HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2011 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 3
2a - Minutes
Coversheet revised 7
August 8 Special Meeting 8
August 11 Workshop 13
August 11 Regular 18
August 15 Joint Meeting 25
August 15 Budget Workshop 27
August 16 Budget Workshop 31
August 17 Budget Workshop 34
August 18 Budget Workshop 37
2b - Taxi Ordinance Amendment – Jitneys
Coversheet revised 41
CH 4 Sec. 6 Taxi Cabs Jitney Amendment 42
2c - Debt Reimbursement Resolution for Wastewater Utility
Projects
Coversheet revised 44
Resolution 45
2d - Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report and Compliance
Certification
Coversheet revised 48
Report 49
Resoultion 60
Compliance Certification 61
2e - Annual Service Agreement for Auto Paint & Body Repairs
Coversheet revised 62
Resolution 63
Bid Tabulation 64
2f - Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Construction Contract Project
Number WF1338390
Coversheet revised 65
Resolution 66
Location Map 67
Bid Tabulation 68
2g - Approval of a Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement with the
Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc.
Coversheet revised 69
LANDFILL GAS PURCHASE AGREEMENT(7-28-11
final1)70
2h - Northgate Street Meter Upgrade
Coversheet revised 105
Map 106
1
2i - Tauber & Stasney Street and Utility Rehabilitation Project
Construction Change Order Project Numbers ST-0505,
WF0625888, WF0625893, WF6598173, CO-0902
Coversheet revised 107
Location Map 108
Change Order 109
2j - Tauber & Stasney On-street Parking Removal
Coversheet revised 110
Ordinance 111
Parking Plan 113
2k - Wellborn Rd/Old Main Grade Separation Fiber Relocation -
UPRR Wireline Crossing
Coversheet revised 115
2L - Copying and Printing Services
Coversheet revised 116
No. 1 - Public Hearing and Consideration of Budget Amendment
# 3
Coversheet revised 117
List 118
Ordinance 122
No. 2 - Public Hearing 2011 Atmos Rate Review Mechanism
Increase
Coversheet revised 123
Attachment 1: Ordinance 124
Attachment 2: Tariffs 127
Attachment 3: ACSC Staff Report 133
Attachment 4: ACSC FAQ's 136
No. 3 - Consider Ordinance Issuing of Certificates of Obligation
Coversheet revised 141
Project Listing 142
No. 4 - Consider Ordinance Issuing General Obligation Bonds
Coversheet revised 143
Project Listing 144
2
Mayor Council members
Nancy Berry Blanche Brick
Mayor Pro Tem Jess Fields
Dave Ruesink Karl Mooney
City Manager Katy-Marie Lyles
David Neeley Julie M. Schultz
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 25, 2011 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 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City
Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda.
Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack
other speakers, Council or staff.
Consent Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent or regular agenda item not posted as a public
hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. Registration
forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. The Mayor will recognize individuals
who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for
the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for
remarks.
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:
• August 8, 2011 Special Meeting
• August 11, 2011 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
• August 15, 2011 Joint Meeting with City of Bryan, Brazos County and CVB
• August 15, 2011 Budget Workshop
• August 16, 2011 Budget Workshop
• August 17, 2011 Budget Workshop
• August 18, 2011 Budget Workshop
3
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, August 25, 2011
b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding update to the existing Taxi ordinance regulating
Jitneys operating within the city limits of College Station.
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a “Resolution Declaring Intention to
Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from Debt” for expenditures related to Wastewater Utility
Capital projects.
d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B,
99-01, 03-02, and consideration for a Resolution to support and execute a Compliance Certification Letter to
the Attorney General.
e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a resolution to award a contract to Cal’s Body Shop for
annual automobile and truck paint and body repairs in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00.
f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution approving construction contract #11-
310 with Elliott Construction, LLC authorizing the expenditure of funds, in an amount not to exceed,
$667,182.82 for the construction of a lift station near the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State
Highway 6.
g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of a Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement
with the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA) in partnership with the City of
Bryan.
h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a contract for equipment upgrade of the Northgate
Street Meter System in the amount of $98,594.00.
i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a deductive change order to the construction
contract with Dudley Construction Ltd. (contract # 11-003) in the amount of a $ 68,115.39 for the Tauber &
Stasney Street & Utility Rehabilitation Project.
j. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an ordinance amending Chapter 10 “Traffic Code”, to
remove parking along the east side of Tauber and Stasney Streets between University Drive and Church St,
the east side of Stasney St. between Church St and Cherry St, the west side of Tauber between Cross St and
Cherry St as part of the Tauber & Stasney Street and Utility Rehabilitation Project.
k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of two a Wireline Crossing Agreements
with Union Pacific Railroad for fiber optic line relocation to support the Texas A&M grade separation
project at Wellborn Rd and Old Main Dr. Permit fees for the two wireline crossings total $6,900.00.
l. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of estimated annual expenditures related
to copying and printing services as follows: Tops Printing $60,000; Texas Printing Co. $35,000; Office Max
$35,000.
Regular Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing
shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. The Mayor will
recognize you to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address
for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining
for remarks.
4
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, August 25, 2011
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 1/2 minutes to signal thirty
seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public
comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be
allowed at the discretion of the Mayor.
If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes
as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided
in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will
be referred to the City Council and City Manager.
1. Public Hearing, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance Budget Amendment #3 amending ordinance
number 3290 which will amend the budget for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year in the amount of $7,699,757 and
presentation, possible action and discussion on two contingency transfers and one interfund transfer.
2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance approving an increase in
rates for Atmos Energy pursuant to the Rate Review Mechanism tariff approved in 2008.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance providing for the issuance of $7,935,000 City of
College Station, Texas Certificates of Obligation, Series 2011 and ordaining other matters relating to the
subject, including immediate effectiveness.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an ordinance providing for the issuance of $1,960,000 City of
College Station, Texas General Obligation Improvement bonds, Series 2011 and ordaining other matters
relating to the subject, including immediate effectiveness.
5. 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 25, 2011 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 19th day of August, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
________________________________
City Secretary
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
5
City Council Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, August 25, 2011
notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website,
www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice
and Agenda were posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72
hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following
date and time: __________________________ by ________________________.
Dated this _____day of ________________, 2011 By______________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____day of ________________, 2011.
______________________________
Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: ___________
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made
48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov . Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
6
August 25, 2011
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:
· August 8, 2011 Special Meeting
· August 11, 2011 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
· August 15, 2011 Joint Meeting with City of Bryan, Brazos County and CVB
· August 15, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 16, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 17, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 18, 2011 Budget Workshop
Attachments:
· August 8, 2011 Special Meeting
· August 11, 2011 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
· August 15, 2011 Joint Meeting with City of Bryan, Brazos County and CVB
· August 15, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 16, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 17, 2011 Budget Workshop
· August 18, 2011 Budget Workshop
7
SM080811 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCILMEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 8, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Special Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 6:08 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2011 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, and
§551.074-Personnel, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 6:09
p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2011 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
8
SM080811 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
· Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill
· Rachel Rahn v. Alma Martinez, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. et al, Cause No. 09-000656-
CV361
· Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et
al
· College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-02023
· Ongoing criminal investigation of municipal court missing funds
B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit:
· Legal Issues regarding possible revenue sharing and legislation in bio-corridor
· Legal issues related to compliance with Senate Bill 100
C. Deliberation on Personnel; to wit:
· Council Self-Evaluation
The Executive Session adjourned at approximately 7:11 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2011.
No action was required from Executive Session.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on recommendations by the Sunset Review
Commission, and appointing Councilmembers to boards and commissions.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to accept the report as
presented. The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Councilmembers
to committees as noted below. The motion carried unanimously.
Arts Council: Jess Fields
Audit Committee: Nancy Berry, Jess Fields, Karl Mooney
Brazos County Health Department: Jess Fields, Katy-Marie Lyles
BVCOG: Nancy Berry
Brazos Valley Area Community Taskforce: Jess Fields
Convention and Visitors Bureau: Karl Mooney, with Julie Schultz as alternate
Intergovernmental Council: Blanche Brick, Dave Ruesink, Nancy Berry
Lick Creek Park Nature Center Advisory Board: Blanche Brick
Metropolitan Planning Organization: Nancy Berry
Research Valley Partnership: Julie Schultz, Nancy Berry, and Dave Ruesink as alternate
Sister Cities: Dave Ruesink
Transportation Committee: Blanche Brick
9
SM080811 Minutes Page 3
4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the impacts of
Senate Bill 100 and its effects on future City elections.
At approximately 7:27 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Lynn McIlhaney, 2022 Oakwood Trail, chair of the Citizen’s Charter Review Advisory
Commission, stated that the Commission’s recommendation is to keep elections in May of odd-
numbered years and to extend terms to four-year staggered terms. This would require a charter
election. They believe the citizens should have a say as to when they would go to the polls.
Elections would be every two years, be removed from partisan campaigns, with longer continuity
and a higher profile for local issues. This was a unanimous recommendation of the Commission.
Brian Bochner, 5111 Bellerive Bend, member of the Citizen’s Charter Review Advisory
Commission, spoke regarding recall as it pertained to a charter amendment election. He noted
that the initial charge was to review the entire charter, including the recall provision. Last week,
the Council asked the Commission to review the recall provision for inclusion on a possible
November 2011 charter amendment election. Recall issues include causes for recall, causes for
automatic forfeiture, ease of initiating recall elections, base for recall signatures, and who is
eligible to sign a petition. The current charter has no cause specified; only a statement is
required. There are also no causes for automatic forfeiture stated. They had briefly discussed
this earlier and looked at peer charters. They need more time for public and Council input. They
want to research recall experiences in other municipalities. This should be deferred until the next
charter election.
Bernice Lewis, 4605 St. Andrews, spoke in favor of moving the election to November. Her great
concern is the cost of an election. The fiscally prudent thing to do, in light of our current
economic times, is to share the cost with all the local entities. Also, there is a very low voter
turnout in May elections. Council needs to step up to the plate and make a decision.
Chris Scotti, 700 University, provided written comments in favor of three-year terms in
November.
Jim Maness, 1733 Arrington, provided written comments in favor of two-year terms.
Susan Laue, 4902 Firestone, stated that she sees November elections as an opportunity for
College Station. This could reduce the opportunity for small well-focused groups to determine
outcomes. November elections are fiscally prudent. May elections exact a high price. Odd year
elections are more problematic for inclusion, resulting in a de facto disenfranchisement of
minority voters. This could result in close scrutiny and perhaps be overturned by the Department
of Justice. A change to four-year terms will diminish accountability. It also will require a
greater commitment from those willing to serve, thereby reducing the candidate pool.
Financially there will be ongoing independent elections. She cannot see how odd year May
elections are a good choice for College Station voters.
10
SM080811 Minutes Page 4
David and Valeria Warnick, 612 Navarro, provided written comments. Mr. Warnick spoke to
state he wants to decide this now instead of a charter amendment election.
Ryan Davenport, 1104 Haley Place, spoke to the interests of students in municipal election. May
elections are held after final exams. Students are out of the city, and students are
disenfranchised. They are not given an opportunity to vote like other citizens. He is in favor of
moving to November. Four-year terms are troubling because officeholders are less accountable
less often. Last November, there were 16,000 voters in the municipal election; in May the
turnout was 6,000. With May elections, a politically charged group could come in and determine
an outcome. There would be a more representative swath of citizens in November.
Jeff Pickering, 1104 Haley Place, spoke as an advocate on behalf of the TAMU student body.
Moving to November is good for the students. The elections last May were held after final
exams. Many think students don’t vote, and they don’t care. He reported that this past March
they held a campus election. 13,000 voted. 9,000 came back to vote during the runoff. Students
do care and want to have a voice. Current elections in May disenfranchise the students. If
elections are moved to November, then we will see if his belief is true that student are engaged.
Council has the opportunity and authority to do this.
John Nichols, 1317 Angelina Court, stated he does not object to four-year terms, but prefers
three-year terms. November elections will be partisan. People vote by affinity and will use that
for their decision criteria. Local issues need to be brought to the forefront. The party leaders
should have the opportunity to refute any claims by any local candidate.
Libby Vastano, 2756 Cloisters, provided written comments and spoke in favor of May elections.
She does not want to see partisan politics at the local level. She also noted that students have an
opportunity to vote absentee.
Chuck Ellison, 302 Holleman, stated the charter is an important governance document. To move
to November by resolution effectively amends the charter. For Council to do so, removes the
right of the citizens to decide. Four-year terms in May will result in half as many elections as
three-year terms in November. As a proponent for personal responsibility, those not showing up
to vote in May are self-disenfranchising. In the past, he was a proponent for November
elections. However, the last November election changed his mind. The party-card was played
last November. When we move to November by resolution, it is November forever. Important
issues get lost in the chatter following state and federal elections. Those that come to the polls in
May have paid attention to the issues and know what they are voting for.
Charles Szabuniewicz, 3801 Fifth, Bryan, stated the Council has been entrusted to lead this
organization for the benefit of its citizens. There are three important parts to this: fiscally
efficient operations, maximize citizen involvement, and term limits. The national trend is
concern for career politicians. A shorter term may be better. Two years is too short, and four
years is too long. The discussion is based on fear and is not logical. Term limits of three years
are good, and the only option is a fall election.
11
SM080811 Minutes Page 5
Chris Tucker, 405 Nimitz, said it is imperative to move to a November date. We need to keep
costs as low as possible, increase voter turnout, and provide an opportunity for student
involvement. He would like to see a November date to avoid losing student input.
Patrick Gendron, 205 Lampwick, stated that Mr. Ellison captured his comments.
Buck Prewitt, 2302 Scotney Court, said that Mr. Ellison summed this up very well. He does
think four years is a long commitment. He hoped we could stay away from a November election
and stay with a shorter term, but the state has dictated what citizens will be doing. We will be
either four years in May or stay at the bottom of the ballot in November. It is a lower turnout in
May, but we would be away from partisan politics.
Ms. Bernice Lewis asked if anyone could speak to whether an election can be held in November
without partisan politics. Mayor Berry replied that she had spoken with several individuals who
are heavily involved in the parties, and they stated they would not endorse a local candidate and
that November local elections can be non-partisan.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:14 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Mayor Berry, the
City Council voted three (3) for and four (4) opposed, with Councilmembers Brick, Mooney,
Schultz, and Ruesink voting against, to direct staff to prepare a resolution moving City elections
to November. The motion failed.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Schultz and a second by Councilmember
Brick, the City Council voted five (5) for and two (2) opposed, with Mayor Berry and
Councilmember Fields voting against, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance calling for a special
election to amend the charter to extend terms to four-year terms, with elections in May of odd-
numbered years. The motion carried.
5. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Special Meeting of the
College Station City Council at approximately 8:56 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
12
WKSHP081111 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 11, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Frank Simpson, Assistant City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
Shelley Major, Records Management Coordinator
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by
Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:01 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the
City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
1. Presentations and Recognitions of the:
• Silver LEED award and staff recognition
Pete Caler, Assistant Director of Public Works and Staff received this award.
• Reliable Public Power Provider
College Station Utilities received this National Recognition.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
13
WKSHP081111 Minutes Page 2
No items were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a review of the 2011 Legislative
Session by Jennifer Shelley Rodriguez.
Jennifer Shelley Rodriquez, with The Law Office of Dan Shelley, gave an overview of state
budget cuts, redistricting and an overall update on the 2011 Legislative Session and Special
Session. She highlighted the dates for filing deadlines, and the election schedules from handouts
given to council members. Ms. Rodriquez highlighted the review of inquiries made by council
members. She updated Council Members on bills such as: the driving while texting ban,
annexation, water/waste water issues and groundwater rights, concealed handguns on campus,
sales tax exemption on text books, and elections (Senate Bill 100).
Council Member Lyles inquired whether the state was leaning more now towards November
elections.
Council Member Brick inquired about redistricting, and when it would be official. Ms.
Rodriguez concluded that at this time the dates are unknown, several lawsuits have been filed in
regards to redistricting and she will get an update on the progress.
Council Member Lyles also inquired on the bill banning texting while driving and whether will
this be something that comes up again during the next session. Ms. Rodriguez confirmed that it
will be seen again during the next session
Council Member Ruesink inquired about the outcome of the ban on K2, noting that both College
Station and Bryan have ordinances banning the product.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the FY 2011-2012 Proposed Budget.
David Neeley, City Manager, made opening remarks. The Proposed Budget includes all city
funds, and represents all critical needs and priorities set forth by city departments,
comprehensive plans, and identified needs of the city. This presentation is not intended to go
into great detail on budget, but in the coming weeks, the budget will be explained in depth. Mr.
Neeley gave special thanks to Carol Thompson and the budget staff for their tireless work and
long hours. The process started months ago, culminating in its presentation. Specific
instructions were given to depts. to be more cost effective, adjusting for reductions and reflecting
the economic climate. Mr. Neeley asked departments to reevaluate services and efficiency in
preparation for creating this budget. The budget is discussed in detail in the Proposed Budget
Document, presented this evening. The Organization’s job is to continuously improve the way
the city does business and that includes looking at how we provide our services.
Mr. Kersten provided an overview of the proposed budget. He believes the budget will position
the city for the planning of the future and betterment of College Station. The Budget Public
Hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 8th, with the Budget Adoption tentatively
scheduled for September 22nd.
14
WKSHP081111 Minutes Page 3
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to the
construction contract with Elliot Construction (Contract # 11-003) in the amount of
$369,796.00 for the Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project.
Chuck Gilman, Public Works, detailed the change order, which includes roadway repairs to all
streets in the project area, instead of just repairs to streets affected by the rehabilitation in the
Leona Street area. He stated that the difference in longevity between original seal coat on streets,
and repaving is five years for seal coat, and seven to nine for repaving. Mr. Gilman stated that
although it will be an impact on Water/Wastewater budget, it will not affect it negatively.
Mr. Kersten added that money was set aside for contingency funds and covered the discrepancy
noted in the change order.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Carters and Burton Creek Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Implementation Plan (I-Plan) for Bacteria.
Allan Gibbs, city engineer, presented this plan pursuant with the clean water act regulations and
EPA regulations. Mr. Coleman followed up that this plan has no impact to future reclaimed
water system plan.
7. Council Calendar
· August 15 Update on CVB Tourism Consulting Report/Meeting at 9:30 a.m.
· August 15 IGC Meeting at BVCOG, 12:00 p.m.
· August 15-18 Budget Workshop Meetings in Council Chambers at 3:00 p.m.
· August 18 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00
p.m.
· August 25 City Council Budget/Workshop/Regular Meeting at 3:00 p.m. & 7:00
p.m.
The Budget workshops have been moved to the Carter Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.
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 future agenda items.
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter
Board, Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Advisory Board, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of
Governments, Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, BVSWMA,
BVWACS, Cemetery Committee, Code Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee,
Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Mayor’s
Council on Physical Fitness, Mayor’s Development Forum, Metropolitan Planning
15
WKSHP081111 Minutes Page 4
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, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Zoning Board of
Adjustments.
Mayor Berry updated council on the BVCOG presentation from Bryan District Engineers for
TxDot in regards to Proposition 12 funding. She also gave an update on the MPO meeting from
last Wednesday, where the project for bridge improvements at Rockprairie Road was approved
for funding in 2013. The City of College Station will receive 4.6 million for this project, which
is still in design process. Mr. Neeley clarified that the original concept was for a teardown and
replacement and now the project will widen the existing bridge, add turn lanes and pedestrian
crossings.
Council Members Schultz, Brick and Mooney attended the Texas Municipal League’s
Orientation for Newly elected officials.
10. Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, and
§551.074-Personnel, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 5:09
p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
· City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway
60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and
certify City of Bryan
· Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown and Kathy Merrill, Civil Action No. 09-CV-
01480
· Rachel Rahn v. Alma Martinez, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. et al, cause No. 09-000656-
CV361
· Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow et al, No. 10-20792; Chavers v. Randall Hall et al, Case
No. 10 CV-3922
· College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-02023
· Ongoing criminal investigation of municipal court missing funds
B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit:
· Legal issues regarding possible revenue sharing and legislation in bio-corridor
· Legal issues related to compliance of municipal court missing funds
C. Deliberation Regarding Personnel; to wit:
· Planning and Zoning Commission
· Zoning Board of Adjustments
· Parks and Recreation Board
16
WKSHP081111 Minutes Page 5
The Executive Session adjourned at 6:53 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011.
No action was required from Executive Session.
8. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:53 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
17
RM081111 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUSGUST 11, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neely, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Frank Simpson, Assistant 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 7:06 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011 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.
· The Police Department Outstanding Service Award was presented to Officers Kevin
Yargo and Steven Taylor by Mayor Berry
· Captain Greg Rogers and members of the department recognized Fire Chief R. B. Alley
for his dedication to the department and the profession. Fire Chiefs Association
representatives presented Chief Alley with a commendation for his leadership and
commitment to educate the next generation.
18
RM081111 Minutes Page 2
Citizen Comments
There were no citizen comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for July 25, 2011 Workshop
and Regular Council Meeting.
2b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 08-11-11-2b,
approving a construction contract with Marek Brothers Construction for fire barriers to
protect the transformers at Post Oak Substation and authorizing the expenditure of funds,
in an amount not to exceed $181,900.
2c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 08-11-11-2c,
approving a construction contract with Knife River for the Semi-Annual Blanket Type D
Hot Mix Installed Concrete Project and authorizing the expenditure of funds, in a amount
not to exceed $408,000.
2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 08-11-11-2d,
approving a construction contract with G.W. Williams, Inc. and authorizing the
expenditure of funds, in an amount not to exceed $1,066,051.13, for the Carter Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant Laboratory and SCADA Building; and consider approval of
transfers in the amount of $20,077 from the Water Capital Improvement Projects Fund
contingency and $101,913 from the Wastewater Capital Improvements Projects Fund
contingency.
2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 08-11-11-
2e, for asbestos abatement and debris removal from unoccupied areas in the Chimney Hill
Retail Plaza in the amount of $49,961.00.
2f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Resolution 08-11-11-2f,
approving Notice of Sale and Bidding Instructions Preliminary Official Statement, and
related materials for the sale of “City of College Station, Texas General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2011” and “City of College Station, Texas Certificates of
Obligation, Series 2011”, including selection of a date for opening bids.
2g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Interlocal Agreement with
the Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the funding of
the BCS Mobility Initiative for fiscal year 2011.
2h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of equipment
purchases to upgrade the current Survalent SCADA system from Survalent Technology in
the amount of $77,660.00 and a Services Contract in the amount of $14,500.00 for final
testing for a total cost of $92,660.00.
19
RM081111 Minutes Page 3
2i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of the purchase of
Barracuda network firewall equipment from MicroAge College Station through the Texas
A&M Master Agreement in the amount of $104,118.46.
2j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a deductive change order to the
construction contract (Contract No.10-050) with Brazos Valley Services for a credit to the
City in the amount of $34,950.00 for the Nantucket Gravity Sewer Line project.
2k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to the
construction contract with Elliot Construction (Contract # 11-003) in the amount of
$369,796.00 for the Southwood 5-7 Utility Rehabilitation Project.
2l. Presentation, possible action and discussion on calling a public hearing on the City of
College Station 2011-2012 Proposed Budget for Thursday September 8, 2011.
2m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding ratification of Change Order
#1, in the amount of $11,310 to Contract 11-019 with HDR Engineering, Inc. related to
completed impact fee analyses.
2n. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding ratification of Change Order #4,
for $19,873 to Contract 09-306 with HDR Engineering, Inc., and approval of a contingency
transfer from the Wastewater Operating Fund in the amount of $19,873.
2o. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to approve an agreement for the City to
sell reclaimed water to the Pebble Creek Country Club.
2p. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of the purchase of four
(4) 2500 kVA distribution padmount transformers from WESCO in the amount of
$147,657.00 and two (2) 1500 kVA distribution padmount transformers from Texas
Electric Coop in the amount of $39,750.00, for a combined total of $187,406.00, for Scott &
White Hospital & Dowling Road Pump Station.
2q. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of the purchase of
Automatic Transfer Switch from Techline Inc. in the amount of $105,085.00.
Item 2g was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Mooney, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent
Agenda, less item 2g. The motion carried unanimously.
(2g)MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by
Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt an
Interlocal Agreement with the Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) for the funding of the BCS Mobility Initiative for fiscal year 2011. The motion carried
unanimously.
20
RM081111 Minutes Page 4
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding appointments to the following
Boards and Commissions:
• B/CS Library Committee
• Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board
• Cemetery Committee
• Construction Board of Adjustments
• Design Review Board
• Historic Preservation Committee
• Joint Relief Funding Review Committee
• Landmark Commission
• Lick Creek Park Nature Center Advisory Committee
• Parks & Recreation Board
• Planning & Zoning Commission
• Sunset Advisory Commission
• Zoning Board of Adjustments
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember
Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Mike Ashfield,
James Benham, Jerome Rektorik, and Jim Ross, to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
naming Mike Ashfield as chair. The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Mayor Berry and a second by Councilmember Schultz, the
City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Ida Bellows, Jon Denton,
Sherry Ellison, Billy Hart, Fred Medina, and Mike Reynolds to the Parks and Recreation Board,
and naming Jon Denton as chair. The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint Dick Birdwell and
Marsha Sanford to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint citizens to the
committees listed below. The motion carried unanimously.
· B/CS Library Committee: Felicia Glover; Larry Ringer
· Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board: James Batenhorst (E); Sherry Ellison
(C); Marcy Halterman-Cox (B); Greg Stiles (A) (Councilmember Brick is the chair)
· Cemetery Committee: Sarah Adams; Ann Hays (Council directed staff to continue to
hold vacancies open for applicants)
· Construction Board of Adjustments: Mike Lane; Charles Thomas; Marc Chaloupka
(alternate); Glenn Thomas (alternate)
· Design Review Board: Lindsey Bertrand; Susan McGrail (alternate); Marsha Sanford
(alternate)
21
RM081111 Minutes Page 5
· Historic Preservation Committee: Jerry Cooper; Linda Harvell; Ann Hays; M.D.
Marshall; Frances Williams
· Joint Relief Funding Review Committee: J. Kevin Bryne
· Landmark Commission: Jason Loyd (A); M.D. Marshall (D)
· Lick Creek Park Nature Center Advisory Committee: Robert Bruce (F); Becky
Burghardt (D); Jan Fechhelm (D); Ronald Kaiser (F); Mike Manson (F); Susan Scott (E);
Scott Shafer (E)
· Sunset Advisory Commission: Dick Birdwell; Robert Bruce; Ryan Campbell; Gary
Erwin; Merribeth Kahlich; M.D. Marshall; with Dick Birdwell named chair
2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on Ordinance 2011-3360,
amending Charter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning
Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by changing the
zoning district boundaries affecting certain properties; to wit: 7.364 acres located at 2862
North Graham Road, and more generally located west of the intersection of Old Wellborn
Road and North Graham Road, from A-O Agricultural Open to PDD Planned
Development District.
At approximately 8:32 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:33 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Mooney and a second by Councilmember
Brick, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, with Councilmember Schultz
having recused herself, to adopt Ordinance 2011-3360, amending Charter 12, “Unified
Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of College Station, Texas, by changing the zoning district boundaries affecting certain
properties; to wit: 7.364 acres located at 2862 North Graham Road, and more generally located
west of the intersection of Old Wellborn Road and North Graham Road, from A-O Agricultural
Open to PDD Planned Development District, with an effective date of September 1, 2011. The
motion carried.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Ordinance 2011-3361, calling a Special
Election for November 8, 2011 for the purpose of amending the City Charter, if necessary.
Terry Childers, 4400 Bellerive Court, vice chair of Charter Review Commission, the second
tenant of the reform movement in early part of 21st century is nonpartisanship elections. We
have nonpartisan elections; the Council is neither democrat or republican when determining what
is best for community. The Legislature thrust upon us in an untimely manner as to when local
elections can be held, impacting when terms of council can be set. How long a person can serve
and when elections are held should be decided by the citizens of the community. It is important
to allow the citizens of the community to determine if they want nonpartisan elections in May or
have elections in November, allowing those elections to become partisan. The Commission has
been working diligently on the charter and needs to continue that work. This issue is important
enough to be the only issue to go before the voters. This is a matter that needs to go to the voters
for consideration.
22
RM081111 Minutes Page 6
Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, reported that the Commission held its first meeting in May
and have met twice monthly since then. They have been working to have proposed charter
amendments to Council for a charter amendment election in May 2012. They have discussed
many issues in their review; then three short weeks ago, Secretary Mashburn presented Senate
Bill 100 and the impact of the MOVE act. This has derailed their work. Now they cannot hold a
charter amendment election in May 2012; the first opportunity is now November 2012, which is
a presidential election. No one on the Commission wanted two year terms in May because of the
possibility of a complete turnover. If we want to have this on the November 2011 ballot, the
ballot language must be to the County Clerk no later than August 12. As a Commission, they do
not want four year terms, but if not that, then citizens would not get the opportunity to vote on
May versus November elections. Citizens should have the right to that decision. It is the right of
the people to make this decision. He expressed the members’ desire to remain on the
Commission so that they do not lose the work they have done to date, even if we cannot have a
charter amendment election until 2013. The Legislature has not given us much choice. This
does not give voters the option to vote on all choices, but this is about elections in May or
November. This election gives that opportunity. There are numerous substantive issues, and
they don’t want those lost in the political chatter of a presidential election. It is not ideal to hold
a charter election at the same time as a presidential election.
John Anderson, 200 Fireside Circle, stated this is an issue with which honorable, reasonable
people can disagree. As to cost, as citizens and elected officials, we have an obligation to be
good stewards of the citizens’ money. Multiple elections are costly. Elections in May do not
preclude partisanship. Since voter turnout is lower in May, it allows special interest groups to
garner their will. It also disenfranchises smaller groups and minorities. Then there is the issue
of informed voters. Whether in May or November, a voter has an obligation to become informed
prior to voting. We have an obligation to inform citizens before elections occur. Four year
terms can be onerous for a lot of people. There is also cost inefficiency – it is less expensive and
more efficient to have elections in November.
Susan Laue, 4902 Firestone, said nothing is obvious to the uninformed. A big “ah ha” moment
occurred to her when she realized that using this charter amendment at this time is giving up
dealing with the charter in a comprehensive fashion in a timely manner. Texas is a Voters Rights
Act, Section 5 state. Any change has to be submitted to the Department of Justice to be sure we
are not discriminating against a protected class. Off-cycle elections or odd-number elections
depress voter turnout, and elections become more exclusive. Many things in this community
become very politicized. In this area of law, you are presumed guilty until you can disprove that
guilt. She would hate to see us do something that tees us up unless we can prove our off-cycle
elections have not been discriminatory.
Parviz, Vessali, 110 Pershing, said he has heard that November elections could be doomed to
partisanship. The people that vote in May will also vote in November, and that won’t
disenfranchise others. He agrees that keeping elections in May empowers small groups to have a
say in city government, but in November we would have less of that problem. If a
councilmember has to resign it would incur additional cost for equipment. Also, staff time boils
down to money. If voters choose four year terms, the next charter amendment election would be
23
RM081111 Minutes Page 7
pushed to 2015. He urged the Council to vote on a resolution to move to November, and we
could have a charter amendment election in November 2012.
Paul Greer, 9100 Waterford Drive, stated that the issue of costs is a serious consideration, but we
should realize that three year terms would have an election every year. Four year terms have an
election every other year.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Brick and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted four (4) for and three (3) opposed, with Mayor Berry,
Councilmembers Fields and Ruesink voting against, to adopt Ordinance 2011-3361, ordering a
special election to be held on November 8, 2011 for the purpose of amending the City Charter to
provide for the regular election of the Mayor and City Council to be held in May of odd-
numbered years with the Mayor and City Council serving four (4) year term lengths for no more
than eight (8) consecutive years; establishing early voting locations and polling places for this
election; and making provisions for conducting the election. The motion carried.
4. Adjournment.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Mayor Berry and a second by Councilmember Shultz, the
City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the
City Council at 10:04 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sherry Mash burn, City Secretary
24
JM081511 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING WITH
THE CITY OF BRYAN, BRAZOS COUNTY,
CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU,
AND THE COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 15, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields, absent
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles, absent
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Frank Simpson, Deputy City Manager
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Joint Meeting with the City of Bryan, Brazos County, Convention
and Visitors Bureau, and the College Station City Council was called to order at 9:45 a.m. on
Monday, August 15, 2011 at the College Station Hilton, 801 University Dr. East, College
Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation and discussion regarding the "Bryan-College Station Destination
Development Report" and associated recommendations.
Scott Joslove discussed the use of local hotel occupancy tax (HOT). This is a restrictive law, and
cannot be used for just any public purpose. Expenditures must fit in one of several specific
categories; it is statutorily mandated that HOT must promote convention and visitor programs.
These categories include:
1. Convention or visitor center: over 50% of the usage needs to be for conventions and
meetings involving tourists
2. Registration of convention delegates
3. Advertising and promotion, must spend at least 1/7th of funds received
25
JM081511 Minutes Page 2
4. Promotion of the arts, cannot just be a local event; the cap is 15% of funds received
5. Historical restoration and preservation, cap of 50% of funds received
6. Tourist wayfinding signage
7. Shuttles between convention center and area hotels
8. Sporting related events and infrastructure improvements (the amount spent on
improvements cannot exceed the hotel revenue generated in five years)
Sarah Page and Penny Ray, with Indigo Resource Group, presented the results of their study on
the best use of hotel occupancy tax. The seven executive summary recommendations are as
follows:
1. The City of College Station should adopt a new funding strategy that releases its current
occupancy tax reserves and award future collections entirely to organizations that meet
state occupancy tax law requirements and demonstrate a healthy return-on-investment.
2. Reserve funding should be allocated to the CVB for the collection of research to track
visitor speeding, point of origin, length of stay and other relevant data.
3. Reserve funding should be allocated to create and implement a wayfinding master plan.
4. An investment should be made in utilization of technology to promote Bryan-College
Station to potential business and leisure travelers and enhance their visitor experience.
5. The current “Rewards Program” should be expanded to create immediate opportunities
for group business in both the convention and sports markets.
6. Funding an additional CVB staff person to create and implement strategies for cross-
promotion, cooperative advertising, stakeholder information sharing and product
development.
7. Adoption of a clear, easy-to-use and compare, occupancy tax funding request process.
A draft Hotel Tax Fund Expenditure Grant Application Packet was provided, and input from the
stakeholders was requested. The entities were requested to agree to a grant funding process that
is transparent and easy to understand. It was stressed that the CVB is not asking for funds to be
released to them, but rather asking that the funds be released to those organizations that meet
state occupancy tax law requirements. They want the process to be more efficient and
accountable.
3. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, the Joint Meeting with the City of Bryan, Brazos
County, Convention and Visitors Bureau, and College Station City Council was adjourned at
11:50 a.m. on Monday, August 15, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
26
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 15, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney, arrived after roll call
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
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Budget Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:09 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2011 in the Carter Creek
Wastewater Training Facility 2200 North Forest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the FY 201 1-2012 Proposed Budget.
Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer, provided a review of the proposed FY11-12 budget. The
focus of discussion was on the Water and Wastewater Funds and the General Fund – Part1.
Water Fund: Projected revenues for FY12 are $13,780,000. These revenues are derived from
user fees and water rates. No rate increase is proposed. The forecast does show future rate
increases. There is an impact of the drought on water revenues in FY11. Expenditures are
projected to be $14,488,902. Operations and Maintenance is $6,345,907. There is a service level
adjustment reduction in the amount of $45,480 because we are discontinuing fluoridation and
reducing the Conservation Rebate Program. A 2.5% performance increase in the amount of
27
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 2
$36,852 is included. Debt service is $4,796,645. $1,950,000 will be transferred to Capital
Projects, and $1,222,850 will be transferred to the General Fund (ROI). The line item for
Economic Development in the amount of $12,500 was questioned. Mr. Kersten provided a brief
overview of the key water system production projects, distribution projects, and rehabilitation
projects. We will use $1.9 million in current revenues to pay for these projects and issue debt in
the amount of $6.1 million.
Wastewater Fund: FY12 revenues are projected at $12,919,000. These revenues are derived
from user fees and a FY12 proposed rate increase of 5%. The forecast shows additional future
rate increases. Expenditures are projected at $12,047,941. Operations and Maintenance is
$6,536,932. There is a service level adjustment of $132,000 for interceptor cleaning/evaluation.
Pay adjustments are projected at $58,584. Debt service is $4,114,467. $1,120,000 will be
transferred to Capital Projects, and $1,206,542 will be transferred to the General Fund (ROI).
Mr. Kersten provided a brief overview of the key wastewater system collection projects,
rehabilitation projects, and CIP projects. We will use $1.1 million in current revenues to pay
for these projects and issue debt in the amount of $7.5 million.
General Fund Revenues: Key budget policy points include economic uncertainty, organizational
restructuring, utility transfer policy, tax rate, public safety, and pay/benefits. General Fund
revenues are proposed at $54,260,962. For FY11 year-end revenue is estimated to show that
sales tax is estimated higher than the approved budget by $873,000. ROI is estimated to be
lower than the approved budget by $1.5 million. The revenue for FY12 has a 1.7% proposed
increase over the FY11 year-end estimate. It anticipates an increase in ad valorem revenue of
$1.2 million, and increase sales tax by $400,000. The ROI is expected to decrease by $2 million.
Sales tax makes up 37.5% of General Fund revenues. FY11 sales tax is forecast to be 4.5%
higher than anticipated.
Regarding property tax revenue, our certified value this year is $5.74 billion, with an increase of
5.2% over last year’s valuation. There is $148 million in new values. Existing value has
increased by 2%. The median home value is $209,942. Our current tax rate is 44.7543 cents,
and the Effective Tax Rate is 43.7995 cents. The rollback rate is 45.4682 cents. The proposed
tax rate is 43.7995 cents; this is broken down to 20.1536 for debt service and 23.6459 for
operations and maintenance. The effective tax rate provides additional resources for fire station
#6. Each penny generates about $533,000. Property tax revenues make up $13.5 million, or
25% of the proposed general fund revenue.
$10,060,270 is proposed to be transferred from electric utilities. In lieu of franchise fees are $4.9
million or 14.6%. The ROI is $2.1 million or 3.95%. Current fiscal policy is we will not transfer
more than 10% of the total estimated operating revenues. We expect to reduce transfers by $2
million in 2012 and $1 million in FY13. On the water side, we will not to exceed 10% of the
total estimated operating revenues. In lieu of franchise fees are $800,000 and ROI is $522,000.
Wastewater transfers will also not exceed 10% of total operating revenues. In lieu of franchise
fee are $723,000. The ROI is $820,000.
28
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 3
Franchise/mixed drink revenues are projected at $2.4 million or 4.5 %. State budget changes
will result in less mixed drink tax allocated to the City. Telephone franchise fees anticipate a
slight decline. Licenses and permits are projected at $0.9 million or 1.8%. There are minimal
changes in other revenue categories.
General Fund Expenditures: We typically budget at 97% for salary and benefits. Increases have
been included for TMRS contribution requirements and the City’s portion of health care benefits.
Budget reductions have occurred through reorganization and the elimination of 27.25 positions
city-wide, 21.25 in the general fund. This provided an estimated savings of $1.5 million city-
wide and $1.2 million in the general fund. Other reductions include building maintenance,
overtime, technology upgrades, travel and training, etc.
An overview of general fund departments was begun and will continue throughout the budget
workshops this week:
Police Department: FY12 expenditures are proposed at $14.6 million. This included a recurring
service level adjustment for fitlife testing ($22,375), deferral of the next steps of the Strategic
Plan (hiring of additional officers), and the next phase of the step pay plan to increase sergeants’
and lieutenants’ pay rates.
Fire Department: FY12 proposed expenditures are $13.3 million. Service level adjustments for
Fire Station #6 operations and maintenance are in the amount of $7 million. $639,070 are one-
time funds to get the facility up and running. There are $1.2 million in recurring costs. A
service level adjustment for one-time maintenance on Fire Station #4 is $80,000. TAMU will
reimburse half the cost.
Public Works: FY12 proposed expenditures are $6.7 million. This includes the CIP department,
and a service level adjustment for a structural study for the conference center -- a one-time cost
of $25,000. The proposed budget includes $350,000 for street rehabilitation. The streets
proposed for rehabilitation include: Rock Prairie West, Brothers Blvd., Post Oak Circle,
Muirfield Village, Jones Butler, and Hardwood.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the 2010-2011 ad valorem tax rate; and,
if necessary on calling two public hearings on a proposed ad valorem tax rate for 2011-
2012.
This item was not discussed.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the budget workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:04 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
29
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 4
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
30
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 16, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Frank Simpson, Assistant 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 Budget Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:12 p.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 in the Carter Creek
Wastewater Training Facility 2200 North Forest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the FY 201 1-2012 Proposed Budget.
Parks and Recreation: FY12 expenditures are proposed at $4,971,008. This includes PARD
administration, recreation administration, special facilities administration, etc. The sports
programs, Xtra education, aquatics, the Southwood Center, and Conference Center have been
moved to the Recreation Fund. Service level adjustments total $40,200. This is to replace the
registration/reservation software ($18,000 one-time cost and $25,000 recurring costs); athletic
fields maintenance equipment for $22,200 (one-time cost), and the reduction and relocation of
Christmas in the Park, for a recurring reduction of $25,000. Council requested more
information on the Christmas in the Park program.
31
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 2
Recreation Fund: Proposed revenue for FY12 is $1,198,016 and FY12 proposed expenditures
are $3,811,342. These include sports programs, aquatics, instruction, the Southwood Center and
Lincoln Center, and the Conference Center. A subsidy of $2,613,326 is also proposed. Council
requested more information on the aquatics programs and subsidy of such. Other programs of
interest are the senior center and teen center.
The proposed service level adjustments are all reductions. They are proposing the elimination of
the concessions cost center, changing the programming at the Natatorium, and reducing
recreation programming by eliminating the adult football program and reducing adult kickball
and adult volleyball from three seasons to two seasons.
PROPOSED GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT BUDGETS
Library $ 1,071,654
Planning and Development Services $ 3,691,097
· SLA - $50,000 Wellborn Small Area Plan
Information Technology $ 3,927,140
Fiscal Services $ 2,987,050
General Government $ 3,566,387
· SLA - $13,275 Codification Maintenance
Pay Plan $ 905,248
DEPARTMENT TOTALS $55,911,372
Pay Plan Proposal: Pay increases are possible only with other reductions. A limited pay
increase was provided last year. This year’s proposed budget includes an average 2.5% increase
that will be performance based. It also includes the next phase of the Police Department step
plan for sergeants and lieutenants.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the 2010-2011 ad valorem tax rate; and,
if necessary on calling two public hearings on a proposed ad valorem tax rate for 2011-
2012.
This item was not discussed.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the budget workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
32
WKSHP081511 Minutes Page 3
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
33
WKSHP081711 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 17, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Frank Simpson, Assistant 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 Budget Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:16 p.m. on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 in the Carter Creek
Wastewater Training Facility 2200 North Forest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the FY 201 1-2012 Proposed Budget.
NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES
General and Administrative Transfers: ($5,668,355)
Public Agency Funding: $1,079,316
This increased from $907,013 in FY11. The RVP was increased $50,000 and the Arts Council
O&M is up $25,550 and the Arts Council Affiliates is budgeted for $100,000 this year; this was
funded with hotel tax funds last year. The Brazos Animal Shelter has been increased from
$169,513 to $191,266. The Health Department decreased from $351,500 to $326,500.
34
WKSHP081711 Minutes Page 2
· Hotel Tax Fund: This was discussed to provide clarification on some of the public
agency funding. Revenues are proposed to come in at $3,400,680. Proposed
expenditures in the amount of $2,085,142 include special events and programs,
convention center land debt service, Convention and Visitors Bureau, Arts Council
affiliates, Veteran’s Memorial, Bryan/College Station Chamber, Northgate advertising,
and other/contingency.
Other/Transfers Out $3,427,883
The Economic Development Fund; Interfund Loan-First Street property; Texas 21, High Speed
Rail; state legislative consulting; transfer to Northgate District; appraisal district; and the Gulf
Coast Strategic Highway Coalition are proposed to be funded in an amount of $814,157.
$2,613,726 will come from a Recreation Fund subsidy.
Contingency $ 250,000
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL FORECAST
Revenue projections are based on economic conditions which have resulted in conservative
revenue estimates. Sales tax is projected to have a slight increase. No future tax rate increase is
expected. Permit revenues are estimated conservatively. Investment earnings are lower.
There will be limited new expenditures, along with a limited pay plan, and increased health care
and retirement costs. Expenditures will include the continuation of the Police strategic plan and
the O&M for Fire Station #6.
KEY GENERAL FUND POLICY DECISION POINTS
The General Fund is funded through the Effective Tax Rate proposals, and we are proposing a
shift from debt to O&M. There are budget and service level reductions. Utility transfer policy
changes are also proposed.
PROPOSED GENERAL DEBT SERVICE FUND
The FY11 Debt Service rate is 22.0194 cents. The proposed FY12 Debt Service rate is 20.1536
cents. This satisfies the FY12 Debt Service requirements of $12,649,002. The parking garage
debt is funded from parking revenues, and the Cemetery debt service is paid from the tax rate.
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Chief Financial Officer Jeff Kersten touched on the Economic Development Fund. $250,000 is
proposed to be transferred back from the Economic Development Fund into the Electric Utility
Fund.
Capital Projects: In 2008, the citizens authorized bonds for $76.9 million. These bond projects
include streets & transportation, parks, library, and a fire station.
ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND
Revenues are proposed at $100,623,786. This assumes a 2% growth in residential and
commercial. No rate increase is included in the FY12 proposed budget, but the forecast shows a
future rate increase in FY13.
35
WKSHP081711 Minutes Page 3
Proposed expenditures are $98,236,372. Approximately $86.5 million is for operations and
transfers, including purchased power and wheeling costs. Service level adjustments are
$214,000. Reduction SLA’s include the Goodwill Tree Program and the Sun Source Solar
Photovoltaic Rebate Program. Increase SLA’s include the Transmission Tree Trimming
Program, NERC certification pay, transformer maintenance, Electric Substations General Labor
Program, Meter Testing Program, and Dispatch Center operating cost. Other expenditures are
pay adjustments, debt service cost, transfer to General Fund (ROI), and direct capital.
Key capital projects were briefly touched upon, the largest being production projects in the
amount of $3,000,000. The most costly being the landfill with BVWSMA.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the 2010-2011 ad valorem tax rate; and,
if necessary on calling two public hearings on a proposed ad valorem tax rate for 2011-
2012.
This item was not discussed.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the budget workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:26 p.m. on Wednesday, August 17, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
36
WKSHP081811 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AUGUST 18, 2011
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
Katy-Marie Lyles
Julie Schultz, arrived after roll call
Dave Ruesink
City Staff:
David Neeley, City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager
Frank Simpson, Assistant 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 Budget Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 3:07 p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2011 in the Carter Creek
Wastewater Training Facility 2200 North Forest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77842.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the FY 201 1-2012 Proposed Budget.
Sanitation Fund: Revenues are proposed at $7,242,423. There is no rate increase in the
proposed budget; however, the forecast shows rate increases in the future. Expenditures are
proposed at $7,442,514. Of this amount, $6.7 million is for O&M (personnel, equipment, fuel,
and disposal cost at landfill). There are no proposed service level adjustments. $50,820 is
proposed for pay adjustments. A transfer to the General Fund (ROI) is proposed in the amount
of $709,987. $50,240 is proposed for Keep Brazos Beautiful for operations, beautification
grants, and other beautification programs in College Station.
37
WKSHP081811 Minutes Page 2
BVSWMA: The proposed budget for salaries and benefits, to be reimbursed by BVSWMA, Inc.,
is $1,393,401 for FY12.
Northgate Parking Enterprise Fund: Revenues are proposed at $1,159,689, primarily from the
parking fees and assuming a 1% growth. There are also revenues from parking fines, which are
assumed to remain flat. Expenditures are proposed at $1,085,775. This includes $444,545 for
parking O&M and non-parking activities estimated at $220,633 to be reimbursed by the General
Fund. A service level adjustment of $80,000 is for garage security cameras. There is a pay
adjustment for $5,701. Debt service for this fund is $464,000.
Community Development Fund: The total proposed budget is $5,012,772. CDBG eligible
expenditures are $2,303,828 and HOME grant expenditures are $2,708,944. This money is from
federal grants.
ARRA Fund: The total proposed budget is $65,000. The money comes from a general
government grant and funds the Sustainability Coordinator position. The grant funds this
position from FY10 to FY12.
Traffic Safety Fund: Revenues are $1,400 from investment earnings. Expenditures are $72,959
for the BCS Mobility Initiative and traffic safety programs. The fund will close out during FY12
when the money has been expended.
Wolf Pen Creek TIF: Revenues are $10,000 from investment earnings. The Capital budget
appropriates for the WPC Festival site. The water feature project will carry forward until the
project is complete. The balance is estimated to be expended in FY12. The TIF expired
December 21, 2009.
Court Funds and Police Seizure Funds: These funds include the Municipal Court Fee Fund,
Court Technology Fund, Court Security Fund, Juvenile Case Manager Fund, and the Police
Seizure Fund. Revenue received from fees and fines in these funds can only be expended for
specific purposes.
Cemetery Funds: There are three cemetery funds.
· Memorial Cemetery Fund has proposed revenues of $232,293 for plot sales and
investment income. Expenditures are zero.
· Memorial Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund has proposed revenues of $113,951 for plot
sales and investment income. Expenditures are proposed in the amount of $10,000 for
advertising expenses.
· Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund has proposed revenues of $23,000 for plot sales and
investment income. Expenditures are zero.
Parkland Dedication: Revenues are proposed at $305,000. The funds come from residential land
developers for the development of neighborhood parks in residential areas. Expenditures are
proposed in the amount of $1,223,373. These funds must be used for the development of parks
within dedicated zones. Anticipated projects for FY12 are University Park, Carter Crossing
Park, Southwest Park, and John Crompton Park Phase III.
38
WKSHP081811 Minutes Page 3
Drainage Fund: Revenues are proposed for $1,997,773 for drainage utility fees. Expenditures
are proposed at $2,489,068. Of that amount, $1.3 is for O&M for drainage maintenance
operations and the drainage inspector position. There are no service level adjustments. Capital
project expenditures are proposed for $1,122,010. These projects include Greenways projects,
minor drainage improvements, Wolf Pen Creek erosion control, and the Drainage Master Plan.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Self-Insurance Funds:
· Property Casualty Fund: Revenue is proposed at $1,492,910 and Expenditures at
$1,637,161. Ending working capital is $52,786 reserved for possible claims.
· Employee Benefits: Revenue is proposed at $9,003,244. The City contribution has
increased by $861,279. This is 13.19% over the FY11 budget. Expenditures are
proposed at $9,138,943. The insurance provider is BlueCross BlueShield of Texas.
There will be an increase in cost to employees in FY12, and multiple options will be
offered to employees. A service level adjustment in the amount of $22,375 is proposed
for the Police Department Fitlife testing.
· Workers Compensation: Revenues are proposed at $805,538 and expenditures at
$747,874.
Utility Customer Service provides utility metering, billing and collection customer services for
the City utilities. Revenues are proposed at $2,342,713 and expenditures at $2,342,713. A
service level adjustment in the amount of $23,661 is proposed to replace hand-held meter
reading equipment.
Equipment Replacement Fund: Revenues are proposed at $3,592,926. Expenditures are
proposed at $4,084,826 for fleet purchases and replacement. They will replace vehicles with
hybrids when feasible.
Fleet Maintenance Fund provides fleet support services to City operations. Revenue is proposed
at $1,577,410 and expenditures are proposed at $1,659,149.
Council expressed concern over roadway maintenance and rehabilitation. Staff reported that a
three – five year plan will be ready in a couple of months that will address service levels. Once
that is completed, Council will need to commit to an annual expenditure for this program.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the 2010-2011 ad valorem tax rate; and,
if necessary on calling two public hearings on a proposed ad valorem tax rate for 2011-
2012.
Total assessed valuation for FY11 is $5,738,615,002. This is reflective of a 5.2% increase over
last year. The proposed property tax rate for FY11 is slightly lower than the current tax rate.
Each cent on the tax rate generates approximately $533,000. Our current rate is 44.7543 cents,
and the effective tax rate, which will generate approximately the same amount of revenue, is
43.7995 cents. If the Council wishes to set a rate above the effective tax rate, they will need to
hold public hearings.
39
WKSHP081811 Minutes Page 4
Council consensus was to set the tax rate at the Effective Tax Rate at 44.7995 cents.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the budget workshop of the
College Station City Council at 6:08 p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2011.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
40
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Taxi Ordinance Amendment – Jitneys
To: David Neely, City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding update to the
existing Taxi ordinance regulating Jitneys operating within the city limits of College Station.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal III.4: Promote business-friendly attitude.
Recommendation(s): Approval of amended Taxi Ordinance.
Summary: Council directed a review of the existing ordinance regulating the operation of
Jitneys within the city limits of College Station. Staff has completed the review and
recommends changes to the current ordinance to more adequately address operation of
Jitneys within the city limits. Staff presented proposed changes to Council on July 14, 2011
and Council directed staff to amend the current taxi ordinance to include regulation of
Jitneys.
In addition, the Council approved the modification of the current definition of a
Jitney to a motor vehicle designed to carry fifteen or fewer persons, including the
driver, and used to transport passengers for hire.
The attached Taxi Ordinance amendment brings the operation of a Jitney within the city
under the same regulations as a Taxi service.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
Taxi Ordinance Amendment
41
42
43
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
Debt Reimbursement Resolution for
Wastewater Utility Projects
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a
“Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from
Debt” for expenditures related to Wastewater Utility Capital projects.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the “Resolution Declaring
Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from Debt.”
Summary: On projects for which spending will occur in advance of the debt issue, a
“Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from
Debt” must be approved by Council. This “Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from Debt” is being brought to Council to cover
expenditures for projects on which spending is estimated to occur in advance of the debt
issue scheduled for FY11 and FY12. This resolution does not cover all of the debt that is
expected will need to be issued for these projects. Rather, it covers the debt that is
reasonably expected to be issued in the time frame covered by the resolution. Therefore,
additional resolutions may be brought forth to Council for these projects in the future.
Budget & Financial Summary: The “Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Certain Expenditures with Proceeds from Debt” is necessary for this item because the long
term debt has been issued for these projects. The debt that this resolution is intended to
cover is estimated to be issued in FY11 and FY12. The projects covered by this debt
resolution include:
FM 2154 Sewer Trunk Line: This project is for the land acquisition, design and construction
of a gravity sanitary sewer line, lift station and force main to serve the recently annexed
area east of FM 2154. It is estimated that the total project cost will be $3,332,816.
Bee Creek Parallel (Relief) Trunk Line: This project is for the installation of a gravity line to
increase the system capacity of the Bee Creek Trunk Line sub-basin to accept the ultimate
build-out demand anticipated in this respective area. It is estimated that the total project
cost will be $14,703,625.
Lick Creek Centrifuge Replacement project: This project will replace the sludge dewatering
centrifuge at the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is estimated that the total
project cost of the Centrifuge Replacement will be $1,000,000.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with
Proceeds from Debt
44
RESOLUTION NO. _________________
RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WITH
PROCEEDS FROM DEBT
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas (the "City") is a home-rule municipality and
political subdivision of the State of Texas;
WHEREAS, the City expects to pay expenditures in connection with the design, planning,
acquisition and construction of the projects described on Exhibit "A" hereto (collectively, the "Project")
prior to the issuance of obligations by the City in connection with the financing of the Project from
available funds;
WHEREAS, the City finds, considers, and declares that the reimbursement of the City for the
payment of such expenditures will be appropriate and consistent with the lawful objectives of the City
and, as such, chooses to declare its intention, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.150-2 of the
Treasury Regulations, to reimburse itself for such payments at such time as it issues obligations to finance
the Project;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE
STATION, TEXAS THAT:
Section 1. The City reasonably expects it will incur debt, as one or more series of obligations,
with an aggregate maximum principal amount not to exceed $3,500,000, for the purpose of paying the
aggregate costs of the Project.
Section 2. All costs to be reimbursed pursuant hereto will be capital expenditures. No tax-
exempt obligations will be issued by the City in furtherance of this Statement after a date which is later
than 18 months after the later of (1) the date the expenditures are paid or (2) the date on which the
property, with respect to which such expenditures were made, is placed in service.
Section 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, no tax-exempt obligation will be issued pursuant to
this Statement more than three years after the date any expenditure which is to be reimbursed is paid.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011.
_______________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary (Seal)
45
46
Exhibit "A"
The projects to be financed that are the subject of this Statement are:
Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Centrifuge Replacement ($1,000,000)
Bee Creek Parallel (Relief) Line ($2,000,000)
FM 2154 Sewer Trunk Line ($500,000)
47
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report and Compliance Certification
To: David Neely, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A Executive Director - Planning and Development
Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on
Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, 03-02, and consideration for a Resolution to
support and execute a Compliance Certification Letter to the Attorney General.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core
Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution.
Summary: The attached Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report is provided to the City Council in
accordance with the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395.058. In short, the City of
College Station currently has five impact fee areas where all associated utility construction
is complete. All five of the impact fees were updated by Council in accordance with State
Law in either 2008 or 2009.
A previous report showed changes in the projected densities in several of the Impact Fee
areas related to the Land Uses adopted with the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. An update to
incorporate these changes has been in progress but needed to consider the Water and
Wastewater Master Plans that were under development, as well as, a City Wide Impact Fee
Study that was underway. Both projects were significant to the aforementioned update.
With the recent completion of both projects, the update can now proceed and is currently in
progress with completion being anticipated in the next several months.
Additionally the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395.082 requires an Annual
Certification Letter from the City to the Texas Attorney General by the last of day of City’s
fiscal year stating simply that the City’s impact fee program in compliance with State Law.
The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee per the
City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 15: Impact Fees. On August 4, 2011
the Advisory Committee discussed and unanimously recommended support the Semi-Annual
Report and Compliance Certification Letter to be forwarded to City Council for consideration.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report
2. Resolution
3. Compliance Certification Letter to the Attorney General
48
1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 21, 2011
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Carol Cotter, P.E., Sr. Asst. City Engineer
SUBJECT: Semi-Annual Report – Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, 03-02
Local Government Code requires semi-annual reporting in order to monitor the progress
of impact fees and to determine when an update to the fee study is necessary. An
update was recommended and approved last year, and is currently under way. There
have been no major changes over the last reporting period. Staff recommends that the
Advisory Committee forward this report to City Council for their status update.
The City of College Station Ordinance Chapter 15, Impact Fees, designates the
Planning and Zoning Commission as the Advisory Committee for review, advisement,
and monitoring of proposed and existing impact fees. More specifically, the Advisory
Committee is established to:
1. Advise and assist the City in adopting Land Use assumptions.
2. Review the Capital Improvements Plan and file written comments.
3. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan.
4. File semi-annual reports with respect to the progress of the Capital
Improvements Plan.
5. Advise the City Council of the need to update or revise the Land Use
Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees.
Currently the City of College Station has five impact fees in existence of which all
associated construction is complete. All five of the impact fees underwent a 5-Year
Update in either 2008 or 2009 (as noted below) in accordance with State Law. The
following is a current status report for each of the five impact fees. (To facilitate review
data changes from previous 6 months are presented in bold font.):
49
This fee was initially implemented in 1992 at $152.18 /LUE and was revised in 1996
to $289.77/LUE after approval of updated Land use Assumptions and Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP), revised again to the $232.04/LUE in 2000 and to the
current amount in April of 2008. The CIP consists of three phases originally
estimated at $543,000 which have all been completed at a combined cost of
$473,518.72. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $0.00 for total amount of
$323,502.20 (per Account #250-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible
for collection is about $18,211. The total amount to be recovered through impact
fees is anticipated at 72% of original construction cost.
92-01 Sanitary Sewer ( Graham Road ) ( 508 ac. ) __ $316.07/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997 at $349.55/LUE and was revised to
the current amount in April of 2008. The CIP consists of Phase I (east of Hwy 6 )
and Phase II (west of Hwy 6 ). Phase I estimated to cost $1,000,000 was
completed in 1999 at a cost of $631,214.59. Phase II was estimated to cost
$1,350,000 and was completed at a cost of $813,752.00. The total actual cost was
$1,444,966.59. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $7,576 for total amount
of $559,964 (per Acct #251-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for
collection is about $196,933. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees
is anticipated at 52% of original construction cost.
97-01 Sanitary Sewer ( Spring Creek – Pebble Hills) ( 2000 ac.) $98.39/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997 at 243.38/LUE and was revised to
the current amount in April of 2008. The CIP consisted of running a 15" sanitary
sewer line from the south end of the College Station Business Park westerly along
Alum Creek to the east ROW of Highway 6. The project was estimated to cost
$390,000 and was completed in 1999 at a cost of $214,270.87. Fees collected
over the last 6 months are $238 for total amount of $21,226 (per Acct #252-0000-
287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $182,141. The
total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at 95% of original
construction cost.
97-02B Sanitary Sewer ( Alum Creek – Nantucket) ( 608 ac. ) $59.42/LUE
This fee was implemented in April 1999 at $550.00/LUE and was revised to the
current amount in April of 2008. The CIP consists of running an 18" water line south
along the east ROW of Highway 6 approximately 4800'. The line was estimated to
cost $312,000 (the impact fee is based on an 8" line @ $165,000 ). A 2400' section
of the 18" line was constructed in 1999 from the south end at a total cost of
$342,977.73. Fees collected over the last 6 months are $50,814 for total amount of
$58,582 (per Acct #240-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for
collection is about $252,531. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees
is anticipated at 91% of original construction cost.
99-01 Water ( Harley )( 158 ac. ) $769.91/LUE
50
This fee was initially implemented in June 2003 at $300.00/LUE and was revised to
the current amount in May of 2009. This CIP was constructed in two phases of
sanitary sewer line construction in compliance with the proposed construction in the
original report establishing the fee. Phase one crossed Wellborn Road and
terminated at Old Wellborn Road consisting of 2,347 linear feet of 18 inch sewer
line with a construction cost of $296,642. Phase two was completed in 2006 and
continued the line along Old Wellborn Road and terminated across RPR West.
Phase two consisted of 6,281 linear feet of 12 inch line and 2,062 linear feet of 18
inch line for a construction cost of $529,088 and a land cost of $87,133. The
design cost for the combined phases was $148,023. The total actual cost was
$1,091,886 which was less than the original report estimated at $1,596,137. Fees
collected over the last 6 months are $12,521 for total amount of $46,474 (per Acct
#253-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about
$744,035. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at
72% of original construction cost.
03-02 Sanitary Sewer ( Steeplechase ) ( 715 ac. ) $357.74/LUE
As part of a previous Semi-Annual Report the impact of the newly adopted
Comprehensive Land Use Plan was evaluated. As presented in the Table below,
the densities expected with the Land Use Plan adopted in 2009 are significantly
different in several of the Impact Fee Areas. An update to incorporate these
changes has been in progress but needed to consider the Water and Wastewater
Master Plans that were under development, as well as, a City Wide Impact Fee
Study that was underway. Both projects were significant to the aforementioned
update. With the recent completion of both projects, the update can now proceed
and is currently in progress with completion being anticipated in the next several
months.
Impact Fee Area
Effective
Buildout
LUE
Current
Impact
Fee Rate
Anticipated
Buildout
LUE
LUE
Adjustment
Remaining
Capital
Investment
to Recoup
92-01 Graham 1551 $ 316.07 1775 + 224 $ 18,000
97-01 Spring Creek 4425 $ 98.39 8384 + 3959 $197,000
97-02B Alum 3232 $ 59.42 2139 - 1093 $182,000
99-01 Harley 450 $ 769.91 440 - 10 $253,000
03-02 Steeplechase 2838 $ 357.74 7816 + 4987 $744,000
Total $1,394,000
The Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395.082 requires an annual
certification letter from the City to the Texas Attorney General stating essentially
that the City’s impact fee program is in compliance with state law. With your
direction, this Semi-Annual Report will be forwarded to City Council for their
update and the Mayor’s execution of the certification.
51
Attachments
Land Use at Adoption Map per Impact Fee Area
: Impact Fee Service Areas Map
Current Land Use Map per Impact Fee Area
Compliance Certification Letter to Attorney General
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION LETTER
August **, 2011
Attorney General Greg Abbott
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711_2548
Dear Attorney General Abbott:
This statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code for the City of
College Station, Texas.
Sincerely,
_______________________________
Nancy Berry
Mayor
City of College Station
59
60
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION LETTER
August 25, 2011
Attorney General Greg Abbott
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711_2548
Dear Attorney General Abbott:
This statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code for the City of
College Station, Texas.
Sincerely,
_______________________________
Nancy Berry
Mayor
City of College Station
61
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
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 on a resolution to award a
contract to 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.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
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.
Therefore, staff solicited sealed competitive bids for this service. Four (4) sealed bids were
received and Cal’s Body Shop submitted the lowest responsible bid.
The table below shows budget and actual expenditures for three prior years:
Year Budget Actual Spent
2008 $40,000 $37,854
2009 $56,250 $56,250
2010 $56,000 $56,239
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available in the Property and Casualty Fund.
Attachments:
1) Resolution
2) Bid Tabulation
62
63
City of College Station - Purchasing DivisionBid Tabulation for #11-110"Annual Contract for Auto Heavy Truck Paint Body Repairs"Open Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 @ 2:00 p.m.Cal's Body Shop(Bryan, TX)Krause Paint & Body Shop(Bryan, TX)Oscar & Son's Body Shop(Bryan, TX)Varsity Ford(College Station, TX)ITEM UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE1.1HourlyRate Body/Fender$36.00 $44.00 $42.00 $38.001.2HourlyRate Frame$36.00 $22.00 $50.00 $38.001.3HourlyRate Painting - Labor & Materials$36.00 $66.00 $70.00 $60.751.4HourlyRate Mechanical$36.00 $22.00 $75.00 $38.00$144.00 $154.00 $237.00 $174.752.1HourlyRate Body/Fender$36.00 $44.00 $48.00 No BidHourlyGROUP I - CARS & LIGHT TRUCKSGROUP II - HEAVY TRUCKSGROUP I - TOTAL2.2 Rate Frame$36.00 $22.00 $55.00 No Bid2.3HourlyRate Painting - Labor & Materials$36.00 $66.00 $78.00 No Bid2.4HourlyRate Mechanical$36.00 $22.00 $75.00 No Bid$144.00 $154.00 $256.00 No Bid$288.00 $308.00 $493.00 $174.7599995% 1% 2% 0%Notes:Oscar & Son's Body Shop»Bidder miscalculated Goup I Total as $247.00 and the Grand Total as $503.00 The highlighted totals above are correct.Varsity Ford»Bidder did not bid on Group II - Heavy Trucks.GROUP II - TOTALCertification of Bid GRAND TOTAL (GROUP I + GROUP II)Prompt Payment DiscountPage 1 of 164
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
Construction Contract
Project Number WF1338390
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution
approving construction contract #11-310 with Elliott Construction, LLC authorizing the
expenditure of funds, in an amount not to exceed, $667,182.82 for the construction of a lift
station near the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I, Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this construction contract.
Summary: The proposed Scott & White Hospital, located at the southeast corner of North
State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road, needs sewer service by June 2012. The scope of
this project includes the construction of a lift station, approximately 6,300 linear feet of 6-
inch force main, and associated appurtenances. This new sanitary sewer lift station will
provide sewer service to the proposed Scott & White Hospital campus. The force main will
extend from the lift station south along the Highway 6 Frontage Road and discharge into the
Spring Creek gravity sewer line, approximately 3,000 feet north of William D. Fitch
Parkway. This project will fulfill the City’s obligation of the Economic Development
Agreement with Scott & White to participate in the sewer infrastructure that was approved
by council in December of 2010.
The City received six construction bids in response to the Invitation To Bid (ITB). The
construction budget is $910,758. The lowest responsible bidder was Elliott Construction,
LLC with a bid of $667,182.82.
Budget & Financial Summary: The FY12 proposed budget for this project is $1,207,758.
These funds are budgeted in the Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund.
$248,138.66 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $959,619.34
for construction and related expenses.
A portion of the funding for this project came from the Economic Development Fund. In
addition, as outlined in the development agreement with Scott and White, a portion of the
cost will be reimbursed by Scott and White upon completion of the project. The remaining
cost will be financed by the Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund.
Attachments:
1.) Resolution
2.) Project Location Map
3.) Bid Tabulation
65
66
67
City of College Station - Purchasing Division
Bid Tabulation for #11-112
"Scott White Sewer"
Open Date: Tuesday,August 2, 2011 @ 2:00 p.m.
ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1 1 LS General Overhead for all Work Including Mobilization, Bonds,
Insurance, Staking and Related Items $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,800.00 $20,800.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $39,500.00 $39,500.00 $46,347.00 $46,347.00 $98,500.00 $98,500.00
2 1 LS Site Preparation and Restoration, including clearing, grubbing, and
disposing of vegetation/debris $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $8,643.57 $8,643.57 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $30,500.00 $30,500.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00
3 1 LS Traffic Control $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,882.74 $5,882.74 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00
4 1 LS Erosion Control $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $13,441.89 $13,441.89 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $4,300.00 $4,300.00 $800.00 $800.00
5 1 LS Hydromulch Seeding $0.32 $0.32 $7,059.28 $7,059.28 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $8,600.00 $8,600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
6 6,257 LF 6" Force Main, ASTM D-2241 class 200 PVC with Detector Tape
and Tracer Wire in Trench, All Depths $16.10 $100,737.70 $18.05 $112,938.85 $30.00 $187,710.00 $16.45 $102,927.65 $28.50 $178,324.50 $26.00 $162,682.00
7
740 LF
14" x 3/8" Steel Casing By Bore, Includes 6" ASTM D-2241 Class
200 Certa Flo Greenline Restrained Joint PVC Pipe Including
Adapter Seals, Casing Spacers, and End Seals, All Depths $189.00 $139,860.00 $183.77 $135,989.80 $175.00 $129,500.00 $130.75 $96,755.00 $260.00 $192,400.00 $228.00 $168,720.00
8 5 EA 6" DI Bends (90, 45, etc.)$194.00 $970.00 $319.29 $1,596.45 $200.00 $1,000.00 $575.00 $2,875.00 $350.00 $1,750.00 $356.00 $1,780.00
9 3 EA 6" Gate Valve and Box (Force Main)$700.00 $2,100.00 $982.91 $2,948.73 $850.00 $2,550.00 $975.00 $2,925.00 $880.00 $2,640.00 $900.00 $2,700.00
10 2 EA Air-Release Valve on Force Main in 4' Manhole $3,555.00 $7,110.00 $4,651.57 $9,303.14 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $3,900.00 $7,800.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,300.00 $14,600.00
11 14 EA Tracer Wire Access Point $115.00 $1,610.00 $119.79 $1,677.06 $80.00 $1,120.00 $175.00 $2,450.00 $260.00 $3,640.00 $200.00 $2,800.00
12 1 EA Force Main Internal Tie into Existing Manhole $1,461.00 $1,461.00 $1,990.33 $1,990.33 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $850.00 $850.00 $300.00 $300.00
13 6,257 LF Trench Safety System for Force Main, all cuts $1.00 $6,257.00 $1.12 $7,007.84 $1.00 $6,257.00 $0.50 $3,128.50 $1.00 $6,257.00 $1.00 $6,257.00
14 1 LS Duplex, Submersible, Lift Station, Including All Work on Lot 2,
Block 4 (Except Alternate Bid Fiber Items)$303,860.00 $303,860.00 $302,488.18 $302,488.18 $280,000.00 $280,000.00 $325,000.00 $325,000.00 $276,985.00 $276,985.00 $372,700.00 $372,700.00
15
1 EA
Fiber Riser, Furnish 4" x 30' IMC Conduit and Mounting
Hardware for installation by City (Items on Lift Station Lot
included in Lift Station bid item)$200.00 $200.00 $882.41 $882.41 $950.00 $950.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $893.00 $893.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
16
1,840 LF
Fiber Conduit, 4" PVC Schedule 40 with 4-1" Innerducts and Pull
Tape Embedded in 8" Cement Stablilzed Sand with 36" cover
(Items on Lift Station Lot included in Lift Station bid item)$17.60 $32,384.00 $8.82 $16,228.80 $23.00 $42,320.00 $29.00 $53,360.00 $21.60 $39,744.00 $46.00 $84,640.00
17
4 EA Fiber Pull Box, Polymer Concrete 30" x 48" x 36" deep, Traffic
Rated (Items on Lift Station Lot included in Lift Station bid item)$1,650.00 $6,600.00 $3,764.95 $15,059.80 $2,750.00 $11,000.00 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 $2,620.00 $10,480.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00
18 1 EA Core and Tie Conduit into Existing Junction Box Outside of
Substaton $800.00 $800.00 $1,470.68 $1,470.68 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $850.00 $850.00 $2,586.00 $2,586.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00
19 2 $1,115.00 $2,230.00 $1,176.55 $2,353.10 $1,160.00 $2,320.00 $960.00 $1,920.00 $1,046.00 $2,092.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00
20 1857 $3.20 $5,942.40 $4.40 $8,170.80 $4.20 $7,799.40 $4.95 $9,192.15 $3.78 $7,019.46 $5.00 $9,285.00
21 4062 $4.20 $17,060.40 $5.40 $21,934.80 $5.35 $21,731.70 $4.45 $18,075.90 $4.84 $19,660.08 $8.00 $32,496.00
BASE BID PLUS ALL ALTERNATES
Certification of Bid
TOTAL BASE BID (ITEMS 1-14)
Elliott Construction
(Wellborn, TX)
Dudley Construction, Ltd.
(College Station, TX)
Bid Bond
Acknowledged Addendums
BASE BID
$641,950.02 $665,409.55
ALTERNATE BID
TOTAL ALTERNATEBID (ITEMS 19-21)$25,232.80 $32,458.70
$667,182.82 $675,933.45 $768,276.40 $679,033.30
$758,157.00
Doughtie Construction
(College Station, TX)
$667,921.15
Kieschnick
(Wellborn, TX)
$31,851.10 $29,188.05
Brazos Paving (Bryan,
TX)
$818,796.50
$28,771.54
$847,568.04
Holloman Corporation
(Converse, TX)
$947,379.00
$43,981.00
$991,360.00
Page 1 of 168
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Approval of a Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement
with the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc.
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: David Massey, Director of Electric Utilities
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of
a Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement with the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency,
Inc. (BVSWMA) in partnership with the City of Bryan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core
Services and Infrastructure.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
Summary: The closure of the Rock Prairie Landfill gives the Cities of College Station and
Bryan a unique opportunity to utilize landfill gas for electricity production. Approval of the
Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement will provide long-term certainty to the two municipal
electric utilities and BVSWMA, Inc. pertaining to future income/expenses of the landfill gas.
The landfill gas will be metered from the existing gas collection system and will be utilized
as fuel for a future electric generating facility located on the landfill site. A contract between
College Station and Bryan will be forthcoming in the near future for design and construction
of the generating facilities along with an Interlocal Agreement for operation of the
generation facilities. The BVSWMA Board and Bryan City Council have both approved this
agreement in recent weeks.
Budget & Financial Summary:
There are no budget implications pertaining to this agreement until the generation facilities
are in place and operational.
Attachment:
Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Northgate Street Meter Upgrade
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1 Spending taxpayer money efficiently; Goal I.4
Services must pay for themselves; Goal I.5 Develop revenue streams independent of the
General Fund; Goal III.4 Promote business-friendly attitude.
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a contract for
equipment upgrade of the Northgate Street Meter System in the amount of $98,594.00.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the City Council approve the contract with
IPS Group, Inc.
Summary: After more than ten (10) years of heavy use, the current meter and auditing
equipment for the City’s on-street parking assets has reached the end of its serviceable life-
span. While the existing equipment is currently functional, changes in technology for both
revenue collection and meter auditing has rendered this current equipment obsolete. Staff
has identified an immediate need for both additional assets and updated technology that will
provide tangible operational and customer service improvements.
An additional driving factor behind this project is the ongoing street and sidewalk
rehabilitation taking place along Tauber Street and Stasney Street. Prior to this project,
Northgate District staff were responsible for managing seventy-six (76) on-street, coin-
operated parking meters. The Tauber/Stasney project is creating seventy-two (72)
additional, new on-street parking spaces that will require metering and management.
Additionally, when construction is complete along these streets and renovations begin along
University Drive, there will be a total of one hundred five (105) on-street spaces throughout
the Northgate District. This net increase of twenty-nine (29) spaces will require monitoring,
revenue collection and enforcement without creating an operational gap or unnecessarily
draining departmental resources.
This proposed meter system from IPS will provide patrons with both coin and credit card
payment options, similar to the existing system in the Promenande Surface Lot. Familiarity
with this payment format will hopefully reduce or eliminate any confusion over where to pay
for parking. Additionally, vehicle detection sensors and comprehensive back office software
applications associated with this metering equipment will also increase the overall efficiency
of our revenue collection and enforcement efforts by automatically notifying staff when
vehicles are present, when a meter requires service, and when a meter has reached its
capacity. As such, this system will more effectively track meter usage, reduce staff time
spent on enforcement and significantly reduce meter downtime.
Budget & Financial Summary: This contract for the new on-street meter system is
$98,594.00. Additional costs for the purchase of materials and the installation of meter
poles are estimated at $17,584.80. Funds in the amount of $83,000 are included in the
FY11 Parking Enterprise Fund budget for this project. The additional needed funds in the
amount of $33,178.80 will come from the Tauber and Stasney Street Rehabilitation project
and the Northgate Improvements project which was for capital improvement projects in
Northgate.
Attachments:
1. General Services Contract between the City of College Station and IPS Group, Inc.
(on file in the City Secretary’s Office)
2. Map of Post-Construction Street Parking Assets
105
106
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2i
Tauber & Stasney Street and Utility Rehabilitation Project
Construction Change Order
Project Numbers ST-0505, WF0625888, WF0625893, WF6598173, CO-0902
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a deductive
change order to the construction contract with Dudley Construction Ltd. (contract # 11-003)
in the amount of a $ 68,115.39 for the Tauber & Stasney Street & Utility Rehabilitation
Project.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I, Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure. Goal II.1, Preserving and restoring older
neighborhoods.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this change order providing the
contract with IPS Group for the installation of new on-street parking meters is approved.
Summary: The majority of this deductive change order is due to a reduction in scope to
eliminate the installation of a new on-street parking system along Tauber and Stasney. A
$100,000 line item was included in the original bid to allow for a new on-street parking
system in Northgate. The original estimate for the new system was approximately
$200,000, with additional funding budgeted in the Parking Garage Fund. The system being
purchased is considerably less, and this change order will reduce the expenditures on this
contract related to the parking system by $87,939.50. The new parking system will be
installed by the vendor providing the equipment. Only the installation of the meter poles will
remain in this construction contract.
The change order also includes some minor quantity adjustment necessary to make field
modifications due to differing site conditions.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $2,760,523 are currently budgeted
for the Streets portion of this project. The items on the change order related to the Streets
portion of the project will result in a credit of $82,002.32 to the project. These funds will
remain in the project budget until the project is complete. Funds in the amount of $415,044
are currently budgeted for the Water portion of the project. The items on the change order
related to the Water portion of the project will result in an additional expense of
$13,886.93, which is within the project budget.
Attachments:
1. Change Order
2. Project Location Map
107
University DrC
olle
g
e
M
ain Church AveN
agle St
Tauber St Stasney StCherry StSecond St Cross StL
o
d
ge St
C h u rc h AveLouise AvePatricia StCross StTauber and Stasney Street Rehabilitation
Project Location Map
108
109
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2j
Tauber & Stasney On-street Parking Removal
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on an ordinance amending
Chapter 10 “Traffic Code”, to remove parking along the east side of Tauber and Stasney
Streets between University Drive and Church St, the east side of Stasney St. between
Church St and Cherry St, the west side of Tauber between Cross St and Cherry St as part of
the Tauber & Stasney Street and Utility Rehabilitation Project.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I, Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure. Goal IV, Improving Multi Modal Transportation.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
Summary: This ordinance will remove parking from Tauber and Stasney Street in
accordance with the parking plan approved by the City Council as part of the Tauber &
Stasney Street and Utility Rehabilitation Project on July 9, 2009. This is not a new parking
plan being proposed by staff along Tauber and Stasney; it is simply a codification of the
parking plan that was approved by the City Council prior to beginning construction. The
Tauber and Stasney on-street parking plan was designed to ensure adequate space exists
along each street for emergency vehicle access.
The parking plan is also consistent with the Northgate on-street parking plan included in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of College Station and Northgate
District Association.
Parking will be removed from the west side of Tauber and Stasney Streets between
University and Church, on the east side of Stasney between Church and Cherry, and the
west side of Tauber between Cross and Cherry. The parking plan pavement striping was
included as a bid item in the construction contract for the project which was approved by
Council on January 13, 2011.
Budget & Financial Summary: The “NO PARKING” signs are planned operation and
maintenance expenses accounted for in the Public Works Traffic Operation budget.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance
2. Parking Plan for Tauber & Stasney Streets
110
111
112
Tauber & Stasney On-Street Parking Plan
(University to Cross)
113
Tauber & Stasney On-Street Parking Plan
(Cross to Cherry)
STASNEY STREET
TAUBER STREET
114
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2k
Wellborn Rd/Old Main Grade Separation Fiber Relocation - UPRR Wireline Crossing
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Ben Roper, IT Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of two a
Wireline Crossing Agreements with Union Pacific Railroad for fiber optic line relocation to
support the Texas A&M grade separation project at Wellborn Rd and Old Main Dr. Permit
fees for the two wireline crossings total $6,900.00
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal II.7 Town/Gown Relationship
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Agreements.
Summary: Some time ago, Texas A&M University began exploring options for additional
traffic and/or pedestrian tunnel(s) under Wellborn Rd to increase safety and support the
increased traffic flow to West Campus. The final developed plan will use a grade separation
to route vehicle and pedestrian traffic under Wellborn Rd and the Union Pacific RR. This
grade separation will be located at the intersection of Wellborn Rd and Old Main Dr.
The City’s main fiber optic loop runs adjacent to Wellborn Rd and will have to be rerouted
around the construction area. Fiber optic lines owned by Qwest Communications and Sprint
will also require relocation. Through mutual agreement, Qwest has agreed to act as “Lead
Carrier” for the relocation project, and the City entered into a contract with Qwest to
relocate the city’s fiber. Union Pacific Railroad informed Qwest that the City would have to
file a separate wireline crossing request for each of the two railroad crossings associated
with the fiber relocation.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funding for the wireline crossing permits, totaling
$6,900.00 will be provided by Texas A&M University.
Attachments:
Wireline Agreements on file in City Secretary’s Office
115
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item No. 2L
Copying and Printing Services
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director of Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of
estimated annual expenditures related to copying and printing services as follows: Tops
Printing $60,000; Texas Printing Co. $35,000; Office Max $35,000.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of expenditures to: Tops Printing
$60,000; Aggieland Printing $35,000; Office Max $35,000. These estimates are based on
the past three year’s history for city-wide printing and copying.
Summary: In October 2007, the City closed its internal print shop and has been
outsourcing printing and high volume copies since that time. Staff issued a Request for
Proposal for copying and printing services in May 2011. Proposals were received and
evaluated by a Committee of representatives from several City departments. Specifications
established three different categories which summarized the types of printing and copying
services the City typically uses. The City spent approximately $85,618 in copying and
printing in a 12month period and approximately $25,000 in specialty printing. These
categories with the recommended vendors for award follow:
I. Category I - Digital Print and Copy
This category includes standard black/white copies/prints; standard color
copies/prints; some oversize black/white/color copies/prints; blueprints and finishing
services. A multiple award is recommended so departments may choose based on
pricing and convenience:
Tops Printing $35,000
Aggieland Pringing $35,000
Office Max $35,000
II. Category II - Offset Printing and High Volume Color Printing
This category includes City letterhead, pre-printed envelopes and business cards
Tops Printing $25,000
III. Category III – Specialty Printing
This category includes a wide range of services including graphic design, maps,
calendars, annual reports, and multi-faceted informational packages, The City will
request quotes from firms for these type specialty services. There are no pre-
qualified firms on this category.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available and budgeted in each Department for
copying and printing services.
Attachments:
None
116
August 25, 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Public Hearing and Consideration of Budget Amendment # 3
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance
Budget Amendment #3 amending ordinance number 3290 which will amend the
budget for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year in the amount of $7,699,757 and presentation,
possible action and discussion on two contingency transfers and one interfund
transfer.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the City Council hold the public hearing
on Budget Amendment #3 and approve the budget amendment ordinance.
Summary: The proposed budget amendment is to increase the appropriations for
the items listed below by $7,699,757. The charter of the City of College Station
provides for the City Council to amend the annual budget in the event there are
revenues available to cover increased expenditures and after holding a public hearing
on such budget amendment. A number of items have been identified that need to be
considered in a budget amendment. Attached is a list of the items in the proposed
budget amendment.
Budget & Financial Summary: The City has resources or can reasonably expect
resources to cover each of the appropriations in this budget amendment.
Appropriations in the amount of $2,000,000 are for Bee Creek Parallel Trunk line.
$2,216,128 of this budget amendment is to provide appropriation for wheeling
charges. The attached list has the complete description of the items included in the
proposed budget amendment.
Attachments:
1. Budget Amendment #3 Detail List, Budget transfer detail list
2. Ordinance
117
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget Amendment #3 Detail Listing
The proposed budget amendment is to increase the appropriations for the items listed below by $7,699,757.
When budget adjustments between Departments and/or Funds are necessary, Council approval is required. In
addition, several General Fund contingency transfer items are included below. Contingency transfers do not
increase or decrease the overall budget. Rather, the contingency transfers shift resources within a fund.
Contingency transfers greater than $15,000 require Council approval and are therefore included as part of this
Budget Amendment documentation. An interfund transfer item is also included below. Budget transfers do not
increase or decrease the overall budget. Rather, the transfers shift resources within a fund.
1. Expenditure for use of Doak Funds for Library shelving - $9,372 (Budget Amendment)
This item is for the replacement and installation of shelving at the College Station Larry Ringer Library.
Grant funds were received from the Clifton C. and Henrietta C. Doak Charitable Trust and are available in
the General Fund Fund balance for this purchase.
2. Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant – Energy Dept – $208,795 (Budget Amendment,
Interfund Transfer)
The City has received a total of $791,100 from stimulus funds administered by the Department of
Energy. These funds are to be used for three years of funding for a Sustainability Coordinator, funding
for hybrid vehicles, and upgrades to Stephen C. Beachy Central Park and Veterans Park. Funds to cover
the following expenditures are available in the ARRA Fund Balance.
$17,773 - The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant provides funding for the increase in cost
between two regular vehicles and two hybrid vehicles. The total purchase price of the two vehicles is
$58,080. This item approves the transfer of $17,773 from the Equipment Replacement Fund to the ARRA
Fund for this purchase. All Interfund transfers must be approved by Council.
$41,591 - Funds were awarded for the second allocation of the 2009 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) and need to be appropriated in the ARRA Fund to be spent by the Police department on an
approved equipment list.
$149,431 – The remaining grant funds need to be re-appropriated in the ARRA fund to be spent on
General Government related projects; including the continuation of retrofits to Stephen C. Beachy
Central Park and Veterans Park. Approved expenditures include irrigation retrofits, installing solar-
powered LED lighting, more efficient recycling/trash containers, and a rainwater harvesting system.
3. State Homeland Security Grant Funding - $163,286 (Budget Amendment)
This item is to appropriate the Govenor’s Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) State Homeland
Security Grant to Public Communications, and the Police and Fire departments. FY08 Homeland grant
(GT0901) expenditures totaling $36,445 need to be appropriated to the following departments: Public
Communications ($4,609); the Police Department ($3,515); and the Fire Department ($28,321) in order
to close out this grant. The Fire Department requests appropriations in the amount of $11,396 for the
FY09 Homeland grant (GT1001). The Police Department budget needs increased by $59,319 for the FY10
Homeland grant (GT1101) and the Fire Department in the amount of $56,126 for their portion of the
FY10 Homeland grant (GT1102). All grant funds from GDEM are expended and then reimbursed by the
State.
118
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget Amendment #3 Detail Listing
4. Funding for Fire Vehicle Purchases - $836,459 (Budget Amendment)
As part of the FY11 budget approval process, and in accordance with the vehicle replacement policy,
Council approved the purchase of four Fire Department vehicles. Two of these vehicles are for Fire
station #6 and the third is a replacement ladder truck. It was anticipated that long term debt would be
used toward the purchase these three vehicles. Instead, it is being recommended that funds from
completed capital projects be used for the vehicle purchases. Funds in the amount of $595,922 are
available from the balance of the Radio System Replacement project. These funds were originally from
the Equipment Replacement Fund. Funds in the amount of $5,037 are available from the balance of the
Barron Road Interchange Design project. These funds were originally from Certificates of Obligation
(CO’s) issued in 2002. Funds in the amount of $235,500 are available from the University Drive Widening
Design project. These funds were also originally from CO’s issued in 2002. The 2002 CO balances must
be used in accordance with the purposes outlined in the 2002 ‘Notice of Intention to Issue Certificates of
Obligation.’ Using the CO balances for the Fire Department vehicle purchases would be in accordance
with this intent. Furthermore, it would account for and would allow for the reporting of all of the 2002
CO issue to the IRS, which could help to mitigate potential future arbitrage penalties. This item will
appropriate $595,922 to the General Government Capital Improvement Projects Fund and will
appropriate $240,537 to the Streets Capital Improvement Projects Fund for transfer to the Equipment
Replacement Fund for the purchase of the fire vehicles.
5. Zone B Community Park Land - $60,000 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate $60,000 to Zone B Community Park Land budget. These funds will be used for
the construction of sidewalk and curb work and the installation of picnic units and barbeque grills at
Southwood Athletic Park. The budget for these items was not included in the FY11 Approved Budget
because the project was not defined when the budget was developed. The funds for this project will
come from contributions collected in Community Park Land Zone B.
6. Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail - $50,000 (Budget Amendment)
$50,000 was appropriated in FY11 for expenses related to completing the Preliminary Engineering
Review (PER) phase of the Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail project. The contract for the PER has been
negotiated with the consultant and will cost $64,365. Coupled with related expenses, it is estimated that
this project phase will cost approximately $100,000. This item will appropriate an additional $50,000 to
the Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail project in FY11, but the overall project budget will not increase. This
project was approved as part of the 2008 General Obligation Bond authorization.
7. FM 2154 Sewer Trunk Line – $500,000 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate $500,000 to the FY11 Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund budget
for the FM 2154 Sewer Trunk Line project. This project is for the land acquisition, design and
construction of a gravity sanitary sewer line, lift station and force main to serve the recently annexed
area east of FM 2154. The project was not included in the FY11 Approved Budget as the project was not
defined when the FY11 Approved Budget was developed. The project will be included in the FY12
Proposed Budget. It is estimated that the total project cost will be $3,332,816. The $500,000 included in
this budget amendment is for preliminary project costs and the engineering contract which is expected
will be brought to Council in FY11.
119
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget Amendment #3 Detail Listing
8. Bee Creek Parallel Trunk Line - $2,000,000 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate $2,000,000 to the FY11 Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund
budget for the Bee Creek Parallel Trunk Line project. This project is for the installation of a gravity line to
increase the system capacity of the Bee Creek Trunk Line sub-basin to accept the ultimate build-out
demand anticipated in this respective area. This trunk line capacity increase is necessary to proactively
prevent surcharge events, possible fines from TCEQ, and customer service disruptions. The project was
not included in the FY11 Approved Budget as the project was not defined when the FY11 Approved
Budget was developed. The project will be included in the FY12 Proposed Budget. It is estimated that
the total project cost will be $14,703,625. The $2,000,000 included in this budget amendment is
intended to cover the engineering contract that is expected to be brought to Council this fiscal year.
9. Lick Creek Centrifuge Replacement - $1,000,000 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate $1,000,000 to the FY11 Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund
budget for the Lick Creek Centrifuge Replacement project. This project will replace the sludge
dewatering centrifuge at the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The current centrifuge has
exceeded its useful life span and is requiring considerable on-going maintenance. The project was not
included in the FY11 Approved Budget as the project was not defined when the FY11 Approved Budget
was developed. The project will be included in the FY12 Proposed Budget. This project will be completed
in conjunction with the currently budgeted Lick Creek Miscellaneous Improvements project. Cost savings
should be realized by doing these projects jointly. It is estimated that the cost of the Centrifuge
Replacement will be $1,000,000. The majority of the expenses will occur in FY12, but it is expected that
the engineering and construction contracts will be brought to Council this fiscal year.
Please note: A rate increase is forecasted for FY12 in the Wastewater Fund to support the operating,
non-operating, capital, and debt service coverage requirements in the Wastewater Fund.
10. Electric Settlement Payment -$500,945 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate $500,945 to the Electric Utility budget for the payment of a settlement for the
September - December 1999 Transition Mechanism Dispute. The transition mechanism was initially used
to help ease effects of transmission costs to some ERCOT utilities during the period of wholesale
transmission deregulation in the late 1990s. College Station was one of the beneficiaries of this
mechanism. The transition mechanism was later found by the courts to be invalid. Under the proposed
settlement, the parties benefited (i.e. were paid) from the transition mechanism will repay the amounts
paid plus interest through October 6, 2003. While this settlement would resolve the largest issues still
outstanding on prior transmission rates from that period, there is one claim that remains pending
before the PUC. Funds for this settlement will come from the Electric Utility fund balance.
11. Purchased Power and Wheeling Charges – $2,216,128 (Budget Amendment)
This item will appropriate funds for the unanticipated increase in the cost of purchased power and
wheeling charges. Purchased power costs were higher than anticipated primarily due to the extreme
cold events that resulted in the brown-outs that occurred in February 2011. Purchased power costs
were approximately $2.1 million higher than anticipated during that month. This amount is being
recovered in FY11 and FY12 as part of the Transmission Delivery Adjustment. In addition, wheeling
120
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget Amendment #3 Detail Listing
charges are higher than budgeted for FY11. Changes to the wheeling charges represent transmission
cost changes approved for additions and improvements to the ERCOT transmission grid made by various
transmission providers in the ERCOT system. Transmission costs are determined on a yearly basis by the
Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUCT) with the new charges approved in the first quarter of the
calendar year. This budget amendment item will increase the purchased power budget to reflect the
additional costs anticipated for FY11. Funds for these costs will come from the Electric Utility fund
balance.
12. Scott and White Economic Development Agreement Amendment - ($77,386 Budget Amendment &
$77,386 Inter-fund Transfer)
On April 14, 2011, Council approved an amendment to the Scott and White Economic Development
Agreement. Based upon Scott & White Healthcare’s development preference and the City’s desire to
help facilitate the burial of the overhead electrical lines, Scott & White Healthcare agreed to pay for all
materials and labor to bury the existing overhead electrical lines (estimated at $809,567) and the City
agreed to pay for only the bore underneath State Highway 6 required for just the College Station
Utilities lines (estimated at $77,386). Funds in the amount of $886,953 were received from Scott and
White’s electrical contractor to cover this expense. This item will appropriate $77,386 to the Economic
Development Fund to cover the cost of the bore under State Highway 6. These funds will be transferred
from the Economic Development Fund to the Electric Fund. The Electric Fund will then reimburse Scott
and White’s electrical contractor $77,386 because the payment received reflected the total project cost
rather than just the portion agreed upon to be paid by Scott and White. The transaction will have no net
financial impact on the Electric Fund as the payment will be offset by the revenue received from the
Economic Development Fund.
Contingency Transfers
1. Codification $15,765 (General Fund Contingency)
The City Secretary’s Office has implemented an online codification process for all College Station
ordinances. These funds will provide for the initial contract and four months of maintenance fees to the
vendor. Funds are available in General Fund contingency for this item.
2. Utility Customer Service (UCS), and former Fire Station buildings Security Project
(General Fund fund balance $57,825; Utility Customer Service Fund fund balance and transfer to
General Fund $33,000)
This item provides funding for the purchase and installation costs to provide a security system to the
Utility Customer Service building ($66,000)and the former fire station building located on Texas Avenue
just south of City Hall ($24,825). Each building will have exterior and interior door controls as well as
video surveillance. Half of the funding for the UCS building will come from the Utility Customer Service
Fund fund balance and the remaining will come from General Fund fund balance. All expenditures will
occur in the General Fund.
121
122
August 25, 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
2011 Atmos Rate Review Mechanism Increase
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: City Manager’s Office
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
ordinance approving an increase in rates for Atmos Energy pursuant to the Rate Review
Mechanism tariff approved in 2008.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Summary: The City of College Station, along with 154 other cities served by Atmos Energy
Mid-Tex Division (“Atmos”), is a member of the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (“ACSC”).
On April 1, 2011, Atmos filed with the City an application to increase natural gas rates
pursuant to the Rate Review Mechanism (“RRM”) tariff approved by the City as part of the
settlement of the Atmos 2007 Statement of Intent to increase rates. This is the fourth
annual RRM filing.
The Atmos filing originally sought a $15.7 million rate increase. The ACSC conducted
analysis of the schedules and evidence offered by Atmos to support its request to increase
rates on behalf of the City. The Ordinance and attached rate and RRM tariffs are the result
of negotiations between ACSC and the Company to resolve issues raised by ACSC during the
review and evaluation of ACSC’s RRM filing. The Ordinance resolves the Company’s RRM
filing by authorizing supplemental revenue of $6.6 million to be recovered through the
customer charge component of rates to cover direct incremental costs associated with a
steel service line replacement program approved as part of last year’s rate adjustment. All
other relief requested by Atmos was denied resulting in a 58% reduction from Atmos’
requested rate increase.
The RRM tariff was approved by cities as part of the settlement agreement to resolve the
Atmos’ 2007 system-wide rate filing at the Railroad Commission. Atmos’ rate request
represents an extension to the three-year trial project known as the Rate Review
Mechanism (“RRM”) process. The RRM process was created collaboratively by ACSC and
Atmos Mid-Tex as an alternative to the legislatively authorized GRIP surcharge process.
The RRM process has allowed for a more comprehensive rate review and annual adjustment
as a substitute for GRIP filings during the three-year trial period specified by the tariff.
Budget & Financial Summary: The monthly bill impact for the average residential
customer will be a $0.44 (about a 0.64% increase in the total bill).
Attachments:
1. Ordinance
2. Tariffs
3. ACSC Staff Report
4. ACSC FAQ’s
123
ORDINANCE NO. ______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS, (“CITY”) APPROVING A NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE
ATMOS CITIES STEERING COMMITTEE (“ACSC” OR “STEERING COMMITTEE”)
AND ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION (“ATMOS MID-TEX” OR
“COMPANY”) REGARDING THE COMPANY’S FOURTH ANNUAL RATE REVIEW
MECHANISM (“RRM”) FILING IN ALL CITIES EXERCISING ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION; DECLARING EXISTING RATES TO BE UNREASONABLE;
ADOPTING TARIFFS THAT REFLECT RATE ADJUSTMENTS CONSISTENT WITH
THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND FINDING THE RATES TO BE SET BY THE
ATTACHED TARIFFS TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE; REQUIRING THE
COMPANY TO REIMBURSE CITIES’ REASONABLE RATEMAKING EXPENSES;
REPEALING CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS OR ORDINANCES; DETERMINING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT; ADOPTING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND REQUIRING DELIVERY OF
THIS ORDINANCE TO THE COMPANY AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE’S
LEGAL COUNSEL.
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas (“City”) is a gas utility customer of Atmos
Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division (“Atmos Mid-Tex” or “ Company”), and a regulatory authority
with an interest in the rates and charges of Atmos Mid-Tex; and
WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (“ACSC” or
“Steering Committee”), a coalition of approximately 154 similarly situated cities served by
Atmos Mid-Tex that have joined together to facilitate the review of and response to natural gas
issues affecting rates charged in the Atmos Mid-Tex service area (such participating cities are
referred to herein as “ACSC Cities”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the agreement settling the Company’s 2007 Statement of
Intent to increase rates, ACSC Cities and the Company worked collaboratively to develop a Rate
Review Mechanism (“RRM”) tariff that allows for an expedited rate review process controlled in
a three-year experiment by ACSC Cities as a substitute to the current GRIP process instituted by
the Legislature; and
WHEREAS, the City took action in 2008 to approve a Settlement Agreement with Atmos Mid-
Tex resolving the Company’s 2007 rate case and authorizing the RRM Tariff; and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Settlement Agreement contemplates reimbursement of ACSC Cities’
reasonable expenses associated with RRM applications; and
WHEREAS, the Steering Committee and Atmos Mid-Tex agreed to extend the RRM process in
reaching a settlement in 2010 on the third RRM filing; and
124
WHEREAS, on or about April 1, 2011, the Company filed with the city its fourth annual RRM
filing, requesting to increase natural gas base rates by $15.7 million; and
WHEREAS, ACSC coordinated its review of Atmos Mid-Tex’s RRM filing by designating a
Settlement Committee made up of ACSC representatives, assisted by ACSC attorneys and
consultants, to resolve issues identified by ACSC in the Company’s RRM filing; and
WHEREAS, independent analysis by ACSC’s rate expert concluded that Atmos Mid-Tex is
unable to justify an increase over current rates except for undisputed costs of $6.6 million to
cover the steel service line replacement program initiated in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the ACSC Settlement Committee, as well as ACSC lawyers and consultants,
recommend that ACSC Cities approve the attached rate tariffs (“Attachment A” to this
Ordinance), which will increase the Company’s revenue requirement by $6.6 million to extend
current recovery of incremental direct costs of the steel service line replacement program
authorized by ACSC Cities in ordinances passed in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the attached tariffs implementing new rates are consistent with the negotiated
resolution reached by ACSC Cities and are just, reasonable, and in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:
Section 1. That the findings set forth in this Ordinance are hereby in all things approved.
Section 2. That the City Council finds the existing rates for natural gas service provided by
Atmos Mid-Tex are unreasonable and new tariffs which are attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Attachment A, are just and reasonable and are hereby adopted.
Section 3. That Atmos Mid-Tex shall reimburse the reasonable ratemaking expenses of the
ACSC Cities in processing the Company’s rate application.
Section 4. That to the extent any resolution or ordinance previously adopted by the Council is
inconsistent with this Ordinance, it is hereby repealed.
Section 5. That the meeting at which this Ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in
strict compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
Section 6. That if any one or more sections or clauses of this Ordinance is adjudged to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining
provisions of this Ordinance and the remaining provisions of the Ordinance shall be interpreted
as if the offending section or clause never existed.
Section 7. That this Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage with rates
authorized by attached Tariffs to be effective for bills rendered on or after September 1, 2011.
125
Section 8. That a copy of this Ordinance shall be sent to Atmos Mid-Tex, care of David Park,
Vice President Rates and Regulatory Affairs, at Atmos Energy Corporation, 5420 LBJ Freeway,
Suite 1862, Dallas, Texas 75240, and to Geoffrey Gay, General Counsel to ACSC, at Lloyd
Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., P.O. Box 1725, Austin, Texas 78767-1725.
PASSED AND APPROVED this __________ day of ___________________, 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Secretary
APPROVED:
___________________________________
City Attorney
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
1327115/Atmos Mid-Tex RRM-4 Ordinance Staff Report 1
ACSC STAFF REPORT
RRM Background:
The RRM tariff was approved by ACSC Cities as part of the settlement agreement to resolve the
Atmos Mid-Tex 2007 system-wide rate filing at the Railroad Commission. Atmos Mid-Tex’s
current action represents an extension to the three-year trial project known as the Rate Review
Mechanism (“RRM”) process. The RRM process was created collaboratively by ACSC and
Atmos Mid-Tex as an alternative to the legislatively authorized GRIP surcharge process. ACSC
opposed GRIP because it constituted piecemeal ratemaking, did not allow any reasonableness
review, and did not allow participation by cities or recovery of cities’ rate case expenses. The
RRM process has allowed for a more comprehensive rate review and annual adjustment as a
substitute for GRIP filings during the three-year trial period specified by the tariff.
Purpose of the Ordinance:
Rates cannot change and the Settlement Agreement with Atmos Mid-Tex cannot be implemented
without passage of rate ordinances by cities. No related matter is pending at the Railroad
Commission. The purpose of the Ordinance is to approve rate tariffs (“Attachment A”) that
reflect the negotiated rate change pursuant to the RRM process and to ratify a Settlement
Agreement recommended by the ACSC Settlement Committee and Executive Committee.
As a result of the negotiations, ACSC was able to reduce the Company’s requested $15.7 million
RRM increase to $6.6 million, allowing only incremental revenues necessary to cover direct
costs associated with the steel service line replacement program approved by ACSC Cities in
2010. Approval of the Ordinance will result in the implementation of new rates that increase
Atmos Mid-Tex’s revenues effective September 1, 2011.
Reasons Justifying Approval of the Negotiated Resolution:
During the time that the City has retained original jurisdiction in this case, consultants working
on behalf of ACSC cities have investigated the support for the Company’s requested rate
increase. While the evidence does not support the $15.7 million increase requested by the
Company, ACSC consultants agree that the Company can justify an increase in revenues of $6.6
million, a result consistent with Cities’ approval of a steel service line replacement program last
year. The agreement on $6.6 million is a compromise between the positions of the parties.
The Settlement Agreement of 2010 which included an extension of the RRM process, included
an allowance for recovery of direct costs, excluding overheads, of the steel service line
replacement program. Current year recovery factors of $00.15 for residential customers and
$00.41 for commercial customers per month were authorized last year. The 2010 Settlement
Agreement contemplated that the steel service line replacement program would be adjusted
annually, but shall be capped at $00.44 cents for residential customers and $1.22 for commercial
customers. The increase in this case is consistent with the caps contemplated last year for the
steel service line replacement program, and nothing more.
133
1327115/Atmos Mid-Tex RRM-4 Ordinance Staff Report 2
The alternative to a settlement of the RRM filing would be a contested case proceeding before
the Railroad Commission on the Company’s current application, would take several months and
cost ratepayers millions of dollars in rate case expenses, and would not likely produce a result
more favorable than that to be produced by the settlement. The ACSC Settlement Committee
recommends that ACSC members take action to approve the Ordinance authorizing new rate
tariffs.
Steel Service Line Replacement:
Under pressure from the Railroad Commission to establish a comprehensive program to replace
service lines that contain steel which is subject to corrosion and leaks, ACSC worked with
Atmos Mid-Tex in 2010 to establish a risk based approach to steel service line replacement that
accomplishes the following goals:
1. Replace all service lines throughout the Mid-Tex Region with the highest degree
of risk within two years;
2. Coordination between ACSC city members and Atmos Mid-Tex to minimize
disruption of rights of way without compromising safety;
3. To minimize and spread the rate impact on customers of the replacement
program, the service lines with little relative risk of leaks should be replaced over
a 10-year period; and
4. Current recovery of incremental (above and beyond normal maintenance and
repair addressed in RRM proceedings) direct (excluding Atmos Mid-Tex
overheads) cost of service line replacement should be permitted as an adder to
customer charges.
Fulfillment of these goals in the 2010 case led to $00.15 and $00.41 added to residential and
commercial customer charges, respectively. The annual customer charge adder to cover the steel
service line replacement program may not exceed $00.44 and $1.22 for residential and
commercial customers, respectively, prior to the entry of a Final Order in the next system-wide
Statement of Intent rate proceeding.
Changes to Customer Charges:
The Settlement Agreement approved in 2010 contemplated that incremental revenues to cover
future steel service line replacement costs would be recovered through customer charges.
Consistent with that approach, the $6.6 million in additional revenues to be recovered following
passage of the Ordinance is accomplished by increasing customer charges.
The tariffs to be approved by the Ordinance set monthly customer charges at $7.50 and $16.75
for residential and commercial customers, respectively.
The commodity portion of the commercial rate will decline slightly from existing rates.
134
1327115/Atmos Mid-Tex RRM-4 Ordinance Staff Report 3
Explanation of “Be It Ordained” Paragraphs:
1. This paragraph approves all findings in the Ordinance.
2. This section adopts the attached tariffs (“Attachment A”) in all respects and finds
the rates set pursuant to the attached tariffs to be just, reasonable and in the public
interest. Note that only new tariffs or existing tariffs being revised are attached to
the Ordinance. Existing tariffs not being changed in any way are not attached to
the Ordinance.
3. This section requires the Company to reimburse ACSC for reasonable rate
making costs associated with reviewing and processing the RRM application.
4. This section repeals any resolution or ordinance that is inconsistent with this
Ordinance.
5. This section finds that the meeting was conducted in compliance with the Texas
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
6. This section is a savings clause, which provides that if any section(s) is later
found to be unconstitutional or invalid, that finding shall not affect, impair or
invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. This section further directs
that the remaining provisions of the Ordinance are to be interpreted as if the
offending section or clause never existed.
7. This section provides for an effective date upon passage.
8. This paragraph directs that a copy of the signed Ordinance be sent to a
representative of the Company and legal counsel for ACSC.
135
August 1, 2011
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING
ACSC AND THE RRM RATEMAKING PROCESS
What is the Role of Cities in Ratemaking?
Cities have historically exercised original jurisdiction over the level of gas rates charged
within their boundaries. Generally, gas distribution utilities have filed rate cases at the city level
and only gone to the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RRC”) with an appeal of city action or if
they cannot reach a settlement with cities. If a utility and cities reach an agreement, the utility
may then file a case at the RRC to implement the same rates approved by cities in areas outside
municipal boundaries.
Once a case is at the RRC, the Commission Staff generally expects cities to intervene and
do most of the discovery, sponsor opposing witnesses, and do most of the cross-examination and
briefing. There is no consumer advocate at the RRC. If cities do not participate in hearings at
the RRC, the request of a regulated utility is likely to be rubber-stamped.
What is the background to the creation of the Atmos Cities’ Steering Committee?
The Atmos pipeline and distribution systems were built, owned and operated by Lone
Star Gas (“LSG”) which maintained over 200 rate jurisdictions until it sold its assets to Texas
Utilities (“TXU”) in the late 1990’s. That meant that many cities had their own unique
distribution rates and that individual cities had to process rate cases at the local level. LSG-
Pipeline served all 200-plus distribution systems and pipeline rates were set by the RRC.
From the early 1980’s through the late 1990’s, LSG filed no pipeline or system-wide rate
case at the RRC. When LSG was finally brought before the RRC to show cause why its rates
should not be reduced, approximately 80 cities intervened and created an ad hoc group known as
the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Lone Star.
TXU purchased the LSG assets in the late 1990’s and immediately commenced
consolidating 200-plus ratemaking jurisdictions into regions. As regional cases were filed, cities
within each region created an ad hoc committee to form a common strategy and negotiating
position. Once TXU had aggregated the cities into five or six jurisdictions, each with a different
rate, Texas Utilities Gas Company filed a system-wide case to bring all of the old LSG territory
under one common rate. The different city regional committees then united and formed the
Allied Coalition of Cities (“ACC”). While the gas utility assets were owned and controlled by
TXU, the Steering Committee transformed itself from an ad hoc group that came together only in
response to rate filings by the utility into a permanent standing committee.
In Gas Utilities Docket (“GUD”) No. 9400 in 2004, TXU’s request for a $61.6 million
system-wide increase was aggressively opposed by ACC. The Company received only a $2.01
million increase. Unhappy with that result, TXU decided that owning a gas system was neither
as fun nor as profitable as the deregulated electric system, and they sold the system to Atmos
Energy Corporation (“Atmos” or “Company”). ACC was then transformed into the Steering
136
2
2557/15/1348026
Committee of Cities Served by Atmos and then renamed Atmos Cities Steering Committee to
obtain an easy to remember acronym, “ACSC”.
What is the Atmos Cities Steering Committee?
ACSC is a coalition of 154 cities that unite in common purpose to address gas utility rate
and franchise issues related to Atmos Energy Corporation. Its objectives are to: (1) ensure that
gas utility rates charged to cities and their residents are fair and reasonable; (2) maintain
reasonable franchise fee revenues for cities; (3) protect cities’ original jurisdiction over rates and
services; (4) be a voice for consumers where no state agency assumes such a role; and (5)
promote sound ratemaking policy in the public interest.
Cities join the permanent standing committee by passing a resolution and agreeing to
support the work of ACSC through modest occasional per capita assessments which support
ongoing administrative and legislative advocacy and all expenses where cities are not entitled to
reimbursement. Each member city designates a representative to ACSC. Member
representatives may volunteer to serve on the ACSC Executive Committee or Settlement
Committee. The Executive Committee sets policy, hires legal counsel and consultants, directs
litigation, establishes a legislative agenda, sets assessments on members as needed and meets
quarterly with Atmos executives. The Settlement Committee is directly involved in negotiating
resolution of contested matters with Atmos executives.
The list of current members is attached.
What is the benefit of membership in ACSC?
One hundred fifty-four cities speaking as one voice is much more effective in advocacy
before the Railroad Commission and legislature than any one city or multiple small groups of
cities.
The legislature has given gas utilities a right to an annual increase in rates. Resources
(both financial and human) of individual cities are conserved by membership in ACSC.
Additionally, membership enhances institutional memory of ratemaking issues, public policy
debates, and right-of-way and franchise fee battles.
What has ACSC accomplished?
Going into the legislative session, ACSC in December 2010 released a 48-page report,
“Natural Gas Consumers and the Texas Railroad Commission.” More than 200 television,
newspaper and radio news sites posted information on and a link to the report which may be
found on ACSC’s website, TexasGasConsumers.org.
Earlier in 2010, ACSC representatives visited on several occasions with the Sunset
Commission Staff, and several ACSC recommendations for reform were included in the Sunset
Commission Report on the Railroad Commission, delivered to the legislature’s Sunset
Committee prior to public hearings on the agency. Several ACSC member representatives
testified before the legislature regarding reforms needed at the Railroad Commission.
137
3
2557/15/1348026
During the most recent legislative session, lobbying efforts by ACSC were critical in
killing two gas utility bills that would have undermined traditional regulation, deprived cities of
certain rights, and led to even greater rate increases.
In the last 12 months, ACSC has resolved a major issue involving franchise fees. Atmos
unilaterally, with notice, ceased inclusion of franchise fees in the calculations of gross receipts
regardless of whether specific franchises included such payments. Several cities were willing to
pursue the matter through litigation. However, counsel for ACSC was able to negotiate a
resolution that allowed each member city to determine whether it desired an increase in franchise
fee payments based on inclusion of franchise fees in the calculation of gross receipts. If a city
opted for inclusion of fee-on-fee revenues, it had the further option of retroactive payments back
to the point in time that Atmos decided to curtail fee-on-fee payments. Each member had these
options regardless of the wording of the then valid franchise agreement. This resolution spared
significant litigation costs and anxiety and was only possible because of the clout of the ACSC
membership.
One of the most significant accomplishments of ACSC occurred in 2007 via a settlement
of the then pending system-wide rate case. Approximately 50 ACSC city representatives showed
up in Arlington for a meeting with Atmos executives who were shocked at the vocal opposition
to Atmos practices, the unfairness of annual Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (“GRIP”)
rate filings that precluded city and citizen review, and the Company’s lack of coordination with
cities. That meeting led to the creation of the Rate Review Mechanism (“RRM”) process and
greater ongoing communication between the Company and ACSC.
Last year, ongoing communications between ACSC and the Company led to a workable
solution to the need to replace steel service lines in a manner that accommodated city needs to
control their rights-of-way, while moderating the rate impact and focusing first on the riskiest
service lines based on leak repair histories. This compromise precluded a more onerous (from a
city and consumer perspective) program threatened by the RRC.
What is a RRM case?
The concept of a RRM proceeding emerged as a three-year experimental substitute for
GRIP cases as part of the settlement of Atmos Mid-Tex’s 2007 system-wide rate case. In 2003,
the Texas Legislature added Section 104.301, Interim Adjustment for Changes in Investment, to
the Gas Utility Regulatory Act. While not identified as such in the law, § 104.301 was referred
to as the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program or GRIP. The GRIP adjustments allowed gas
companies to recover changes to invested capital without a review of whether increased revenues
or declining expenses offset the invested capital costs. Both Atmos Pipeline and Atmos Mid-Tex
filed GRIP cases as soon as the RRC adopted rules to implement the interim adjustments. As
explained below, it quickly became apparent that the GRIP adjustments were terrible public
policy.
As an alternative to GRIP, ACSC entered into a negotiated agreement with Atmos in
2007 to establish the RRM process. Unlike GRIP, the RRM provided for an annual review of all
portions of Mid-Tex’s cost of service. It fixed an authorized rate of return on equity for the
three-year period at 9.6% (which was less than what the RRC would have authorized) and set
138
4
2557/15/1348026
caps on the extent to which expenses or investments could increase from one year to the next.
More importantly, it allowed cities to make a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the
utility business—investment, operation and maintenance expenses and revenues—unlike GRIP
which only allows consideration of changes to invested capital.
Why is RRM superior to GRIP?
The GRIP cases are one-sided guarantees of a rubber-stamp of the utility’s rate request.
ACSC attempted to participate in the first two GRIP proceedings filed by both Atmos Pipeline
and Atmos Mid-Tex at the RRC. Not only were cities’ motions to intervene denied, but also,
ACSC’s comments were ignored. At the city level, ACSC consultants determined that Atmos
was not only including items such as artwork, chairs, computers and meals in interim rate
adjustments that were allegedly intended to promote pipeline safety, but also the Company was
over-earning its previously authorized rate of return. ACSC attacked the Commission’s rule in
court because it denied city participation, denied a hearing on a contested matter, and denied
cities’ recovery of any expenses associated with resisting GRIP rate increases. The courts have
not been helpful to cities, although the matter has now been set for hearing before the Texas
Supreme Court on September 15, 2011.
Cities have contended that GRIP is terrible public policy since it authorizes what would
from a history of public interest regulation be regarded as unlawful—piecemeal ratemaking.
GRIP allows rates to increase if the utility’s invested capital net of depreciation increases year-
over-year. An increase in rates is mandated under GRIP if investment increases, even if
increasing revenues and declining expenses more than offset the costs associated with increased
investment.
The RRM process negotiated by ACSC solves the piecemeal ratemaking problem by
providing for a comprehensive review of Atmos’ expenses and revenues. Furthermore, RRM
benefits ACSC by: (1) allowing cities participation that would be denied under GRIP; (2)
allowing cities to recover, at utility shareholder expense, all their ratemaking costs; and (3)
avoiding both litigation and RRC jurisdiction.
The legislature has functionally authorized annual increases in gas utility rates through
the GRIP process. Since consumers are otherwise stuck with annual rate increases, it is better to
have cities participating in the comprehensive RRM process than unable to participate in a
piecemeal process.
What has been the history of the RRM efforts?
In 2010, ACSC, in settling the third RRM proceeding, agreed to a slight modification and
extension of the process. A settlement of the fourth annual RRM is now pending before ACSC
members. The results of the four RRM proceedings are as follows:
RRM Filing Year Atmos Request ACSC Settlement
#1 2008 $33.5 million $20 million
#2 2009 $20.2 million $2.6 million
#3 2010 $70.2 million $27 million
#4 2011 $15.7 million $6.6 million (pending)
139
5
2557/15/1348026
These results are better for cities and consumers than would have been authorized by the
RRC under the GRIP process.
What is the future of the RRM process?
The settlement of the fourth RRM filing anticipates ACSC and Atmos working between
August and December to refine the RRM process. If agreement on a new process is reached,
Atmos will file another RRM case next April. If no agreement can be reached on the RRM
process by the end of this year, Atmos Mid-Tex will file a system-wide traditional rate case in
January 2012.
If you have other questions please contact me at (512) 322-5875 and/or
ggay@lglawfirm.com.
Geoffrey Gay
ACSC, General Counsel
140
August 25, 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 3
Consider Ordinance Issuing of Certificates of Obligation
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director of Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance providing
for the issuance of $7,935,000 City of College Station, Texas Certificates of Obligation,
Series 2011 and ordaining other matters relating to the subject, including immediate
effectiveness.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Council move to approve the attached ordinance to issue
certificates of obligation.
Summary: The City Council is authorized to approve the issuance of certificates of
obligation (CO’s) after approving a resolution directing notice to be published of the intent
to issue the CO’s. On July 14, 2011, Council approved a resolution directing staff to
advertise the issuance of CO’s. On July 22rd and 29th such notice was published.
The City of College Station typically issues debt to fund various capital projects identified
and approved as a part of the annual budget. The City primarily uses three types of debt
instruments to fulfill those requirements:
1. General Obligation Bonds (GOB’s) are based on the full faith and credit of the City
and are paid primarily through the debt service portion of the ad valorem tax
rate. GOBs are authorized by the voters and therefore the notice is provided in
the election process.
2. Utility Revenue Bonds (URB’s) are backed by the revenues of the City's various
utilities and are issued as a business activity. These are typically only issued for
utility capital projects.
3. Certificates of Obligation (CO’s) normally include at least one additional revenue
stream such as utility revenues, but are considered to be much like GOBs and
therefore normally receive a rating similar to GOB’s. Our policy for issuing CO's
allows more flexibility in their issue than GOB’s, particularly when other revenues
are anticipated to assist in debt service.
It is at the recommendation of the City’s Financial Advisor, Mr. Drew Masterson, that the
City issue Certificates of Obligation for utility projects rather than Utility Revenue Bonds.
This particular issue will provide resources for electric and wastewater improvements, and
debt issuance costs totaling $7,935,000.
Budget & Financial Summary: Staff reviewed the impact of the Certificates on the City's
ability to meet debt service requirements and the effect they may have on the ad valorem
tax rate and utility rates. The recommendation to move forward with this issue will not
affect the ad valorem tax rate or the utility rates.
Attachments:
1. Debt Issuance 2011
2. Ordinance available in City Secretary's Office
141
2011 Draft Debt Issue
2008 General Obligation Bonds
Streets
100,000$ Sidewalk Improvements ST1028 7 Yrs
400,000 Barron Road East/Lakeway ST1101 7 Yrs
50,000 RPR West ROW ST1025 7 Yrs
150,000 Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail ST1104 7 Yrs
Streets Total 700,000$
Parks
100,000$ Lick Creek Nature Center PK1102 7 Yrs
380,000 Neighborhood Parks Improvements PK0910 7 Yrs
780,000 Central Park Improvements PK1001 7 Yrs
Parks Total 1,260,000$
2008 GOB Total 1,960,000$
GOB Total 1,960,000$
Certificates of Obligation
1,050,000 General Plant
600,000 Overhead System Improvements
530,000 Underground System Improvements
1,050,000 New Services and System Ext
85,000 Residential Street Lighting
250,000 Thoroughfare Street Lighting
690,000 Distribution
480,000 Transmission
Electric Projects 4,735,000$ 20 Yrs
2,700,000$ Southwood 5-7
75,000 FM 2154 Sewer Line
325,000 Lick Creek Miscellaneous Imp
Wastewater Projects 3,100,000$ 20 Yrs
Utility CO Subtotal 7,835,000$
Estimated Debt Issuance Costs 100,000$
Certificates of Obligation Total 7,935,000$
Total Debt Issue 9,895,000$
8/15/2011 9:51
142
August 25, 2011
Regular Agenda Item No. 4
Consider Ordinance Issuing General Obligation Bonds
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director of Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on an ordinance providing
for the issuance of $1,960,000 City of College Station, Texas General Obligation
Improvement bonds, Series 2011 and ordaining other matters relating to the subject,
including immediate effectiveness.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response
to Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Council move to approve the attached ordinance issuing general
obligation bonds.
Summary: The City Council is authorized to approve the issuance of general obligation
bonds which have been authorized by a vote of the citizens. The Citizens approved a total
of $76,950,000 on November 4, 2008. By approving the ordinance, the Council will issue a
total of $1,960,000 from the 2008 authorization. This is the third bond sale from the 2008
bond authorization. The 2008 authorization provides for a 7 year capital plan.
The City of College Station typically issues debt to fund various capital projects identified
and approved as a part of the annual budget. The City primarily uses three types of debt
instruments to fulfill those requirements:
1. General Obligation Bonds (GOB’s) are based on the full faith and credit of the City
and are paid primarily through the debt service portion of the ad valorem tax
rate. GOB’s are authorized by the voters and therefore the notice is provided in
the election process.
2. Utility Revenue Bonds (URB’s) are backed by the revenues of the City's various
utilities and are issued as a business activity. These are typically only issued for
utility capital projects.
3. Certificates of Obligation (CO’s) normally include at least one additional revenue
stream such as utility revenues, but are considered to be much like GOB’s and
therefore normally receive a rating similar to GOB’s. Our policy for issuing CO's
allows more flexibility in their issue than GOB’s, particularly when other revenues
are anticipated to assist in debt service.
This particular debt issue is planned to provide resources for street projects, sidewalk
improvements, hike and bike trails, and parks and park facilities improvements totaling
$1,960,000.
Budget & Financial Summary: Staff reviewed the impact of the general obligation bonds
City's ability to meet debt service requirements and the effect they may have on the ad
valorem tax rate. The recommendation to move forward with this issue will not impact the
ad valorem tax rate.
Attachments:
1. Debt Issuance 2011.
2. Ordinance available in City Secretary's Office.
143
2011 Draft Debt Issue
2008 General Obligation Bonds
Streets
100,000$ Sidewalk Improvements ST1028 7 Yrs
400,000 Barron Road East/Lakeway ST1101 7 Yrs
50,000 RPR West ROW ST1025 7 Yrs
150,000 Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail ST1104 7 Yrs
Streets Total 700,000$
Parks
100,000$ Lick Creek Nature Center PK1102 7 Yrs
380,000 Neighborhood Parks Improvements PK0910 7 Yrs
780,000 Central Park Improvements PK1001 7 Yrs
Parks Total 1,260,000$
2008 GOB Total 1,960,000$
GOB Total 1,960,000$
Certificates of Obligation
1,050,000 General Plant
600,000 Overhead System Improvements
530,000 Underground System Improvements
1,050,000 New Services and System Ext
85,000 Residential Street Lighting
250,000 Thoroughfare Street Lighting
690,000 Distribution
480,000 Transmission
Electric Projects 4,735,000$ 20 Yrs
2,700,000$ Southwood 5-7
75,000 FM 2154 Sewer Line
325,000 Lick Creek Miscellaneous Imp
Wastewater Projects 3,100,000$ 20 Yrs
Utility CO Subtotal 7,835,000$
Estimated Debt Issuance Costs 100,000$
Certificates of Obligation Total 7,935,000$
Total Debt Issue 9,895,000$
8/15/2011 9:52
144