231109 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions
Council questions and staff responses for items on November 9th, 2023 City Council Meeting
7.7 Luther Street Rehab Construction Contract
Sponsors: Jennifer Cain
Question:
A. How old is the current 16 inch water main that we are replacing?
B. Will the rehab result in a concrete street?
C. I notice Cover sheet says construction begins Dec 1, but Exhibit E lists a start date of Nov1 as long
as they had an award or an LOI by end of September so they could get the pipe ordered. Did they
get an LOI by the end of September? What caused this to come onto council agenda after Nov1?
D. On the itemized list of expenses, # 9 lists tree removal qty 1 for $6000. Is this the charge to remove
one tree?
E. On the itemized list of expenses, # 53-54 address Bike Lane symbols, #54 specifically as customized
– are these the ones with the CS logo?
F. Also does this mean the road will have BOTH bike lanes AND a shared use path or are the logos
going on the shared use path?
Response:
A. The water main was installed on 12/30/1983. We are installing a new 16” and abandoning an
asbestos cement water line.
B. Yes, the road will be concrete. The apron at Marion Pugh will remain asphalt temporarily and will
be replaced with concrete with the Marion Pugh Project, which recently began design.
C. Proposal evaluations and contract negotiations pushed us to the November 9th Council Date. We
did not issue an LOI and typically do not ahead of Council approval. A pre-con meeting is going to
be scheduled in early December and then the contractor will begin ordering material, etc. Actual
mobilization will likely begin in January 2024.
D. This line item is for Right of Way (ROW) preparation AND tree removal.
E. Yes, these are the symbols with the CS logo.
F. There are no bike lanes on the road. The shared use paths are striped, and the bike logo will be
on the inner lane matching the traffic direction.
7.8 Alum Creek Trunkline Design
Sponsors: Jennifer Cain
Question: I noticed contract clause 14.03 focuses on Fraud Reporting. Is this a recent add to these
contracts, or has it been a long-standing part of the templates we routinely use?
Response: The Professional Services contract with construction was updated during the spring of this year
and the clause for fraud reporting was added during that time.
8.1 City-Wide Truck Parking
Sponsors: Emily Fisher
Question: I noticed there is a No Truck Parking sign at the entrance to Walmart parking lot. If staff, as
part of this workshop, plans to suggest truck parking is allowed at Walmart, please include the source
for that information.
Response: Staff will only present properties that we have verified allow for truck parking. This includes
one gas station in College Station and two gas stations/truck stops north of Bryan. All require trucks to
pay for parking.
9.1 1115 Anderson Street – Public Utility Easement Abandonment
Sponsors: Gillian Sitler
Question: Why are pages 479-497 which appear to be exact replicas of pages 499-517 included twice?
Are there differences I am overlooking?
Also pages 473-476 and Exhibit A&B pages 481, 483, 485 are all BLANK as are their respective counter
parts in the 499-517 set. Are those intentionally left blank?
Response: The appearance of duplicate pages is because this abandonment request is addressing
two separate easements. Exhibit A and pages 479-497 document the 15-foot-wide easement and
Exhibit B and pages 499-517 the 20-foot wide easement.
Page 480 would only have information filled out on number 6 of the application if any property owners
abutting the respective easement did not consent to the easement being abandoned. This easement
does not have any abutting property owners.
Page 482 is blank as it is satisfied by the attachment on the following page, page 483, which is the
Metes & Bounds description of the easement.
Page 484 is blank as it is satisfied by the attachments on the following pages, page 485 and page
486, which is a detailed sketch or plat of the easement and the surrounding area.
The above explanations are also true of the counterpart pages in the application for the 20-foot wide
easement.
9.2 LULAC Oak Hill Funding Agreement Amendment
Sponsors: Debbie Eller
Question:
A. Please remind me, in the original loan we guaranteed for the $2 million dollar loan, don’t we agree
to shoulder interest payments and loan fees? What is the amount (estimated, I realize) of those
costs in addition to those outlined in our packet?
B. Can the affordability period be lengthened beyond 20 years?
C. What is the opportunity cost of the additional $585,675 that they want? What other uses of this
money could there have been?
Response:
A. The original Section 108 loan amount was $2,808,000. The estimated costs are:
Estimated cost to City over 20 Years:
Estimated Interest Total: $1,129,940.00
Other Estimated Fees: 3,000.00
Additional Amount Requested: 585,675.00
Total Proposed Project Expense: $1,718,615.00
50 Units:
Average Total Cost Per Unit: $90,532
Average City Liability Per Unit: $34,372
B. The affordability period could be set for longer than 20 years.
C. This CDBG funding could be used for Minor Repairs, Owner-Occupied or Rental Rehabilitation,
Economic Development, or Public Facility Activities. The amount of the additional requested
funds could result in the acquisition/rehab of a single-family or multi-unit rental or owner-housing
project or a sidewalk construction project. The timely expenditure of CDBG funds is a significant
consideration.