Within the standards
Neighborhood Parks have less intense development and Community Parks support more
intense activity.
Overall fees went down, with single family seeing the most significant decrease.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Summary of Park Land Dedication Proposed Land and Fee Calculations
2. Red-line of UDO Section 8.7 Appendix I Park Land Dedication and Development Fees
3. Draft Minutes for July 10th Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
4. Draft Minutes for July 19th Planning & Zoning Commission
5. Ordinance
52
Last revised 07-2012
City of College Station
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Proposed Neighborhood Park Calculations
Starting Point:
2012 population; 96,603
346.26 acres of neighborhood parks
96,603/346.26 = 1 acre of neighborhood park per 279 people
Land Donation:
Single Family- 279 people/ 2.38/PPH = 117 Dwelling Units per acre of donated land for
neighborhood park
Multi Family- 279 people/2.38 PPH = 117 Dwelling Units per acre of donated land for
neighborhood park
Land Acquisition:
$32,000/acre/117 Dwelling Units = $274 Single Family Land Acquisition Cost/Dwelling Unit
$32,000/acre/117 Dwelling Units = $274 Multi Family Land Acquisition Cost/Dwelling Unit
Park Development:
One neighborhood park serves 2,300 people (96,603 pop. / 42 neighborhood parks = 2,300
people)
Single Family Neighborhood Park Development Cost
$350,000/2,300 =$152.00 per person neighborhood park development cost
$152.00 X 2.38 PPH = $361.76 = $362.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Neighborhood Park Development Cost
$350,000/2,300 =$152.00 per person neighborhood park development cost
$152.00 X 2.38 PPH = $361.76 = $362.00 per Dwelling Unit
Total Neighborhood Park Parkland Dedication Fees per Dwelling Unit:
Single Family Neighborhood Park Fee=
$274 (Land Acquisition) + $362.00 (Park Development) =$636.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Neighborhood Park Fee=
$274 (Land Acquisition) + $362.00 (Park Development) =$636.00 per Dwelling Unit
53
Last revised 07-2012
City of College Station
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Proposed Community Park Calculations
Starting Point:
2012 population; 96,603
316.31 acres of community parks (8 total parks)
96,603/316.31 = 1 acre of community park per 305 people
Land Donation:
Single Family- 305 people/ 2.38/PPH = 128 Dwelling Units per acre of donated land for
community park
Multi Family- 305 people/2.38 PPH = 128 Dwelling Units per acre of donated land for
community park
Land Acquisition:
$32,000/acre/128 Dwelling Units = $250 Single Family Land Acquisition Cost/Dwelling Unit
$32,000/acre/128 Dwelling Units = $250 Multi Family Land Acquisition Cost/Dwelling Unit
Park Development:
One community park serves people 12,075 (96,603 pop. / 8 community parks = 12,075 people)
Single Family Community Park Development Cost
$1,900,000/12,075 =$157.35 per person community park development cost
($7,600,000 Community Park development cost average X 50% discount)
$157.35.00 X 2.38 PPH = $374.49 = $375.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Community Park Development Cost
$3,800,000/12,075 =$314.70 per person community park development cost
($7,600,000 Community Park development cost average X 25%)
$314.70 X 2.38 PPH = $748.99 = $750.00 per Dwelling Unit
Total Community Park Parkland Dedication Fees per Dwelling Unit:
Single Family Community Park Fee=
$250 (Land Acquisition) + $375 (Park Development) =$ 625.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Community Park Fee=
$250 (Land Acquisition) + $750 (Park Development) =$1,000.00 per Dwelling Unit
54
Last revised 07-2012
Comparison: Current Ordinance (2009) VS Proposed Ordinance (2012)
Current Proposed
Neighborhood Park Land (fee in lieu)
Single Family (SF) $ 314 $ 274
Multi-Family (MF) $ 256 $ 274
Community Park Land (fee in lieu)
Single Family (SF) $ 305 $ 250
Multi-Family (MF) $ 248 $ 250
Neighborhood Park Development
Single Family (SF) $ 764 $ 362
Multi-Family (MF) $ 622 $ 362
Community Park Development
Single Family (SF) $ 638 $ 375
Multi-Family (MF) $ 520 $ 750
SUMMARY
Single Family Neighborhood Park Fee
$274 (Land Acquisition) + $362.00 (Park Development) =$636.00 per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Community Park Fee=
$250 (Land Acquisition) + $375 (Park Development) =$ 625.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Neighborhood Park Fee
$274 (Land Acquisition) + $362.00 (Park Development) =$636.00 per Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Community Park Fee=
$250 (Land Acquisition) + $750 (Park Development) =$1,000.00 per Dwelling Unit
Current Proposed
Total Single Family (SF) $2,021 $1,261
Multi-Family (MF) $1,646 $1,636
PARKLAND TOTAL
#Parks #acres #acres/1000 pop.
Neighborhood Parks 42 346.26 3.58
Community Parks 8 316.31 3.27
Regional Parks 2 665.54 6.89
(Veteran’s Park, Lick Creek Park) _____________________________
TOTAL 52 1,328.11 13.75
(as of 1-1-2012)
55
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8.7 Requirements for Park Land Dedication
APPENDIX I
PARK LAND DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
A. Neighborhood and Community Parks
A. Dedication Requirements for Neighborhood Parks
1. Land dedication per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: One (1) Acre per 102 117 DUs
Multi-Family: One (1) Acre per 125 117 DUs
2. Fee in lieu of land dedication per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $314 274 per DU
Multi-Family: $256 274 per DU
3. Park development fee per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $764 362 per DU
Multi-Family: $622 362 per DU
4. Total neighborhood park fees per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $1,078636 per DU
Multi-Family: $878 636 per DU
B. Dedication Requirements for Community Parks
1. Land dedication per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: One (1) Acre per 105 128 DUs
Multi-Family: One (1) Acre per 129 128 DUs
2. Fee in lieu of land dedication per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $305 250 per DU
Multi-Family: $248 250 per DU
3. Park development fee per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $638 375 per DU
Multi-Family: $520 750 per DU
4. Total community park fees per Dwelling Unit (DU)
Single Family: $943 625 per DU
Multi-Family: $768 1,000 per DU
56
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
7:00PM, Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The Green Room at Wolf Pen Creek ~ 1015 Colgate
College Station, TX 77840
STAFF PRESENT: David Schmitz, Director; Amy Atkins, Assistant
Director; Amanda Putz, Board Secretary; Peter
Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; David Gerling,
Special Facilities Superintendent; Pete Vanecek,
Senior Park Planner; Susan Fox, Shawn Reynolds,
BOARD PRESENT: Jon Denton, Chair, Ida Bellows, Sherry Ellison,
Shane Wendel, Billy Hart
VISITORS: Jamie Rae Walker, Jodi Warner, Bob Cowell
1. Call to order and Roll Call: The meeting was called to order with a quorum
present at 7:00PM.
2. Possible action concerning requests for absences of members: George
Jessup sent in a request for absence. Shane Wendel made a motion to approve
the absence request submitted, and Sherry Ellison seconded the motion. The
vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Hear visitors: Hearing none, this item was closed.
4. Consideration, possible approval, and discussion of minutes from the
meeting of May 8, 2012: Shane Wendel made a motion to approve the minutes
as submitted, and Billy Hart seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were
in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Board moved to Item #9.
~ Fred Medina arrived at 7:04PM ~
5. Consideration, possible approval, and discussion on the Senior Advisory
Committee appointments: Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator,
reported on Jon Denton’s application for appointment to the Senior Advisory
Committee. She also reported that the committee voted to have Ann Hayes as
57
2
July 10, 2012
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board Meeting Minutes
the Vice Chair and Frank Duchmasclo as the Chair the Committee. The Board
was asked for the reapproval of Jon Denton as being a member of the Senior
Advisory Committee.
Shane Wendel made a motion to approve the appointment, and Billy Hart
seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion
passed unanimously.
6. Update and discussion concerning the Cemetery Advisory Committee:
David Schmitz, Director; reported that the Cemetery Advisory Committee was
sunset, which means the committee no longer exists. That being said, all
cemetery concerns will be brought to staff and/or the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board from this point forward. This was an informational item only, and
no action was required.
7. Update and discussion concerning the appointments for the Board: David
Schmitz reported that there were four positions that are open for the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. City Council was scheduled to make the
appointments at their July 12 Council meeting. Discussion followed. This was
an informational item only, and no action was required.
8. Update and discussion concerning CAPRA accreditation for the
department: David Schmitz, Director; reported that the CAPRA accreditation
team is scheduled to come the week of July 16, 2012. This was an informational
item only, and no action was required.
9. Consideration, possible approval, and discussion over the preliminary data
from the public input process and survey associated with the Needs
Assessment: Jamie Rae Walker reported on the recent Needs Assessment
process, and explained the handout that was given. She explained questions
that were asked at the public input meetings, and the answers that were given.
Discussion followed. The second part of the survey process will be done in the
next couple of weeks. This was an informational item only, and no action was
required. This was an informational item only, and no action was required.
10. Update and discussion concerning the Park Land Dedication ordinance:
David Schmitz reported on the new numbers for the park land dedication
ordinance. (A handout was given) Bob Cowell briefly reported on this item.
Discussion followed.
Sherry Ellison made a motion to approve the fees for park land dedication as
submitted, and Shawn Reynolds seconded the motion. The vote was called. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
11. Discussion and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board Goals for FY12: Discussion followed. This was an
informational item only, and no action was required.
58
3
July 10, 2012
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board Meeting Minutes
12. Report, possible action, and discussion concerning the current Capital
Improvements Program:
Ø Capital Improvements and Park Land Dedication Project Lists of
June and July 2012: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on
the Capital Improvements and Park Land Dedication Project Lists.
This was an informational item only, and no action was required.
Ø Dedications of Less than Five Acres: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park
Planner, reported on the Dedications of Less than Five Acres. This
was an informational item only, and no action was required.
¨ College Hills Estates, Lot 10 & 11, Block 14 ~ Park Zone 2
¨ The Stack at Legacy Point ~ Park Zone 1
¨ Castlegate II, Section 202 ~ Park Zone 13
13. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A
Board 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:
Ø Next Regular Meeting ~ August 14, 2012, The Green Room at Wolf
Pen Creek
Ø Introduction of new board members
Ø Community Center
14. Adjourn: Shane Wendel made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Susan Fox
seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the meeting
adjourned at 8:02PM.
59
July 19, 2012 DRAFT P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
July 19, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Bo Miles, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Jodi
Warner, and James Benham
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Craig Hall
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Katy-Marie Lyles
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Alan Gibbs, Jason
Schubert, Danielle Singh, Venessa Garza, Christopher Lazaro, David Schmitz, Donald Harmon,
Fred Surovik, Ben Roper, Erin Provacek, Courtney Collins, Carol Thompson, Adam Falco,
Brittany Caldwell, and Kerry Mullins
1. Call meeting to order
Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Regular Agenda
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.7 “Requirements for Park Land Dedication"
regarding park land dedication and development fees. Case # 12-00500136 (DS) (Note:
Final action on this item is scheduled for the August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting -
subject to change)
Director of Parks & Recreation Schmitz presented the ordinance amendment regarding
park land dedication and development fees.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Benham motioned to recommend approval of the ordinance
amendment. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (5-1).
Commissioner Miles was in opposition.
60
July 19, 2012 DRAFT P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2
10. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
61
62
63
64
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 5
Sidewalks – UDO Amendment and Policy Discussion
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 8.2.K
“Sidewalks” of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College Station, Texas and policy
discussion regarding sidewalk placement and width.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure, Improve Mobility
Recommendation(s): The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board considered this
item at their July 2nd meeting and recommended approval of the revisions as proposed by staff
with the condition that a sidewalk be wrapped around the bulb of a cul-de-sac when the cul-de-
sac is longer than 200 feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their
July 19th meeting and voted to recommend approval of the amendments as proposed by staff
and as detailed in the attached Commission meeting minutes.
Summary: The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council in May 2009. It
contains a vision statement that served as a guide in the development of the plan and a basis
for policy going forward. This vision statement has also been incorporated into the City’s
Strategic Plan 2010-2015 as the Community Vision. Portions of the vision statement are
applicable when considering policy and ordinance requirements regarding sidewalks. The
applicable statements include:
Increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a well
planned and constructed inter-modal transportation system.
Developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities,
infrastructure and services which ensure our City is cohesive and well connected.
In addition, the City Council has established “Improve Multi Modal Transportation” as one of the
five goals in their Strategic Plan.
When revisions to the subdivision regulations were adopted by City Council in January 2011, a
number of various standards and procedures were amended. Included in these revisions were
changes to sidewalks requirements. It is important to note that the applicability of when a
sidewalk is required is contained in the subdivision regulations in the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) while the standards and specific details for sidewalk width, placement, and
construction are contained in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines adopted
jointly with the City of Bryan.
As background, prior to the revisions in January 2011, the ordinance required sidewalks to be
placed on both sides of all thoroughfares, on one side of residential streets, and were not
required on cul-de-sacs unless a pedestrian Access Way was provided through the end of the
cul-de-sac. With the adoption of the revisions, the standard increased to implement the
Comprehensive Plan and adopted goals by requiring sidewalks on both sides of all streets,
65
including residential streets and cul-de-sacs. When considering these revisions during their
public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that a sidewalk also be
required around the bulb of a cul-de-sac. As part of the revisions, several exemptions were
added for rural roadways and existing residential streets unless planned on the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan and more options were provide to permit the use of the
sidewalk fund in lieu of sidewalk construction.
Over the last year, City management and staff have held regular meetings with the local home
builders association and other development interests. The purpose of these meetings has been
to discuss issues related to standards and practices in the development process. During these
discussions, several items were identified related to current sidewalk requirements:
Developer’s request:
· Not require sidewalks around the bulb of a cul-de-sac;
· Require sidewalks only on one side (not both sides) of residential and cul-de-sac streets;
and
· Reduce the width of sidewalks:
o on residential streets from 5 feet to 4 feet;
o on thoroughfares sidewalks not located at the back of curb from 6 feet to 5 feet;
and
o on thoroughfare sidewalks located at the back of curb from 8 feet to 6 feet with
the brick paver inlay along the back of curb not being required.
Staff has reviewed the existing ordinance and has discussed and negotiated through some of
the requested items.
Staff recommendation:
· Remove the requirement for a sidewalk around the bulb of a cul-de-sac. This
requirement was not proposed by staff with the revised ordinance, does not provide a
substantial pedestrian facility, and would match the City of Bryan’s current requirement.
A sidewalk, however, would still be required in this area when a pedestrian Access Way
is located out the end a cul-de-sac;
· Reduce the width of sidewalks on thoroughfares from 6 feet to 5 feet when a existing
striped bike lane has been provided on the street. This reduction in width recognizes that
some of the need for the larger sidewalk facility is being accommodated with bike lane
and that the bike lane also helps serve as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular
traffic; and
· Remove the option to construct thoroughfare sidewalks back of curb on new streets.
This would help implement the Comprehensive Plan which depicts street cross sections
with sidewalks located away from the back of curb to provide additional roadside buffer
between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Sidewalks may be located at back of curb
where specific design considerations warrant or conflicts exist.
· Based on recent action of the Planning & Zoning Commission, remove the requirement
for sidewalks along streets classified as Freeway/ Expressway on the City’s
Thoroughfare Plan. The current requirement exempts sidewalks along Freeways that do
not have frontage roads though require them when a frontage road exists. A multi-use
path would still be required along Freeways in the locations shown on the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
66
Staff does not support the request to not require sidewalks on both sides of all applicable streets
as this does not further the City’s adopted goals to increase mobility and improve multi modal
transportation facilities. Staff also does not support the reduction of the residential and cul-de-
sac street sidewalk from 5 feet to 4 feet as adherence to ADA requirements becomes
problematic and sidewalks become too narrow. Where the clear path of a sidewalk is less than
5 feet in width, a landing area that is 5 feet by 5 feet is required at least every 200 feet. This
may be difficult to comply with this requirement with multiple driveways and various lot layouts.
In addition, a 5-foot width provides a more superior facility for mobility for pedestrians to walk
beside and past one another.
In revising and clarifying the standards, staff also proposes to allow the sidewalk fund option to
be utilized when a multi-use path facility is located along or within their proposed development.
The above revisions and removal of the requirement for a sidewalk around the bulb of a cul-de-
sac and along Freeways/Expressways are revisions to the UDO that require recommendations
by the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning
Commission and then final action by City Council. Other potential revisions to sidewalk width
and placement are a policy discussion that will result in revisions to the Bryan/College Station
Unified Design Guidelines that will be done administratively by staff in the future through a joint
effort between engineering staff of the City of College Station and the City of Bryan.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Draft Minutes for July 2nd Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board
2. Draft Minutes for July 19th Planning & Zoning Commission
3. Red-line of UDO Section 8.2.K Sidewalks
4. Ordinance
67
DRAFT MINUTES
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS
ADVISORY BOARD
Monday, July 2, 2012 3:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas, 77840
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Blanche Brick, Vice-Chairman Sherry Ellison, Greg Stiles, James
Batenhorst, David Russell, and Marcy Halterman-Cox
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Young
VISITORS PRESENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Greenways Program Manager Venessa Garza, Executive Director Bob
Cowell, Assistant Director Molly Hitchcock; Principal Planner Jennifer
Prochazka, Senior Planner Matt Robinson, Staff Planner Teresa Rogers and
Board Secretary Kristen Hejny
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order.
Chairman Brick called the meeting to order at 3:00.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: (Item was heard before agenda item No. 5) Presentation,
possible action, and discussion regarding amendments to sidewalk requirements
contained in the Unified Development Ordinance and Bryan/College Station Unified
Design Guidelines.
Director Bob Cowell discussed the amendments to the sidewalk requirements contained in the Unified
Development Ordinance.
There was general discussion.
Marcy Halterman-Cox left the meeting.
David Russell proposed an amendment stating that there be sidewalks on all streets on both sides with the
addition that a sidewalk should wrap around the bulb of a cul-de-sac when it is longer than 200 feet.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations with Russell’s amendment was made by James Batenhorst
and seconded by David Russell. The motion was approved (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
68
July 19, 2012 DRAFT P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
July 19, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Bo Miles, Jim Ross, Jerome Rektorik, Jodi
Warner, and James Benham
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Craig Hall
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Katy-Marie Lyles
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Alan Gibbs, Jason
Schubert, Danielle Singh, Venessa Garza, Christopher Lazaro, David Schmitz, Donald Harmon,
Fred Surovik, Ben Roper, Erin Provacek, Courtney Collins, Carol Thompson, Adam Falco,
Brittany Caldwell, and Kerry Mullins
1. Call meeting to order
Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Regular Agenda
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.2.K “Sidewalks" regarding the placement and
width of sidewalks along streets. Case # 11-00500205 (JS) (Note: Final action on this
item is scheduled for the August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting -subject to change)
Executive Director Cowell presented the ordinance amendments regarding the placement
and width of sidewalks along streets.
Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
Dickson Clements, Executive Officer of the Home Builder’s Association of
Bryan/College Station, agreed that sidewalks are needed, but he said that we need to have
the right number of sidewalks and they need to be the right sizes.
Dale Browne, 1613 Peach Crossing Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that the Texas
Accessibility Standard requirements could be met with 4-foot sidewalks by using
driveways as an access to turn around or another sidewalk.
Scott Shafer, 117 Pershing, College Station, Texas, spoke in favor of staff’s
recommendation and said that City Council has supported more sidewalks for many years
and reducing the number and width of sidewalks would be taking a step backwards. He
said that people look for walkable well-connected communities.
69
July 19, 2012 DRAFT P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2
Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Loop, College Station, Texas, expressed concern about the cost
of sidewalks and said that more concrete is not attractive.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas, said that sidewalks need to
be required on both sides of cul-de-sacs and on both sides of streets.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission and staff regarding the
amendments.
Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Benham motioned to recommend that sidewalks not be required
around the bulb of cul-de-sacs unless there is a facility to connect to. Commissioner
Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (5-1). Commissioner Warner was in
opposition.
Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend that sidewalks along thoroughfares,
except in Northgate, be allowed to be reduced to five feet if not on the back of the
curb and if adjacent to an existing striped bike lane. Commissioner Ashfield
seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
Commissioner Miles motioned to recommend that sidewalks not be required
adjacent to expressways/freeways although multi-use paths identified in the Bike,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan will still be required. Commissioner
Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
Commissioner Benham motioned to recommend that the Sidewalk Fund also be
used for multi-use paths. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion, motion
passed (6-0).
Commissioner Miles motioned to recommend that sidewalks only be required on
one side of local/residential streets. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the motion,
motion failed (2-4). Chairman Ashfield and Commissioners Warner, Ross, and
Benham were in opposition.
Commissioner Miles motioned to recommend that sidewalks along local/residential
streets not be required to exceed four feet in width. Commissioner Benham
seconded the motion, motion failed (2-4). Chairman Ashfield and Commissioners
Ross, Rektorik, and Warner were in opposition.
10. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
70
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8-1
Unified Development Ordinance 04/26/2012 City of College Station, Texas
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8.2 General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design for Subdivisions
within the City Limits
K. Sidewalks
1. Policy
Sidewalks should be located and constructed so as to provide a safe and effective
means of transportation for non-vehicular traffic.
2. Required Sidewalks
a. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all streets , including cul-de-sacs,
except as follows or as provided elsewhere in this UDO.
b. Where a multi-use path is shown along a street on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan, the sidewalk may be incorporated as part of the
multi-use path.
3. Sidewalk Exceptions
Sidewalks are not required:
a. Around the bulb of a cul-de-sac unless an Access Way is provided through the
cul-de-sac;
a.b. Along a street classified on the Thoroughfare Plan as a
Freeway/Expressway that does not have frontage roads. Sidewalks, however,
shall be provided along frontage roads of a Freeway/Expressway;
b.c. Along streets identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an Estate/Rural
context;
c.d. Along new or existing streets within a Rural Residential subdivision
constructed to the rural section; or
d.e. Along existing local/residential streets unless sidewalks have been
identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan or in the
applicable neighborhood, district, or corridor plan.
4. Standards
Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the following criteria:
a. The B/CS Unified Design Guidelines and all applicable state and federal
requirements;
b. Consistent with the minimum standards necessary to meet the proje cted non-
vehicular traffic demand in the area;
c. Sidewalks shall maintain a minimum clear width as set forth in the B/CS
Unified Design Guidelines; and
d. All sidewalks shall terminate into streets or driveways with ambulatory ramps.
5. Timing of Construction
Except as set forth below, all required sidewalks must be constructed concurrently
with the street, or if the street is already constructed prior to acceptance of all
public improvements.
a. Residential Subdivisions
At the time of final plat application, the subdivider may opt to defer the
construction of sidewalks on residential streets along single -family, duplex, or
71
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8-2
Unified Development Ordinance 04/26/2012 City of College Station, Texas
townhouse lots for up to one year from approval of the final plat when the
subdivider provides a bond or surety in accordance with Section 8.6
Construction, Guarantee of Performance, and Acceptance of Public
Infrastructure. The subdivider shall provide a sidewalk plan with the final plat
construction documents and installation of the sidewalks shall comply with this
plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this provision does not allow the
deferment of the construction of sidewalks along thoroughfares, sidewalk
ramps at all street intersections, and sidewalks along residential streets that
are not adjacent to a residential lot such as along a common area, creek
crossing, or park. Other pedestrian facilities such as Access Ways and multi -
use paths shall be constructed at the same time as the public infrastructure of
the plat.
b. Fee in Lieu of Construction
1) Fee in Lieu
Except for development located within the Northgate zoning districts, a
developer may request to pay a fee in lieu of constructing the required
sidewalk(s) or multi-use pathrequired in this Section upon approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as set forth below.
2) Amount of Fee
The amount of fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall be a unit cost
determined by the City Engineer based upon current estimated costs.
The unit cost fee shall be kept on file in the Office of Planning and
Development Services and made available to the pubic upon request.
The unit cost fee calculation shall be reviewed at least annually by the
City Engineer and adjusted as necessary.
3) Criteria to Allow Fee in Lieu
The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize a fee in lieu of
sidewalk or multi-use path construction when it determines that one or
more of the following conditions exists:
(a) An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be
provided outside the right-of-way;
(b) The presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or
other natural conditions exist so that strict adherence to the
sidewalk requirements contained herein is not physically feasible
or is not in keeping with the purposes and goals of this UDO or the
City’s Comprehensive Plan;
(c) A capital improvement project is imminent that will include
construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall mean the
project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12)
months;
(d) Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified
on the Thoroughfare Plan with an Estate/Rural context;
(e) When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path
is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways Master Plan;
(f) The proposed development is within an older residential
subdivision meeting the criteria in Section 8.2.H.2 Platting and
Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions of this UDO; or
(g) The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway/
Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan-
Functional Classification, in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
4) Use of Fee
72
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8-3
Unified Development Ordinance 04/26/2012 City of College Station, Texas
The City Council hereby establishes sidewalk zones as show in the map
attached as Figure 1 of this section and which map shall be kept in the
Office of Planning and Development Services and made available to the
public upon request. Fees collected in lieu of sidewalk or multi-use path
construction shall be expended in the sidewalk zone within which the
proposed development is located. Fees collected in lieu of sidewalk
construction shall be used only for construction, reconstruction, or land
acquisition costs associated with sidewalks, multi-use paths, and other
non-vehicular ways.
Figure 1 – Sidewalk Zone Map
5) Reimbursement
The City may, from time-to-time, acquire land for sidewalks or make
sidewalk improvements related to actual or potential development. If
this occurs, the City may require subsequent sidewalk obligations to be a
fee rather than construction in order to reimburse the City for the cost
associated with acquisitions or construction.
6) Fee Due
Fees paid pursuant to this Section shall be remitted to the City when the
guarantee of construction of public improvements for the proposed
development is due or upon commencement of construction, whichever
occurs first.
7) Special Fund; Right to Refund
73
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8-4
Unified Development Ordinance 04/26/2012 City of College Station, Texas
All fees received by the City in lieu of sidewalk or multi-use path
construction shall be deposited in a fund referenced to the sidewalk zone
to which it relates. The City shall account for all fees in lieu of sidewalk
construction paid under this Section with reference to the individual
development involved. Any fee paid for such purposes must be
expended by the City within seven (7) years from the date received by
the City. Such funds shall be considered to be spent on a first-in, first-
out basis. If not so expended, the landowners of the property on the
expiration of such period shall be entitled to a prorated refund of such
sum. The owners of such property must request a refund within one (1)
year of entitlement, in writing, or such refund will be barred.
74
75
76
77
78
79
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 6
5-ft Public Utility Easement Abandonment – 317, 319 & 321 Redmond Drive
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving
an ordinance vacating and abandoning a 995.6 square foot, 5-foot wide public utility
easement, which is located on Lots 9, 10 & 11 of Block 3 of the Redmond Terrace, First
Installment Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Volume 188, Page 295 of the Deed
Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Relationship to Strategic Initiatives: N/A
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Summary: This easement abandonment accommodates future development of the tract.
There are no public or private utilities in the subject portion of easement to be abandoned.
The 995.6 square foot, 5-foot wide public utility easement to be abandoned is located on
Lots 9, 10 & 11 of Block 3 of the Redmond Terrace, First Installment Subdivision according
to the plat recorded in Volume 188, Page 295 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
2. Attachment 2 - Location Map
3. Attachment 3 - Ordinance
4. Attachment 4 - Ordinance Exhibit "A"
5. Attachment 5 - Application for Abandonment (On file at the City Engineer’s Office)
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
August 9, 2012
Regular Agenda Item No. 7
Report of the Council Ad Hoc Committee for Compensation and Benefits
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a report from
the City Council Ad Hoc Committee for Compensation and Benefits.
Recommendation(s): Receive the report.
Summary: The City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Compensation and Benefits was
created by resolution on May 22, 2012. The committee includes Mayor Nancy Berry,
Councilmember Julie Schultz, and Councilmember Blanche Brick.
The purpose of the committee was to review compensation and benefit policies and
philosophy, including compensation, health insurance, retiree health insurance and
retirement. The committee is to present a report to the City Council on the above.
The committee has met 4 times – June 27, July 17, July 24, and July 31.
The committee has initial recommendations to present to the City Council
Budget & Financial Summary: Compensation costs makes up the largest portion of the
City’s operating budget. In FY 12 total compensation costs were budgeted at
$60,148,359.
Attachments:
1. Report will be sent under separate cover
87