HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2013 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 4
Consent No. 2a - Minutes
Coversheet revised 8
Workshop 9
Regular 14
Consent No. 2b - Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report
Coversheet revised 20
Report 21
Fee Areas 24
Maps 25
Consent No. 2c - Dexter Sidewalk Project Construction Contract
Coversheet revised 31
Bid Tabulation 32
Location Map 33
Consent No. 2d - Public Works Service Center Security
Coversheet revised 34
Consent No. 2e - Sandy Point Pump Station Improvements
Project Number WF1440357, WF1440344
Coversheet revised 35
Location Map 36
Consent No. 2f - University Drive Sidewalk Improvements
Project Construction Contract
Coversheet revised 37
Bid Tabulation 38
Location Map 40
Consent No. 2g - Annual Bid for Various Electric Items and
Electric Meters
Coversheet revised 41
Bid Tab 42
Consent No. 2h - Annual Water Meters
Coversheet revised 48
HGAC COntract Pricing Worksheet 49
Consent No. 2i - Annual Price Agreement for Wire and Cable
Coversheet revised 50
Renewal Letter 51
Consent No. 2j - Release of Lien – 65 Acres Rock Prairie Road
Coversheet revised 52
Lien Release 53
Consent No. 2k - 2012 Annual Traffic Contact Report
Coversheet revised 57
del Carmen letter 58
del Carmen analysis 59
1
Consent No. 2L - Construction Contract #13-011 for Wolf Pen
Creek Water Line and Water Fountains Rehabilitation Project
Coversheet revised 64
1 - Bid Tabulation 65
2 - WPC Upper Trail Water Line-Model 66
Consent No. 2m - Office of the Governor Criminal Justice
Division (CJD) Grant
Coversheet revised 67
Resolution 68
Consent No. 2n - Contract Administration Audit Report
Coversheet revised 70
Consent No. 2o - BVWACS Capital Improvement Project
Coversheet revised 71
Regular No. 1 - Public Hearing on the Joint Task Force on
Neighborhood Parking Recommendations
Coversheet revised 72
Resolution 74
Report 76
Meeting 1 Sign in 84
Meeting 2 Sign in 85
Regular No. 2 - Public Hearing on Public Utility Easement
Abandonments – 301 Southwest Parkway
Coversheet revised 86
Vicinity Map 87
Location Map 88
Ordinance 89
Ordinance Exhibit 98
Regular No. 3 - Public Hearing on 301 Southwest Parkway
Rezoning
Coversheet revised 105
Background 109
Photos & Maps 110
Ordinance 112
Regular No. 4 - Public Hearing on Earl Rudder Freeway South
@ University Oaks Business Park Rezoning
Coversheet revised 118
Background 120
Photos and Maps 121
P&Z Minutes 123
Ordinance 126
Regular No. 5 - Church Avenue - Road Realignment – City
Participation Agreement
Coversheet updated 130
Vicinity Map 131
Participation Agreement 132
Exhibit A 161
2
Exhibit B 162
Exhibit C 163
Ordinance revised 164
Regular No. 6 - RFP 13-025 - Vehicle Towing and Storage
Services
Coversheet revised 166
3
CITY OF COllEGE STATION
Home ofTexas A&M University"Mayor Council members
Nancy Berry Blanche Brick
Mayor Pro Tern Jess Fields
Karl Mooney John Nichols
Interim City Manager Julie M. Schultz
Frank Simpson James Benham
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request.
Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted
Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should
be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 5 :30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer
alarm will sound after 2 112 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City
Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda.
Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack
other speakers, Council or staff.
Consent Agenda
At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Consent Agenda Item. Individuals
who wish to address the City Council on a consent agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register with
the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. Registration forms are available in the
lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary.
2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists of ministerial or
"housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the
Council.
a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
• February 14,2013 Workshop
• February 14,2013 Regular Council Meeting
b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99
01,03-02.
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a contract, #13-123, between the City of
College Station and Brazos Paving Inc. in the amount of $69,069.40 to construct the Dexter Street
Sidewalks Project.
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, February 28, 2013
d. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding approval of a contract between the City of College
Station and Siemens Industry Inc. in the amount of $66,958.94 for the purpose of Building Access Security
and Closed Circuit Security Cameras installation.
e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Professional Services Contract with Arcadis US, Inc., in
the amount of $364,529, for the design, bidding, construction administration services and construction
materials testing for improvements to the Sandy Point Pump Station.
f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a contract, #13-137, between the City of
College Station and Vox Construction, LLC. in the amount of $175,690.92 to construct the University Drive
Sidewalk Improvements Project.
g. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the annual agreement for various electrical
items and electric meters to be stored in inventory as follows: HD Supply $35,988.92; Techline
$352,124.00; Priester-Mell & Nicolson $134,684.00; Texas Electric Cooperatives $277,062.00; KBS
Electrical Distributors $218,998.75; Wesco $58;552.10. Total estimated annual expenditure is
$1,077,409.77.
h. Presentation, possible action and discussion on approving annual water meter purchases from Aqua Metric
Sales Company through the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) contract (#WM08-12). Based on the
attached contract unit pricing, the estimated annual expenditure for water meters is: $300,868.30.
1. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the first renewal of the annual price agreement for
wire and cable with Techline for an amount not to exceed $809,550.00.
J. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding release of lien for 65 acres the City owns on Rock
Prairie Road.
k. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the traffic contact report required annually by Senate
Bill 1074, of the Texas 77th legislative session.
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a construction contract with Dudley Construction, L m., in
the amount of $54,905.00, for rehabilitation, additions, and upgrades to water lines and existing water
fountains at various locations throughout Wolf Pen Creek Park, Project Number PK13-07.
m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the application and acceptance of an Office of the Governor,
Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant for the purchase of equipment.
n. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor's Contract Administration
audit report.
o. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of the Brazos Valley Wide Area
Communications System (BVWACS) Capital Improvement Project, and authorizing the City's cost share
of $72,428.93 to be paid to the BVW ACS Managing Entity (BVCOG).
Regular Agenda
At the discretion of the Mayor, individuals may be allowed to speak on a Regular Agenda Item. Individuals
who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, February 28,2013
with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor's reading of the agenda item. Registration forms are available in the
lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary.
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the
City Secretary prior to the Mayor's announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize
individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and
address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 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, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of recommendations
made by the Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking.
2. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving an ordinance vacating and
abandoning a 0.006 acre public utility easement, a 0.006 acre public utility easement, and a 0.072 acre
public utility easement located on Lot 2R of the William Brooke Hunter Estates Subdivision according
to the plat recorded in Volume 7627, Page 19 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
3. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12,
"Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning 6.326 acres located at 301 Southwest Parkway from PDD
Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District to amend the Concept Plan.
4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 12,
"Unified Development Ordinance", Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map" of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning approximately 1.27 acres from R-l Single-Family
Residential to 0 Office for the property located at 1402 Earl Rudder Freeway South, generally located at
the northwest corner of Earl Rudder Freeway South frontage road and University Oaks Boulevard.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion for a City Participation Agreement for design and
reconstruction of Church Avenue being made per City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12, Unified
Development Ordinance, Section 8.5, Responsibility for Payment for Installation Costs for a total
requested City participation of$I11,095.00 and for an ordinance pursuant to Section 212.072(b) of the
Texas Local Government Code authorizing the City Participation Agreement.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding contracting for vehicle towing and storage
servIces.
7. Adjourn.
Iflitigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held.
APPROVED:
City Council Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, February 28,2013
.....c;C~-ty-M-anL..;~;;....;....."L-....;;::;,c.~---1t
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be
held on the Thursday, February 28,2013 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said
notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,
www.cstx.gov.TheAgendaandNoticearereadilyaccessibletothegeneralpublicatalltimes.Said Notice
and Agenda were posted on February 22, 2013 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 _______, 2013 By________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the __day of _______, 2013.
Notary Public -Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: _____
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made
48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
February 28, 2013
City Council Consent Agenda Item No. 2a
City Council Minutes
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
• February 14, 2013 Workshop
• February 14, 2013 Regular Council Meeting
Attachments:
• February 14, 2013 Workshop
• February 14, 2013 Regular Council Meeting
8
WKSHP021413Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FEBRUARY 14, 2013
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry, Mayor
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
John Nichols
Julie Schultz
James Benham
City Staff:
Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Ian Whittenton, Records Management Coordinator
1.
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by
Mayor Nancy Berry at 5:05 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2013 in the Council Chambers of
the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842.
2.
Executive Session
In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney,
§551.072-Real Estate, §551.074-Personnel, and §551.087-Economic Development Negotiations,
the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 5:05 p.m. on Thursday,
February 14, 2013 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to:
A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to
wit:
9
WKSHP021413Minutes Page 2
• City of Bryan's application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway
60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and
certify City of Bryan.
• Chavers et a1 v. Tyrone Morrow et al, No. 10-20792; Chavers v. Randall Hall et al, Case
No. 10 CV-3922.
• College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-02023.
• Shirley Maguire and Holly Maguire vs. City of College Station, Cause No. 11-0025 16-
CV-272, in the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas.
• Patricia Kahlden, individ. and as rep. of the Estate of Lillie May Williams Bayless v.
Laura Sue Streigler, City of College Station and James Steven Elkins, No. 11-003172-
CV-272, in the 272ndDistrict Court of Brazos County, TX
• Tom Jagielski v. City of College Station, Cause No. 12-002918-CU-361, In the 361 st
• State v. Carol Arnold, Cause Number 11-02697-CRF-85, In the 85th District Court,
Brazos County, Texas
District
Court of Brazos County, Texas
B. Deliberation on the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property; to wit:
• Property located at or near University Drive and TarrowlEast Tarrow Streets in College
Station
C. Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal of a public officer; to wit:
• Internal Auditor
D. Deliberation on economic development negotiations regarding an offer of financial or other
incentives for a business prospect; to wit:
• Discuss economic development incentive negotiations with T AMUS
The Executive Session adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
3.
Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
No action was required from Executive Session.
4.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Mayor Berry announced that item 2j will be pulled from Consent and no action taken; however,
she stated that staff would provide a presentation on 2j at a later date. Items 2c, 2h and 2o were
pulled for discussion.
2c: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects, clarified that the focus is on traffic operations,
specifically traffic signals. This study will tell us where we want to go. It will be a long-range
plan. Traffic around the University will be a separate study.
2h: Randall Heye, Economic Development Analyst, clarified the 45-day lease extension.
10
WKSHP021413Minutes Page 3
2o: David Schmitz, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the rate has not changed. The
contract was done in cooperation with the League. The fees charger are to cover the direct costs.
5.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion relating to receiving the annual audit
reports and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012.
Jeff Kersten, Executive Director of Fiscal Services, presented the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012. He reported that the
City’s net assets are $421,850,110 reflecting an increase of $11,181,109 from last year. The
unrestricted net assets are $77,663,219 and restricted net assets are $15,187,479. Most Net
Assets are capital assets in the amount of $328,999,412. Ingram Wallis & Co. is the City’s
external auditor. They presented their report to the Audit Committee February 4. The Audit
Committee recommended Council accept the reports and the CAFR.
Jimmy Ingram, with Ingram Wallis & Co., presented the audit report to the Council. The audit
went very smoothly. The opinion is unqualified, the highest level of assurance. The CAFR will
be presented to the GFOA and should receive a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting. The major programs also received an unqualified opinion. The
Management Letter includes comments related to capital assets and federal awards.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Nichols, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to accept the annual audit
reports and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012. The motion carried unanimously.
6.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Board Composition for Rock
Prairie Management District #1 and #2.
Bob Cowell, Executive Director of Planning and Development Services, reminded Council that
MMD 1 will consist of eleven members and MMD 2 will have five members. For MMD 1, Staff
proposes to contact the specific entities named and solicit names for consideration. For those
without specific entities, staff will forward correspondences directly to business and property
owners and place a general notice on the City’s web site soliciting names for consideration. For
MMD 2, Staff will convene a meeting of the property owners indicating an interest in
participating in MMD#2 and will solicit names for consideration from this group.
Council directed that applicants go through the standard application process and be College
Station residents or reside within the ETJ. A caveat regarding Conflict of Interest will be added
to the MMD 2 application.
Mayor Berry recessed the Workshop at 7:10 p.m.
At 9:24 p.m., the Workshop reconvened by Mayor Berry.
7. Council Calendar
11
WKSHP021413Minutes Page 4
•
•
Feb. 15 15th Annual Crawfish Boil at Brazos County Expo Complex, 5:30 p.m.
•
Feb. 20 Community Builders Breakfast at CS Hilton, 7:30 a.m.
•
Feb. 20 RVP Board Meeting at RVP, 3:00 p.m.
•
Feb. 21 P&Z Workshop/Meeting, Council Chambers, 6:00 p.m. (Julie Schultz,
Liaison)
Feb. 28 Executive Session/Workshop/Regular Meeting at 5:00, 6:00 & 7:00 p.m.
Council reviewed the Council calendar. February 27 is the date for the Republican dinner, with
Greg Abbott speaking. A joint meeting will be held with the City of Bryan on February 18
regarding Gig.U.
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.
Councilmember Mooney asked for a workshop item to discuss additional reporting requirements
and future obligations for Council once the City reaches 100,000 in population. He also wants to
discuss how other cities of 100,000 – 150,000 population address compensation for the Mayor.
Councilmember Schultz asked for an item to review the permitting process for solicitors. Staff
will prepare a memo.
9.
Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter
Board, Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Committee,
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory
Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments,
Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, BVSWMA, BVWACS, Convention &
Visitors Bureau, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith
Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Neighborhood Parking
Taskforce, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission. Library
Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of Cities, Parks and
Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership,
Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister City Association,
TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board
of Adjustments.
Mayor Berry reported on the Audit Committee, Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan-
College Station Chamber of Commerce, and the Blinn Advisory Board.
10.
Adjournment
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the
College Station City Council at 9:39 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2013.
12
WKSHP021413Minutes Page 5
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
13
RM021413 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FEBRUARY 14, 2013
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Nancy Berry
Council:
Blanche Brick
Jess Fields
Karl Mooney
John Nichols
Julie Schultz
James Benham
City Staff:
Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
Kathy Merrill, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
Ian Whittenton, Records Management Coordinator
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 7:18 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2013 in the Council
Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas
77842.
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request
.
Citizen Comments
Carroll Claycamp, 300 Lee Avenue, read a prepared statement, attached.
Cora Rogers, 7472 Old Jones Road, spoke about the proposed landfill in the Brushy community.
The dump site has not opened yet, but the community still needs the City’s help. She asked the
Council how would they like a landfill placed in their front or backyard.
Argie Butler, 8783 Vincent Road, spoke about the proposed landfill in the Brushy community.
She is here again tonight to keep this issue in front of the Council. TCEQ has issued a nine-
14
RM021413 Minutes Page 2
month hold, but they have not won yet. They do not want this dump out there. Individual rights
end whenever they infringe on others’ rights and health concerns. Other towns are fighting what
they are fighting.
CONSENT AGENDA
2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for:
• January 24, 2013 Workshop
• January 24, 2013 Regular Council Meeting
• January 28, 2013 Strategic Planning Retreat
• January 29, 2013 Strategic Planning Retreat
2b.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a contract between
the City of College Station and Environmental Safety Services, Inc. in the amount of
$209,195.00 for the purposes of constructing the Emerald Forest Drainage Improvements
Project.
2c.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a contract between
the City of College Station and Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. in the amount of $122,100.00
to develop a Traffic Operations Master Plan.
2d.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding construction contract 13-131
with Glen Fuqua, Inc, in the amount of $152,000 for the installation of a two course seal
coat on McCullough Road, Live Oak Street, Madison Street, Church Street, and Royder
Road in the Wellborn Area.
2e.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 02-14-13-
2e, that will authorize City staff to negotiate for the purchase of easements needed for the
Bee Creek Parallel Trunk Line Project.
2f.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the second and final reading of
Ordinance 2013-3477, a franchise agreement with Brannon Industrial Group d/b/a
Premier Metal Buyers; for the collection of recyclables from commercial businesses and
multi-family locations.
2g.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the second and final reading of
Ordinance 2013-3478, a franchise agreement with Budget Roll-Off Services; for the
collection of construction and demolition debris from residential locations.
2h.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a 45-day lease extension for Deluxe
Burger Bar of College Station, Inc. (aka Cafe Eccell) on the First Street Property.
2i.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Professional Services Contract with
KIT Professionals, Inc. in the amount of $76,997 for the design, bidding, construction
administration and construction materials testing for the 30-Inch Water Transmission Line
Reinstallation Project.
15
RM021413 Minutes Page 3
2j.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Professional Services Contract with
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., in the amount of $19,303 for a contribution toward a State-
wide study for implementation of Direct Potable Re-Use for water supply.
2k.
Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an annual bid award for the
machinery with Mustang Rental Services of Bryan, IX in the amount of $75,000 annually.
21.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of Resolution 02-14-
13-2l, a "Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Certain Expenditures with Proceeds
from Debt" for expenditures related to the City of College Station's portion of the cost for
the construction of the Health Science Center Parkway IB and Phase 2A.
2m.
Presentation, possible action and discussion on Resolution 02-14-13-2m, amending the
authorized representatives on the local government pool account, TexPoo1.
2n.
Presentation, possible action and discussion on Resolution 02-14-13-2n, amending the
authorized representatives on the local government pool account, Texas Short Term Asset
Reserve ("TexSTAR").
2o.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding first renewal of an Agreement
for Services with the Brazos Valley Softball Umpires Association to provide officiating
services for City athletic leagues, programs and tournaments (Contract Number 12-093) in
an amount not to exceed $190,000.00 per year.
2p.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Resolution 02-14-13-2p for the
application and acceptance of a grant from the Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice
Division (CJD) to assist with the expenses incurred as a result of the capital murder and
subsequent investigation of Constable Brian Bachmann.
2q.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the award of Bid #13-032 for a
trailer mounted underground cable puller to TSE International, Inc.
2r.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on approving an annual blanket purchase
order for the purchase of replacement parts and components for City vehicles from Varsity
Ford - Lincoln (College Station, TX) for the amount of $60,000.00.
Item 2j was pulled from Consent; it will come back at a later date. Item 2o was pulled for a
separate vote.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Benham, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent
Agenda, less items 2j and 2o. The motion carried unanimously.
(2o)MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Schultz and a second by
Councilmember Nichols, the City Council voted six (6) for and one (1) opposed, with
Councilmember Fields voting against, to approve the first renewal of an Agreement for Services
with the Brazos Valley Softball Umpires Association to provide officiating services for City
16
RM021413 Minutes Page 4
athletic leagues, programs and tournaments (Contract Number 12-093) in an amount not to
exceed $190,000.00 per year. The motion carried.
REGULAR AGENDA
1.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion of Resolution 02-14-13-01, Purchase & Sale
Agreement, and Economic Development Agreement between the City, Research Valley
Partnership, and Asset Plus Realty Corporation regarding the First Street Property.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Mayor Berry, the
City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve Resolution 02-14-13-01,
Purchase & Sale Agreement, and Economic Development Agreement between the City,
Research Valley Partnership, and Asset Plus Realty Corporation regarding the First Street
Property. The motion carried unanimously.
The developer was asked to work with the HPC and to consider applying for an historical
marker.
2.
•
Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving Ordinance 2013-
3479, vacating and abandoning:
•
A 0.29 acre public utility easement, which is located of Block 9 the Second Revision,
Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of
the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
•
A 0.23 acre public utility easement, which is located of Block 10 the Second
Revision, Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page
237 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
A 0.03 acre (1350 Sq. Ft.) public utility easement, which is located of Block 12 the
Second Revision, Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume
152, Page 237 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
At approximately 7:53 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Ann Duyka, 503 Dogwood, asked which law enforcement agency are they to contact for problem
resolution? How will road maintenance be addressed, especially potholes? Will the traffic be re-
directed away from the residential area?
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember
Benham, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2013-
3479, vacating and abandoning:
• A 0.29 acre public utility easement, which is located of Block 9 the Second Revision,
Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the
Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
• A 0.23 acre public utility easement, which is located of Block 10 the Second Revision,
Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the
Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
17
RM021413 Minutes Page 5
• A 0.03 acre (1350 Sq. Ft.) public utility easement, which is located of Block 12 the
Second Revision, Oak Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152,
Page 237 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
The motion carried unanimously.
3.
•
Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving Ordinance 2013-
3480, vacating and abandoning:
•
A 0.77 acre portion of Culpepper Drive Right-of-Way, in the Second Revision, Oak
Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the
Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
A 0.88 acre Milam Avenue Right-of-Way, which in the Second Revision, Oak
Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the
Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
At approximately 8:08 p.m., Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing.
There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt Ordinance 2013-
3480, vacating and abandoning:
• A 0.77 acre portion of Culpepper Drive Right-of-Way, in the Second Revision, Oak
Terrace Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the Deed
Records of Brazos County, Texas, and
• A 0.88 acre Milam Avenue Right-of-Way, which in the Second Revision, Oak Terrace
Addition according to the plat recorded in Volume 152, Page 237 of the Deed Records of
Brazos County, Texas.
The motion carried unanimously.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the appointment of
Councilmembers to boards and commissions
.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Mayor Berry and a second by Councilmember Nichols, the
City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to appoint James Benham to the
BVWACS Board. The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember
Mooney, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to postpone appointment to
Sister Cities until February 28. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding appointments to the following
boards and commissions:
• Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board (one vacancy)
• Historic Preservation Committee (two vacancies)
Scott Shafer was appointed to the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board.
18
RM021413 Minutes Page 6
Gary Ives and Jerry Redman were appointed to the Historic Preservation Committee.
6.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Green College Station Action
Plan.
Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager, updated the Council on the Green College Station
Action Plan. Council asked for the following to be kept on the radar: single stream recycling,
incentivizing the protection of trees, annual report to review landfill/recycling metrics,
scheduled/phased code adoption, promotion of mixed-use development when appropriate and
commercially viable, promote optional water service in restaurants/businesses, and economic
analysis through the business community when new regulations are proposed.
MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Benham and a second by Councilmember
Schultz, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Green
College Station Action Plan as modified. The motion carried unanimously.
7.
Adjournment.
MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the
City Council at 9:24 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2013.
________________________
Nancy Berry, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
19
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Impact Fees Semi-Annual Report
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion Semi-Annual Report on
Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01, 03-02.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City and Core Services and
Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): At their meeting on February 7, the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously recommended acceptance of the report. Staff also recommends
Council acknowledge and accept the Semi-Annual Report – No Further Action is Required at
this time.
Summary: The attached Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report is provided to the City Council in
accordance with the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395.058. In short, the City of
College Station currently has five impact fee areas where all associated utility construction
is complete. All five of the impact fees were updated by Council in accordance with State
Law in either 2008 or 2009.
A previous report showed changes in the projected densities in several of the Impact Fee
areas related to the Land Uses adopted with the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. An update to
incorporate these changes 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. With the completion of both projects, the update is now
proceeding.
The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee per the
City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 15: Impact Fees. On February 7, 2013
the Advisory Committee discussed and unanimously recommended support of the Semi-
Annual Report. It is now being forwarded to Council for your status update.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. 02/07/13 Impact Fee Semi-Annual Report
20
1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 7, 2013
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 and update to the fee study is necessary. An
update was recommended 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.):
21
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
$325,082.55 (per Account #250-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible
for collection is about $16,631. 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 $5,017.90 for total
amount of $575,703.70 (per Acct #251-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount
eligible for collection is about $181,193. 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 $237.68 for total amount of $22,068.65 (per Acct #252-
0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about $181,536.
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 $0.00 for total amount of
$64,740.88 (per Acct #240-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for
collection is about $246,372. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees
is anticipated at 91% of original construction cost.
99-01 Water ( Harley )( 158 ac. ) $769.91/LUE
22
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 $4,650.62 for total amount of $97,157.82 (per
Acct #253-0000-287.51-13). The remaining amount eligible for collection is about
$698,001. The total amount to be recovered through impact fees is anticipated at
72% of original construction cost.
03-02 Sanitary Sewer ( Steeplechase ) ( 715 ac. ) $357.74/LUE
A previous report showed changes in the projected densities in several of the
Impact Fee areas related to the Land Uses adopted with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 2009. As presented in the Table below, the densities expected with
the Land Use Plan adopted in 2009 are significantly different in several of the
Impact Fee Areas. An update to incorporate these changes had been in progress
but needed to consider the Water and Wastewater Master Plans that were under
development, as well as, a City Wide Impact Fee Study that was underway. With
the completion of both projects, the update is now proceeding and will be
presented in the coming 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 $ 17,000
97-01 Spring Creek 4425 $ 98.39 8384 + 3959 $181,000
97-02B Alum 3232 $ 59.42 2139 - 1093 $182,000
99-01 Harley 450 $ 769.91 440 - 10 $246,000
03-02 Steeplechase 2838 $ 357.74 7816 + 4987 $698,000
Total $1,324,000
Attachments
Land Use at Adoption Map per Impact Fee Area
: Impact Fee Service Areas Map
Current Land Use Map per Impact Fee Area
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Effective Land Use Current Land Use
Density
LUE/Acre
1.00
1.62 (1.87)
2.10 (2.33)
2.87 (3.01)
1.00
13.6
3.77 (4.55)
4.07 (5.55)
0.00
13.00
0.4
4.5
0.00
*(#) indicates LUE for Water Impact Fee Area and only applies to the 99-01 Harley Impact Fee Area.
Density
LUE/Acre
0.00
1.00
0.20
6.59
4.19 (8.0)
4.52 (20)
4.07 (5.5)
3.77 (4.55)
1.62 (2.0)
2.00
0.00
0.20
30
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
Dexter Sidewalk Project
Construction Contract
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a
contract, #13-123, between the City of College Station and Brazos Paving Inc. in the
amount of $69,069.40 to construct the Dexter Street Sidewalks Project.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Neighborhood Integrity
2. Improving Transportation
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the City’s Standard Construction
Services Contract with Brazos paving, Inc. in the amount of $69,069.40.
Summary: Over year ago, city staff received a citizen request for an ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) accessible route from the neighborhood to Texas A&M University. Being an
ADA request and a priority project, this sidewalk extension was funded by the 2008 bond
authorization.
This project will construct a 6-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of Dexter Street between
Park Place and Winding Road. Upon completion of the project, sidewalks along Dexter will
continuously connect from Winding Rd to George Bush Drive.
Budget & Financial Summary: This project is currently budgeted for $200,000 in the
Streets Capital Projects Fund. Funds in the amount of $40,540 have been expended or
committed to date, leaving a balance of $159,460 for construction and remaining
expenditures.
Review and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments:
1. Bid Tab: Bid #13-036
2. Contract #13-123: On file in the City Secretary’s Office
3. Project Location Map
31
City of College Station - Purchasing DivisionBid Tabulation for #13-036"Dexter Street Sidewalk Improvements Project"Open Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013 @ 2:00 p.m.ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE1.01 1 LS Mobilization / Demobilization$6,500.00 $6,500.00 $3,945.00 $3,945.00 $1,906.74 $1,906.74 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.001.02 1 LS Surface Run-Off Siltation Barrier (moveable, re-useable)$575.00 $575.00 $365.75 $365.75 $370.79 $370.79 $500.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.001.03 5 LS Curb Inlet Run-Off Protection (Sandbags)$150.00 $750.00 $73.15 $365.75 $70.75 $353.75 $100.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.001.04 1 LS Traffic Control Implementation$4,500.00 $4,500.00 $423.23 $423.23 $2,099.12 $2,099.12 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.001.05 10 EASign, Mailbox and Water Meter Adjustement/Removal & Replacement (includes replacement of concrete placement hardware)$245.00 $2,450.00 $290.29 $2,902.90 $614.91 $6,149.10 $300.00 $3,000.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 $600.00 $6,000.001.06 500 SFGrass Sod Replacement ( Bermuda)$0.75 $375.00 $1.31 $655.00 $0.45 $225.00 $2.20 $1,100.00 $3.50 $1,750.00 $6.00 $3,000.001.07 2 EAStreet Crosswalk Striping$1,012.00 $2,024.00 $849.06 $1,698.12 $1,127.60 $2,255.20 $750.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.001.08 1 LSPrivate Irrigation System Repairs$1,200.00 $1,200.00 $627.00 $627.00 $3,461.08 $3,461.08 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.002.01 80 SFDemo Existing Sidewalks, Steps, Brick Pavers & Misc. Pavements (includes removal, hauling & disposal)$2.50 $200.00 $7.84 $627.20 $11.48 $918.40 $20.00 $1,600.00 $15.00 $1,200.00 $12.00 $960.002.02 2,458 SFExisting Street Crossings & Private Driveway Apron Removal (includes sawcutting, removal, hauling & disposal)$1.60 $3,932.80 $6.17 $15,165.86 $3.68 $9,045.44 $2.40 $5,899.20 $8.00 $19,664.00 $9.60 $23,596.802.03 170 SFExisting Box Culvert Top / Sidewalk Removal at Sta 1+50 (includes saw-cutting, removal, hauling & disposal)$4.15 $705.50 $7.84 $1,332.80 $23.30 $3,961.00 $15.80 $2,686.00 $10.00 $1,700.00 $12.00 $2,040.002.04 1 LSBox Culvert Hand Railing Removal & Disposal$300.00 $300.00 $182.88 $182.88 $1,158.48 $1,158.48 $500.00 $500.00 $800.00 $800.00 $360.00 $360.002.05 1 LSCured Concrete Sack Mix Removal & Disposal$900.00 $900.00 $522.50 $522.50 $900.88 $900.88 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.003.01 4,807 SF4" Thk. Reinforced Concrete Sidewalks (includes grubbing, ground preparation)$4.25 $20,429.75 $3.56 $17,112.92 $5.98 $28,745.86 $6.00 $28,842.00 $4.75 $22,833.25 $9.60 $46,147.203.02 1,375 SFNew City Street Crossing & Apron: 6" Thick Reinforced Concrete Apron$5.40 $7,425.00 $3.66 $5,032.50 $10.66 $14,657.50 $9.00 $12,375.00 $6.00 $8,250.00 $9.60 $13,200.003.03 649 SFNew Residential Driveway Crossings & Apron: 4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Apron$5.35 $3,472.15 $3.14 $2,037.86 $6.88 $4,465.12 $8.50 $5,516.50 $4.75 $3,082.75 $9.60 $6,230.403.04 4 EAA.D.A. Ramp SW3.03 (Includes grubbing & ground preparation)$450.00 $1,800.00 $459.80 $1,839.20 $268.77 $1,075.08 $450.00 $1,800.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00Greenway Constructors, Inc.(College Station, TX)M&C Fonseca Construction Co., Inc.(Granite Shoals, TX)Vox Construction, LLC(Bryan, TX)Dudley Construction, Ltd.(Bryan, TX)Palomares Construction, Inc.(Bryan, TX)Brazos Paving, Inc.(Bryan, TX)BASE BID3.05 1 EAA.D.A. Ramp SW3.05 (Includes grubbing & ground preparation)$450.00 $450.00 $459.80 $459.80 $1,101.35 $1,101.35 $420.00 $420.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.003.06 1 EANon-Standard A.D.A. Ramp (Includes grubbing & ground preparation)$175.00 $175.00 $449.35 $449.35 $1,006.73 $1,006.73 $400.00 $400.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.003.07 50 LFTypical Pedestrian Guardrail (City Detail SW1.01)$115.00 $5,750.00 $126.45 $6,322.50 $155.93 $7,796.50 $60.00 $3,000.00 $85.00 $4,250.00 $240.00 $12,000.003.08 2 LSPavement Striping (Street Crosswalk)$1.00 $2.00 $849.06 $1,698.12 $370.50 $741.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.003.09 156 SF26' Box Culvert Top & 6' Sidewalk @ Sta 1+50$7.70 $1,201.20 $47.06 $7,341.36 $38.42 $5,993.52 $51.90 $8,096.40 $25.00 $3,900.00 $24.00 $3,744.003.10 1 LS10' Curb Inlet Box Repair @ Sta 6+70 - Concrete Patch Work$350.00 $350.00 $1,672.00 $1,672.00 $457.44 $457.44 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.003.11 45 CF6" Thk. Retaining Wall, Varying Height (includes excavation, installation & cleanup)$32.00 $1,440.00 $45.01 $2,025.45 $95.90 $4,315.50 $231.10 $10,399.50 $25.00 $1,125.00 $60.00 $2,700.003.12 40 CF20 Linear Feet, 8" x 3" Retaining Wall Footing (Includes excavation, installation & clean up)$54.05 $2,162.00 $45.41 $1,816.40 $36.58 $1,463.20 $100.00 $4,000.00 $25.00 $1,000.00 $48.00 $1,920.00TOTAL BASE BID$160,298.40$144,555.00M&C Construction Co., Inc.»Bidder miscalculated Bid Item 1.03, Bid Item 3.08 and Total Base Bid. The highlighted totals above are correct.Bid BondAcknowledged Addendums$69,069.40 $76,621.45 $104,623.78 $113,934.60Palomares Construction, Inc.»Bidder miscalculated Bid Item 3.03 and the Total Base Bid. The highlighted totals above are correct.NOTES:Certification of Bid Page 1 of 132
D exter Dr SHolleman DrDexter DrFairview AveLuther StHereford StWelsh AveThomas StWinding RdPershing DrLuther StPark PlaceGoode DrHawthorn StBell StVillage DrDexter Dr WT a u ru s A veTimm DrThompson StSuffolk AvePark PlaceWinding RdPark PlaceDexter Sidewalks Project Location33
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Public Works Service Center Security
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding approval of a
contract between the City of College Station and Siemens Industry Inc. in the amount of
$66,958.94 for the purpose of Building Access Security and Closed Circuit Security Cameras
installation.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
2. Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of contract.
Summary: In September 2012 the City Auditor Office presented a Streets & Drainage Fleet
Audit to the City Council. One of the auditor’s recommendations stated that:” The Director
of Public Works should develop a plan that reviews the security of all vehicle and equipment
related assets”. The department concurred with the finding and performed a risk
assessment that will address the security of all Public Works facilities, vehicles and
equipment related assets. The risk assessment demonstrated that the Public Works Building
requires an automated access security system and access video monitoring for entry into
the building and equipment storage yard.
This TXMAS contract is for the installation of building security. The total cost can be broken
down as $49,940.27 for the building access card reader controls (entry doors) and
$17,018.67 for the closed circuit television (parking lot security cameras). The system is
equivalent to security systems installed in other City facilities.
Budget & Financial Summary: The budget for this security system was not included in
the FY13 budget as the need was not known when the budget was developed. Funds for
item are available in the General Fund balance and the budget will be included on an
upcoming FY13 Budget Amendment.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments: Contract is on file in the City Secretary’s Office.
34
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
Sandy Point Pump Station Improvements
Project Number WF1440357, WF1440344
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Professional Services
Contract with Arcadis US, Inc., in the amount of $364,529, for the design, bidding,
construction administration services and construction materials testing.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
2. Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the professional services
contract.
Summary: ARCADIS, Inc., was contacted to submit a proposal for the final design based
upon their prior experience working at the Sandy Point Pump Station. ARCADIS, Inc.
provided a Preliminary Engineering Report under a previous contract. The scope of the
Sandy Point Combined project is for design of upgrades to the chemical feed system. The
current chlorine gas system will be replaced with a liquid chlorine system. This modification
will increase operational efficiency and greatly improve safety for our employees and those
residents surrounding the facility. The scope also includes an expansion of the cooling
towers to meet the future well capacity of 34 MGD.
The first phase of this project was the preliminary engineering report which brought the
design to the 30% complete milestone.
Budget & Financial Summary: This project is included in the FY13 approved budget as
two separate projects - the Sandy Point Chemical Feed System Replacement project with a
budget of $1,764,259 and the Cooling Tower Expansion project with a budget of
$3,182,000. The projects are being combined for contract administration efficiency
purposes. The portion of the P.O. for the Sandy Point Chemical Feed System Replacement is
$149,165 and the portion for the Cooling Tower Expansion is $215,364. Funds in the
amount of $152,627 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of
$4,793,632 for design and construction.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments:
1.) Contract – On file in the City Secretary’s Office
2.) Project Location Map
35
WILLIAM D FITCH PWSH 30
HOLLEMAN D R
WE
L
S
H
A
VS COL
L
EGE
A
V
BARRON RDE M L K S TLO
N
G
MI
RE DRF & B RDFM 1179FRANCIS DRMUMFORD RD
U N IVERSITY DR EARRINGTON RDDOMINIK DRS MAIN STLUTHER STF
R
O
S
T D
R
E 29T
H ST
SH 30
SANDY POINT COMBINED
Sandy Point Pump Station Highway 6
FM 2818
FM 1687
36
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
University Drive Sidewalk Improvements Project
Construction Contract
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a
contract, #13-137, between the City of College Station and Vox Construction, LLC. in the
amount of $175,690.92 to construct the University Drive Sidewalk Improvements Project.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Neighborhood Integrity
2. Improving Transportation
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the City’s Standard Construction
Services Contract for the contractor in the amount of $175,690.92.
Summary: This project will construct an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of
University Drive between Texas Avenue and the western property line of Fire Station No.6.
The contract amount includes the bid alternate to extend a new sidewalk in front of Lions
Park. The new sidewalk will connect to the new sidewalk constructed in front of Fire Station
#6.
Budget & Financial Summary: This project is currently budgeted for $275,000 in the
Community Development Fund. Funds in the amount of $88,304 have been expended or
committed to date, leaving a balance of $186,696 for construction and remaining
expenditures.
Review and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments:
1. Bid Tab: Bid #13-042
2. Contract #13-137: On file with City Secretary’s Office
3. Project Location Map
37
City of College Station - Purchasing DivisionBid Tabulation for #13-042"University Drive Sidewalk Improvements"Open Date: Monday, February 4, 2013 @ 2:00 p.m.ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE1.01 1LSMobilization / Demobilization$17,000.00 $17,000.00 $33,942.97 $33,942.97 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $19,176.25 $19,176.25 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.001.02 1LSSurface Run-Off Siltation Barrier (moveable, re-useable)$78.75 $78.75 $436.47 $436.47 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1.32 $1.32 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.001.03 1LSCurb Inlet Run-Off Protection (Sandbags)$52.50 $52.50 $715.58 $715.58 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $198.38 $198.38 $750.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.001.04 1LSTraffic Control Implimentation$4,977.28 $4,977.28 $5,364.14 $5,364.14 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,870.00 $15,870.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.001.05 7EASign Removal & Replacement (includes galvanized hardware)$280.35 $1,962.45 $566.45 $3,965.15 $500.00 $3,500.00 $529.00 $3,703.00 $250.00 $1,750.00 $400.00 $2,800.001.06 2 EAWater Meter, Water Valve Height Adjustment$52.50 $105.00 $418.73 $837.46 $750.00 $1,500.00 $661.25 $1,322.50 $750.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $1,000.001.07 10 LFTrench Gate Gutter Crossing (Sta 17+75)$118.30 $1,183.00 $245.98 $2,459.80 $100.00 $1,000.00 $198.38 $1,983.80 $75.00 $750.00 $300.00 $3,000.001.08 475 SFGrass Sod Replacement (Bermuda)$1.31 $622.25 $1.01 $479.75 $3.00 $1,425.00 $1.18 $560.50 $10.00 $4,750.00 $8.40 $3,990.001.09 1 LSPrivate Irrigation / Sprinkler Relocation$262.50 $262.50 $3,108.89 $3,108.89 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,587.00 $1,587.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.002.01 3,942 SFDemo Existing Sidewalks, Ramps & Misc. Pavements (includes removal, hauling & disposal)$6.30 $24,834.60 $3.32 $13,087.44 $3.00 $11,826.00 $3.90 $15,373.80 $4.25 $16,753.50 $4.10 $16,162.202.02 5,006 SFDemo Street Crossings & Driveway Apron Removal (includes saw-cutting, removal, hauling & disposal) $6.56 $32,839.36 $3.12 $15,618.72 $4.00 $20,024.00 $4.76 $23,828.56 $4.25 $21,275.50 $5.00 $25,030.002.03 123 SFBrick Paver Demo (includes removal, hauling & disposal)$3.41 $419.43 $3.52 $432.96 $2.00 $246.00 $1.92 $236.16 $5.00 $615.00 $21.15 $2,601.452.04 5,613 SFDemo Existing Grass, Landscaping Beds & Shrubs$1.05 $5,893.65 $1.43 $8,026.59 $1.70 $9,542.10 $2.84 $15,940.92 $2.25 $12,629.25 $2.50 $14,032.503.01 7,498 SF4" Thk. Reinforced Concrete Sidewalks (includes grubbing, ground preparation)$3.41 $25,568.18 $4.57 $34,265.86 $5.00 $37,490.00 $6.04 $45,287.92 $9.90 $74,230.20 $7.25 $54,360.503.02 5,006 SFNew Street & Driveway Aprons: 6" Thick Reinforced Concrete$3.84 $19,223.04 $6.13 $30,686.78 $5.00 $25,030.00 $9.65 $48,307.90 $10.00 $50,060.00 $8.00 $40,048.003.03 28 EAA.D.A. TxDOT Ramp Type 10$450.00 $12,600.00 $654.99 $18,339.72 $850.00 $23,800.00 $952.20 $26,661.60 $1,050.00 $29,400.00 $800.00 $22,400.003.04 2 LSPavement Striping (Street Crosswalk)$900.38 $1,800.76 $1,206.25 $2,412.50 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $948.00 $1,896.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.003.05 50 LF4" Thk., 6" Raised Retaining Curb$15.75 $787.50 $12.29 $614.50 $14.00 $700.00 $10.83 $541.50 $21.50 $1,075.00 $72.00 $3,600.00TOTAL BASE BID4.01 3,363 SF4' A.D.A. Driveway Crossings: 6" Thick Reinforced Concrete (includes saw-cutting, removal and disposal of concrete demo)$8.35 $28,081.05 $9.56 $32,150.28 $9.00 $30,267.00 $14.41 $48,460.83 $9.00 $30,267.00 $9.00 $30,267.004.02 5,006 SFDEDUCT ITEM 2.02 FROM BASE BID-$6.56 -$32,839.36 -$3.12 -$15,618.72 -$4.00 -$20,024.00 -$4.76 -$23,828.56 -$4.25 -$21,275.50 -$5.00 -$25,030.004.03 5,006 SFDEDUCT ITEM 3.02 FROM BASE BID-$3.84 -$19,223.04 -$6.13 -$30,686.78 -$5.00 -$25,030.00 -$9.65 -$48,307.90 -$10.00 -$50,060.00 -$8.00 -$40,048.00ADD ALTERNATE #1 TOTAL$222,477.11-$23,981.35 -$14,155.22 -$14,787.00ADD ALTERNATE #1: 4' A.D.A. PATH ONLY$150,210.25 $194,583.10Dudley Construction, Ltd.(College Station, TX)-$23,675.63BASE BIDCivil Constructors, Inc.(College Station, TX)$174,795.28Brazos Paving(Bryan, TX)Vox Construction, LLC(Bryan, TX)-$41,068.50Palomares Construction, Inc.(Bryan, TX)$210,624.65-$34,811.00EBCO Development, Inc.(Cameron, TX)$227,788.45Page 1 of 238
City of College Station - Purchasing DivisionBid Tabulation for #13-042"University Drive Sidewalk Improvements"Open Date: Monday, February 4, 2013 @ 2:00 p.m.ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICETOTAL PRICEDudley Construction, Ltd.(College Station, TX)Civil Constructors, Inc.(College Station, TX)Brazos Paving(Bryan, TX)Vox Construction, LLC(Bryan, TX)Palomares Construction, Inc.(Bryan, TX)EBCO Development, Inc.(Cameron, TX)5.01 2,519 SFDemo Existing 6' sidewalk (includes disposal)$4.64 $11,688.16 $2.39 $6,020.41 $3.00 $7,557.00 $3.90 $9,824.10 $4.25 $10,705.75 $3.00 $7,557.005.02 29 SFDemo Existing Ramp (Sta 18+70) (includes cleanup & disposal)$15.75 $456.75 $2.39 $69.31 $5.00 $145.00 $3.90 $113.10 $11.00 $319.00 $52.00 $1,508.005.03 362 LFDemo Existing Landscape Wall (2 & 3 Tier Wall)$4.73 $1,712.26 $2.50 $905.00 $5.00 $1,810.00 $5.50 $1,991.00 $4.25 $1,538.50 $14.00 $5,068.005.04 163 LF6" Thk,16" Raised Exposed Aggragate Ret. Wall $31.50 $5,134.50 $31.83 $5,188.29 $40.00 $6,520.00 $46.60 $7,595.80 $7.25 $1,181.75 $36.50 $5,949.505.05 206 LF6" Thk,24" Raised Exposed Aggragate Ret. Wall $31.50 $6,489.00 $31.32 $6,451.92 $50.00 $10,300.00 $70.00 $14,420.00 $7.50 $1,545.00 $44.00 $9,064.00ADD ALTERNATE #2 TOTALADD ALTERNATE #2: LYON'S PARK 6' SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT$25,480.67 $18,634.93 $26,332.00Bid BondPalomares Construction, Inc.»Bidder miscalculated Bid Item 3.05, Bid Total and Add Alternate #1 Total. The highlighted totals above are correct.NOTES:Certification of Bid + Contractor Section 3 Compliance Certification$15,290.00Acknowledged Addendums$33,944.00$29,146.50Page 2 of 239
University Dr ETexas AveUniversity DrTarrow StLincoln AveTarrow St EWalton DrNimitz StCooner StFront StPasler StAsh StMeadowland StJane StHensel DrBanks StLive Oak StHensel StW-x RowAvenue AChimney Hill DrPeyton StMoore AvePreston StArguello DrHaltom AvePearce StU-v RowPrivate Access EasementNicolas AveTarrowColumbus StChurchill StGilbert StT a rro w S tUniversity Drive Sidewalk Improvements Project Location40
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Annual Bid for Various Electric Items and Electric Meters
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a bid award for the
annual agreement for various electrical items and electric meters to be stored in inventory
as follows: HD Supply $35,988.92; Techline $352,124.00; Priester-Mell & Nicolson
$134,684.00; Texas Electric Cooperatives $277,062.00; KBS Electrical Distributors
$218,998.75; Wesco $58,552.10. Total estimated annual expenditure is $1,077,409.77.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
2. Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends awards to the lowest responsible bidder meeting
specifications for annual estimated expenditures totaling $1,077,409.77.
I. HD Supply $ 35,988.92
II. Techline $ 352,124.00
III. Priester-Mell & Nicholson $ 134,684.00
IV. Texas Electric Cooperatives $ 277,062.00
V. KBS Electric Distributors $ 218,998.75
VI. Wesco $ 58,552.10
Summary: These purchases will be made as needed during the term of the agreement.
The various electrical items and electric meters are maintained in Electrical Inventory in an
inventory account and expensed as necessary during the agreement period. The purchasing
agreement period shall be for one (1) year with the option to renew for two additional two
(2) years.
Budget & Financial Summary: Eight (8) sealed, competitive bids were received and
opened on January 24, 2013. Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Fund.
Various projects may be expensed as supplies are pulled from inventory and issued.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A
Attachments: Bid Tabulation #13-037
41
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
1
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price
Group "A" Materials 15kV Underground Cable Accessories
Item No.Est. Qty Description Inv No.
A-1 40 ea Deadbreak T-OPII Connector 285-022-00036 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00
A-2 75 ea Protective Cap 285-095-00004 Cooper $21.36 $1,602.00 stk Elastimold $19.20 $1,440.00 3-5 wks No Bid $0.00
A-3 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow 285-082-00001 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $21.95 $4,390.00 3-5 wks No Bid $0.00
A-4 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow, Jacket Seal Type 285-082-______No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $28.15 $5,630.00 3-5 wks No Bid $0.00
A-5 350 ea Loadbreak Bushing Insert 285-095-00006 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $19.30 $6,755.00 2-4 wks No Bid $0.00
A-6 15 ea Rotatable Two-Way Bushing Insert 285-095-00007 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $126.00 $1,890.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00
A-7 200 ea Elbow Cable Seal 285-082-00019 3M $11.15 $2,230.00 stk Elastimold $7.60 $1,520.00 2 wks CANUSA $7.50 $1,500.00 4-6 wks
A-8 75 ea Elbow Arrester 285-082-00005 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $59.40 $4,455.00 3-5 wks No Bid $0.00
A-9 30 ea Parking Stand Arrester 285-082-00022 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $151.90 $4,557.00 3-5 wks No Bid $0.00
A-10 50 ea Cable Terminator Cold Shrink Type 285-082-00010 3M $88.42 $4,421.00 stk 3M $98.80 $4,940.00 2 wks No Bid $0.00
A-11 100 ea Cable Terminator 285-082-00003 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $39.90 $3,990.00 8-10 wks No Bid $0.00
A-12 250 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector 285-008-00007 Polaris $10.28 $2,570.00 1 wk CMC $10.50 $2,625.00 4-6 wks Utilco $12.55 $3,137.50 3-4 wks
A-13 100 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector 285-008-00008 Polaris $17.38 $1,738.00 4-6 wks Homac $16.80 $1,680.00 2-3 wks No Bid $0.00
A-14 250 ea Gelport Insulated Secondary Connector 285-008-00012 Tyco $38.00 $9,500.00 3-4 wks Tyco $41.70 $10,425.00 2-3 wks No Bid $0.00
A-15 40 ea Inline Splice 285-076-00002 3M $23.50 $940.00 stk 3M $22.60 $904.00 1-2 wks No Bid $0.00
A-16 30 ea Inline Splice 285-076-00007 3M $306.28 $9,188.40 stk 3M $289.00 $8,670.00 2-3 wks No Bid $0.00
A-17 50 ea Splice Re-jacketing Kit, cold shrink type 285-076-00005 3M $45.99 $2,299.50 stk 3M $44.00 $2,200.00 2-3 wks No Bid $0.00
A-18 50 ea Underground Faulted Circuit Indicator 285-111-00002 No Bid $0.00 SEL $149.50 $7,475.00 3-4 wks No Bid $0.00
Group A Total $34,488.90 $73,546.00 $4,637.50
Group "B" Materials - Pad-mount Enclosure Junction Boxes & Pull Boxes
B-1 15 ea Pull Box, 36x60x48 285-045-00007 Hubbell $980.22 $14,703.30 4 wks CDR $1,010.00 $15,150.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00
B-2 20 ea Pull Box , 48x96x48 285-045-00008 Hubbell $2,621.51 $52,430.20 4 wks CDR $2,710.00 $54,200.00 5-7 wks No Bid $0.00
B-3 12 ea Pull Box Extension 24" for 48x96x48 285-045-00012 Hubbell $1,121.91 $13,462.92 4 wks CDR $1,630.00 $19,560.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00
B-4 80 ea Secondary Pedestal 285-045-00009 Hubbell $100.30 $8,024.00 5 wks CDR $101.00 $8,080.00 4-6 wks Power Deisgn Inc.$162.50 $13,000.00 4-6 wks
B-5 5 ea Torsion Assist Lids 285-045-00013 Hubbell $4,924.90 $24,624.50 4 wks Armorcast $3,500.00 $17,500.00 3-4 wks No Bid $0.00
Group B Total $113,244.92 $114,490.00 $13,000.00
Group "C" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00003 No Bid $0.00 G&W $30,800.00 $61,600.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-1 Alt 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access $0.00 TBD $35,760.00 $71,520.00 $0.00
C-2 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00004 No Bid $0.00 G&W $26,425.00 $26,425.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-2 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel $0.00 TBD $32,100.00 $32,100.00 $0.00
C-3 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-00005 No Bid $0.00 G&W $31,200.00 $31,200.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
c-3 Alt 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access $0.00 TBD $36,100.00 $36,100.00 $0.00
C-4 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access 285-109-_____No Bid $0.00 G&W $40,400.00 $40,400.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-4 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel $0.00 TBD $47,350.00 $47,350.00 $0.00
Group C Total $0.00 $159,625.00 $0.00
Group C Alt Total $0.00 $187,070.00 $0.00
Group "C-1A tp C-4A" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00008 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $34,270.00 $68,540.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-2A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00009 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $31,760.00 $63,520.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-3A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-00010 No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $34,270.00 $68,540.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
C-4A 1 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear 285-109-_____No Bid $0.00 Elastimold $62,700.00 $62,700.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
Total Group CA $0.00 $263,300.00 $0.00
HD Supply Techline Priester-Mell & Nicolson
42
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
2
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery
Group "D" - Powder Coated Steel Street Light Poles
D-1 15 ea Streetlight Pole, 37.5 ft.285-065-00004 Valmont $1,796.00 $26,940.00 6-8 wks Hapco $1,780.00 $26,700.00 6 wks Miller Bernd $1,847.00 $27,705.00 6-8 wks
D-2 35 ea Streetlight Pole, 45 ft.285-065-00005 Valmont $2,032.63 $71,142.05 6-8 wks Hapco $1,890.00 $66,150.00 6 wks Miller Bernd $1,937.00 $67,795.00 6-8 wks
D-3 30 ea Streetlight Pole, 35 ft.285-065-00014 Valmont $1,099.99 $32,999.70 6-8 wks Hapco $1,160.00 $34,800.00 6 wks Miller Bernd $992.00 $29,760.00 6-8 wks
D-4 25 ea Breakaway Base 285-065-00021 Valmont $391.66 $9,791.50 6-8 wks Hapco $379.00 $9,475.00 6 wks Miller Bernd $488.00 $12,200.00 6-8 wks
Total Group D $140,873.25 $137,125.00 $137,460.00
Group E - Lamps & Light Fixtures
E-1 100 ea Light Fixture, 100 watt 285-056-00011 GE Lighting $137.00 $13,700.00 14 days AM Electric $96.40 $9,640.00 3-5 wks Cooper $92.00 $9,200.00 4-6 wks
E-2 100 ea Light Fixture, 200 watt 285-056-00006 GE Lighting $135.00 $13,500.00 14 days AM Electric $114.00 $11,400.00 3-5 wks Cooper $105.00 $10,500.00 4-6 wks
E-3 100 ea Light Fixture, 400 watt 285-056-00007 GE Prolec $164.44 $16,444.00 14 days AM Electric $151.20 $15,120.00 3-5 wks Cooper $143.00 $14,300.00 4-6 wks
E-4 40 ea Decorative Light Fixture, 100 w 285-056-00008 No Bid $0.00 Hadco $1,050.00 $42,000.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00
E-5 20 ea Decorative Light Fixture, LED 285-056-_____No Bid $0.00 Hadco $1,700.00 $34,000.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00
Group E Total $43,644.00 $112,160.00 $34,000.00
Group F - Crossarm Braces
F-1 60 ea HD Dead End 8'285-047-00088 Alumaform $239.00 $14,340.00 3-4 wks Shakespeare $182.00 $10,920.00 4-6 wks Pupi $209.00 $12,540.00 4-5 wks
F-2 150 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 8'285-047-00093 Alumaform $107.47 $16,120.50 3-4 wks Shakespeare $95.00 $14,250.00 4-6 wks Pupi $91.00 $13,650.00 4-5 wks
F-3 100 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 10'285-047-00094 Alumaform $127.30 $12,730.00 3-4 wks Shakespeare $111.00 $11,100.00 4-6 wks Pupi $106.00 $10,600.00 4-5 wks
F-4 20 ea HD Deadend 10'285-047-00099 Alumaform $350.63 $7,012.60 3-4 wks Shakespeare $208.00 $4,160.00 4-6 wks Pupi $232.00 $4,640.00 4-5 wks
Group F Total $50,203.10 $40,430.00 $41,430.00
Group G - Meter Sockets
G-1 60 ea Meter Socket, Overhead, 200 amp 285-063-00003 Milbank $37.36 $2,241.60 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $34.50 $2,070.00 4-6 wks
G-2 400 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp 285-063-00004 Milbank $40.99 $16,396.00 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $39.25 $15,700.00 4-6 wks
G-3 25 ea Meter Socket, URD or O/H, 320 amp 285-063-00006 Milbank $147.26 $3,681.50 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $136.00 $3,400.00 4-6 wks
G-4 25 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp 285-063-00008 Milbank $109.64 $2,741.00 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $101.00 $2,525.00 4-6 wks
G-5 25 ea Meter Socket Bases, 13 Terminal 285-063-00011 Milbank $217.35 $5,433.75 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $225.00 $5,625.00 6-8 wks
G-6 10 ea Meter Socket, Duplex Type 285-063-00013 Milbank $168.50 $1,685.00 2-5 wks/stk No Bid $0.00 Milbank $174.00 $1,740.00 6-8 wks
Group G Total $32,178.85 $0.00 $31,060.00
Group H - Miscellaneous Materials
H-1 72 ea Pole Setting Foam 285-065-00019 No Bid $0.00 BMK $83.00 $5,976.00 1 wk
Utility Structural
Systems (poly-set)$69.50 $5,004.00 1-2 wks
H-2 100 ea S&C Wildlife Guards 285-102-00003 S&C Electric $181.05 $18,105.00 8-10 wks S&C $239.00 $23,900.00 8-10 wks S&C $182.00 $18,200.00 8-10 wks
H-3 12 ea 600/1200 amp Air Switch with S-2 Option 285-077-00004 S&C Electric $5,546.48 $66,557.76 8-10 wks Inerta $4,900.00 $58,800.00 8-10 wks S&C $5,728.00 $68,736.00 8-10 wks
Group H Total $84,662.76 $88,676.00 $91,940.00
Group I - Meters Estimated Annual Quantities
I-1 1000 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 no Demand 285-061-00064 General Electric $178.88 $178,880.00 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $24.70 $24,700.00 4-6 wks
I-2 100 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00058 General Electric $178.88 $17,888.00 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $135.00 $13,500.00 4-6 wks
I-3 20 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand 285-061-00008 General Electric $178.88 $3,577.60 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $188.00 $3,760.00 4-6 wks
I-4 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand 285-061-00005 General Electric $183.88 $7,355.20 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $188.00 $7,520.00 4-6 wks
I-5 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand 285-061-00050 General Electric $178.88 $7,155.20 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $175.00 $7,000.00 4-6 wks
I-6 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00052 General Electric $178.88 $7,155.20 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $175.00 $7,000.00 4-6 wks
I-7 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand 285-061-00060 General Electric $183.00 $2,196.00 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $205.00 $2,460.00 4-6 wks
I-8 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand 285-061-00056 General Electric $178.88 $2,146.56 8 wks No Bid $0.00 Itron $175.00 $2,100.00 4-6 wks
Group I Total $226,353.76 $0.00 $68,040.00
Recommended Award Amount $35,988.92 $352,124.00 $134,684.00
HD Supply
Y
Techline
Y
Acknowledged Addendum 1
Certification of Bid
Y Y
Y
Y
Priester-Mell & Nicholson
Item H2 - This Item will not work with "R4" swtich below
43
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
3
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications
Group "A" Materials 15kV Underground Cable Accessories
Item No.Est. Qty Description
A-1 40 ea Deadbreak T-OPII Connector
A-2 75 ea Protective Cap
A-3 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow
A-4 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow, Jacket Seal Type
A-5 350 ea Loadbreak Bushing Insert
A-6 15 ea Rotatable Two-Way Bushing Insert
A-7 200 ea Elbow Cable Seal
A-8 75 ea Elbow Arrester
A-9 30 ea Parking Stand Arrester
A-10 50 ea Cable Terminator Cold Shrink Type
A-11 100 ea Cable Terminator
A-12 250 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector
A-13 100 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector
A-14 250 ea Gelport Insulated Secondary Connector
A-15 40 ea Inline Splice
A-16 30 ea Inline Splice
A-17 50 ea Splice Re-jacketing Kit, cold shrink type
A-18 50 ea Underground Faulted Circuit Indicator
Group A Total
Group "B" Materials - Pad-mount Enclosure Junction Boxes & Pull Boxes
B-1 15 ea Pull Box, 36x60x48
B-2 20 ea Pull Box , 48x96x48
B-3 12 ea Pull Box Extension 24" for 48x96x48
B-4 80 ea Secondary Pedestal
B-5 5 ea Torsion Assist Lids
Group B Total
Group "C" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-1 Alt 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-2 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-2 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel
C-3 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
c-3 Alt 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-4 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-4 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel
Group C Total
Group C Alt Total
Group "C-1A tp C-4A" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-2A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-3A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-4A 1 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
Total Group CA
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper $259.00 $10,360.00 4-6 wks
No Bid $0.00 Richards $19.75 $1,481.25 3-4 wks Cooper $20.15 $1,511.25 stk
No Bid $0.00 Richards $22.99 $4,598.00 3-4 wks Cooper $22.95 $4,590.00 stk
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper $29.95 $5,990.00 4-6 wks
No Bid $0.00 Richards $27.65 $9,677.50 3-4 wks Cooper $19.49 $6,821.50 stk
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper $100.75 $1,511.25 stk
No Bid $0.00 3M $10.15 $2,030.00 2-3 wks 3M $9.45 $1,890.00 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper $58.50 $4,387.50 stk-4 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Cooper $140.50 $4,215.00 4-6 wks
No Bid $0.00 3M $112.10 $5,605.00 2-3 wks 3M $103.95 $5,197.50 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 3M $41.35 $4,135.00 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 CMC $9.44 $2,360.00 4-6 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 CMC $20.80 $2,080.00 4-6 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Tyco $36.50 $9,125.00 2-3 wks
No Bid $0.00 3M $25.45 $1,018.00 2-3 wks 3M $23.10 $924.00 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 3M $327.15 $9,814.50 2-3 wks 3M $296.85 $8,905.50 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 3M $49.10 $2,455.00 2-3 wks 3M $44.60 $2,230.00 2 wks
No Bid $0.00 SEL $139.00 $6,950.00 6-8 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 $43,629.25 $76,233.50
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $1,050.00 $15,750.00 4-5 wks CDR/Quazite $940.00 $14,100.00 4 wks
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $2,805.00 $56,100.00 5-6 wks CDR/Quazite $2,515.00 $50,300.00 5 wks
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $1,199.00 $14,388.00 4-5 wks CDR/Quazite $1,160.00 $13,920.00 4 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 CDR/Quazite $91.50 $7,320.00 3 wks
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $5,265.00 $26,325.00 4-5 wks CDR/Quazite $4,725.00 $23,625.00 4 wks
$0.00 $112,563.00 $109,265.00
Trayer $32,914.00 $65,828.00 29 wks G&W $31,550.00 $63,100.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 G&W $36,600.00 $73,200.00 $0.00
Trayer $28,872.00 $28,872.00 29 wks G&W $27,200.00 $27,200.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 G&W $32,250.00 $32,250.00 $0.00
Trayer $33,098.00 $33,098.00 29 wks G&W $31,925.00 $31,925.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 G&W $36,950.00 $36,950.00 $0.00
Trayer $42,547.00 $42,547.00 29 wks G&W $41,355.00 $41,355.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 G&W $48,450.00 $48,450.00 $0.00
$170,345.00 $163,580.00 $0.00
$0.00 $190,850.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 G&W $32,965.00 $65,930.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 G&W $29,750.00 $59,500.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 G&W $32,965.00 $65,930.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 G&W $60,195.00 $60,195.00 12-14 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 $251,555.00 $0.00
KBS Electrical Dist.
Note: Items B1 - B5; Frieght allowed on 6000.00 combined
shipments.
Trayer Texas Electric Cooperatives
44
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
4
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications
Group "D" - Powder Coated Steel Street Light Poles
D-1 15 ea Streetlight Pole, 37.5 ft.
D-2 35 ea Streetlight Pole, 45 ft.
D-3 30 ea Streetlight Pole, 35 ft.
D-4 25 ea Breakaway Base
Total Group D
Group E - Lamps & Light Fixtures
E-1 100 ea Light Fixture, 100 watt
E-2 100 ea Light Fixture, 200 watt
E-3 100 ea Light Fixture, 400 watt
E-4 40 ea Decorative Light Fixture, 100 w
E-5 20 ea Decorative Light Fixture, LED
Group E Total
Group F - Crossarm Braces
F-1 60 ea HD Dead End 8'
F-2 150 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 8'
F-3 100 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 10'
F-4 20 ea HD Deadend 10'
Group F Total
Group G - Meter Sockets
G-1 60 ea Meter Socket, Overhead, 200 amp
G-2 400 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp
G-3 25 ea Meter Socket, URD or O/H, 320 amp
G-4 25 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp
G-5 25 ea Meter Socket Bases, 13 Terminal
G-6 10 ea Meter Socket, Duplex Type
Group G Total
Group H - Miscellaneous Materials
H-1 72 ea Pole Setting Foam
H-2 100 ea S&C Wildlife Guards
H-3 12 ea 600/1200 amp Air Switch with S-2 Option
Group H Total
Group I - Meters Estimated Annual Quantities
I-1 1000 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 no Demand
I-2 100 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
I-3 20 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand
I-4 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand
I-5 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand
I-6 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
I-7 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand
I-8 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
Group I Total
Recommended Award Amount
Acknowledged Addendum 1
Certification of Bid
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont $1,778.00 $26,670.00 6-8 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont $2,035.00 $71,225.00 6-8 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Valmont $1,095.00 $32,850.00 6-8 wks
No Bid $0.00 Union Metal $420.00 $10,500.00 4-6 wks Valmont $396.00 $9,900.00 6-8 wks
$0.00 $10,500.00 $140,645.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Amer. Electric $95.55 $9,555.00 3-5 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Amer. Electric $112.85 $11,285.00 3-5 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Amer. Electric $151.60 $15,160.00 3-5 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $36,000.00
No Bid $0.00 Pupi $203.50 $12,210.00 5-6 wks Pupi $190.55 $11,433.00 stk-4 wks
No Bid $0.00 Pupi $86.95 $13,042.50 5-6 wks Pupi $81.10 $12,165.00 stk-4 wks
No Bid $0.00 Pupi $114.25 $11,425.00 5-6 wks Pupi $93.90 $9,390.00 stk-4 wks
No Bid $0.00 Pupi $251.00 $5,020.00 5-6 wks Pupi $212.00 $4,240.00 4 wks
$0.00 $41,697.50 $37,228.00
No Bid $0.00 Milbank $36.55 $2,193.00 2-5 wks Milbank $27.10 $1,626.00 stk
No Bid $0.00 Milbank $41.50 $16,600.00 2-5 wks Milbank $34.25 $13,700.00 stk-2 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 Milbank $140.00 $3,500.00 stk
No Bid $0.00 Milbank $107.20 $2,680.00 2-5 wks Milbank $101.60 $2,540.00 2-3 wks
No Bid $0.00 Milbank $212.50 $5,312.50 5 wks Milbank $199.25 $4,981.25 3-4 wks
No Bid $0.00 Milbank $165.00 $1,650.00 2-5 wks Milbank $154.10 $1,541.00 2-3 wks
$0.00 $28,435.50 $27,888.25
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 GRA Services $75.80 $5,457.60 stk
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 S&C $195.00 $19,500.00 6-8 wks
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 S&C $5,220.00 $62,640.00 8-10 wks
$0.00 $0.00 $87,597.60
No Bid $0.00 L&G $24.85 $24,850.00 9-10 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $138.05 $13,805.00 13-15 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $86.95 $1,739.00 9-10 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $86.95 $3,478.00 9-10 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $127.00 $5,080.00 13-15 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $127.00 $5,080.00 13-15 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $138.00 $1,656.00 13-15 wks No Bid $0.00
No Bid $0.00 L&G $127.00 $1,524.00 13-15 wks No Bid $0.00
$0.00 $57,212.00 $0.00
$277,062.00
KBS Electric Dist.
Note: Valmont Frieght Allowed on orders of 1800.00.
Note: H-2 The SDA-4095 is only applicable on R3 or Eirlier vintage
switches. The wildlife kit for the current R4 switch 147443R4 is Cat
#SDA-5178. The price is the same for both
$218,998.75
Trayer
Y
Y
Texas Electric Cooperatives
Y
Y
Y
Y
45
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
5
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications
Group "A" Materials 15kV Underground Cable Accessories
Item No.Est. Qty Description
A-1 40 ea Deadbreak T-OPII Connector
A-2 75 ea Protective Cap
A-3 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow
A-4 200 ea Loadbreak Elbow, Jacket Seal Type
A-5 350 ea Loadbreak Bushing Insert
A-6 15 ea Rotatable Two-Way Bushing Insert
A-7 200 ea Elbow Cable Seal
A-8 75 ea Elbow Arrester
A-9 30 ea Parking Stand Arrester
A-10 50 ea Cable Terminator Cold Shrink Type
A-11 100 ea Cable Terminator
A-12 250 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector
A-13 100 ea Disconnectable Secondary Transformer Connector
A-14 250 ea Gelport Insulated Secondary Connector
A-15 40 ea Inline Splice
A-16 30 ea Inline Splice
A-17 50 ea Splice Re-jacketing Kit, cold shrink type
A-18 50 ea Underground Faulted Circuit Indicator
Group A Total
Group "B" Materials - Pad-mount Enclosure Junction Boxes & Pull Boxes
B-1 15 ea Pull Box, 36x60x48
B-2 20 ea Pull Box , 48x96x48
B-3 12 ea Pull Box Extension 24" for 48x96x48
B-4 80 ea Secondary Pedestal
B-5 5 ea Torsion Assist Lids
Group B Total
Group "C" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-1 Alt 2 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-2 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-2 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel
C-3 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
c-3 Alt 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-4 1 ea Pad-Mounted Switchgear Front/Back Access
C-4 Alt 1 ea Installation of Voltage Sensing Bushing & Panel
Group C Total
Group C Alt Total
Group "C-1A tp C-4A" Materials - 15 kV Pad-mounted Switchgear
C-1A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-2A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-3A 2 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
C-4A 1 ea Pad-Mounted Solid Dielectric/EPDM Rubber Insulated Switchgear
Total Group CA
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery
Cooper $259.00 $10,360.00 10-12 wks No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00
Cooper $20.95 $1,571.25 4-6 wks Hubbell $19.60 $1,470.00 3 wks Richards $18.80 $1,410.00 3 wks
Cooper $23.97 $4,794.00 4-6 wks Hubbell $24.20 $4,840.00 3 wks Richards $21.86 $4,372.00 2-4 wks
Cooper $31.17 $6,234.00 6-8 wks No Bid $0.00 No Bid No Bid $0.00
Cooper $20.79 $7,276.50 2-4 wks Hubbell $26.67 $9,334.50 No Bid Richards $26.23 $9,180.50 2-4 wks
Cooper $109.35 $1,640.25 4-6 wks Hubbell $131.67 $1,975.05 4 wks Hubbell $131.67 $1,975.05 4 wks
3M $9.07 $1,814.00 2-4 wks Hubbell $13.52 $2,704.00 5 wks Richards $10.93 $2,186.00 2-4 wks
Cooper $63.50 $4,762.50 4-6 wks Hubbell $60.19 $4,514.25 4 wks $0.00
Cooper $142.42 $4,272.60 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00 $0.00
3M $106.07 $5,303.50 2-4 wks 3M $109.27 $5,463.50 2-3 wks $0.00
Elastimold $41.35 $4,135.00 10-12 wks No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Utilco $12.44 $3,110.00 4-6 wks Utilco $13.15 $3,287.50 stk-3 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
Tyco $36.84 $9,210.00 4-6 wks No Bid $0.00 $0.00
3M $24.60 $984.00 2-4 wks 3M $24.08 $963.20 2-3 wks $0.00
3M $316.40 $9,492.00 2-4 wks 3M $307.87 $9,236.10 2-4 wks $0.00
3M $46.84 $2,342.00 2-4 wks 3M $46.46 $2,323.00 2-3 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$77,301.60 $46,111.10 $19,123.55
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $996.28 $14,944.20 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $2,664.48 $53,289.60 5 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $1,140.31 $13,683.72 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Hubbell $89.62 $7,169.60 3 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Quazite $5,518.27 $27,591.35 4 wks $0.00
$0.00 $116,678.47 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Stuart C. Irby
B4 Description: Pedestal MGSEC 10X15X30 HDPE
Wesco
46
City of College Station
Annual Price Agreement for Various Electrical Items
ITB #13-037
Opened January 24, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
6
Bid total was corrected using the unit price
Recommended Award
Low Bid not acceptable or did not meet specifications
Group "D" - Powder Coated Steel Street Light Poles
D-1 15 ea Streetlight Pole, 37.5 ft.
D-2 35 ea Streetlight Pole, 45 ft.
D-3 30 ea Streetlight Pole, 35 ft.
D-4 25 ea Breakaway Base
Total Group D
Group E - Lamps & Light Fixtures
E-1 100 ea Light Fixture, 100 watt
E-2 100 ea Light Fixture, 200 watt
E-3 100 ea Light Fixture, 400 watt
E-4 40 ea Decorative Light Fixture, 100 w
E-5 20 ea Decorative Light Fixture, LED
Group E Total
Group F - Crossarm Braces
F-1 60 ea HD Dead End 8'
F-2 150 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 8'
F-3 100 ea Standard Duty Crossarm 10'
F-4 20 ea HD Deadend 10'
Group F Total
Group G - Meter Sockets
G-1 60 ea Meter Socket, Overhead, 200 amp
G-2 400 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp
G-3 25 ea Meter Socket, URD or O/H, 320 amp
G-4 25 ea Meter Socket, Underground, 200 amp
G-5 25 ea Meter Socket Bases, 13 Terminal
G-6 10 ea Meter Socket, Duplex Type
Group G Total
Group H - Miscellaneous Materials
H-1 72 ea Pole Setting Foam
H-2 100 ea S&C Wildlife Guards
H-3 12 ea 600/1200 amp Air Switch with S-2 Option
Group H Total
Group I - Meters Estimated Annual Quantities
I-1 1000 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 no Demand
I-2 100 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
I-3 20 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand
I-4 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand
I-5 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 20 w Demand
I-6 40 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
I-7 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 320 w Demand
I-8 12 ea Electric Meter, Class 200 w Demand
Group I Total
Recommended Award Amount
Acknowledged Addendum 1
Certification of Bid
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery Manufacturer Price Price Delivery
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Cooper $86.53 $8,653.00 4-6 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Cooper $99.66 $9,966.00 4-6 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Cooper $135.18 $13,518.00 4-6 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 No Bid $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $32,137.00 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Maclean $167.32 $10,039.20 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Maclean $120.88 $18,132.00 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Maclean $127.12 $12,712.00 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Maclean $206.57 $4,131.40 4 wks $0.00
$0.00 $45,014.60 $0.00
Milbank $34.50 $2,070.00 2-4 wks Durham $33.00 $1,980.00 6-8 wks $0.00
Milbank $39.12 $15,648.00 2-4 wks Durham $47.98 $19,192.00 6-8 wks $0.00
Milbank $139.34 $3,483.50 4-6 wks Durham $167.43 $4,185.75 6-8 wks $0.00
Milbank $101.51 $2,537.75 4-6 wks Durham $113.85 $2,846.25 6-8 wks $0.00
Milbank $207.87 $5,196.75 4-6 wks Durham $159.16 $3,979.00 6-8 wks $0.00
Milbank $162.02 $1,620.20 2-4 wks Durham $123.95 $1,239.50 6-8 wks $0.00
$30,556.20 $33,422.50 $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Poly-Set $80.00 $5,760.00 1-2 wks $0.00
S&C $217.00 $21,700.00 8-10 wks S&C $215.53 $21,553.00 8-10 wks $0.00
$0.00 S&C $6,596.19 $79,154.28 8-10 wks $0.00
$21,700.00 $106,467.28 $0.00
Itron $25.25 $25,250.00 4-6 wks Elster $91.46 $91,460.00 4 wks Vision $33.60 $33,600.00 2-3 weeks
Itron $162.00 $16,200.00 4-6 wks Elster $105.42 $10,542.00 4 wks Vision $62.65 $6,265.00 2-3 weeks
Itron $144.00 $2,880.00 4-6 wks Elster $102.15 $2,043.00 4 wks $0.00
No Bid $0.00 Elster $106.70 $4,268.00 4 wks $0.00
Itron $144.00 $5,760.00 4-6 wks Elster $127.08 $5,083.20 4 wks $0.00
Itron $144.00 $5,760.00 4-6 wks Elster $127.08 $5,083.20 4 wks $0.00
Itron $184.00 $2,208.00 4-6 wks Elster $145.56 $1,746.72 4 wks $0.00
Itron $166.00 $1,992.00 4-6 wks Elster $127.08 $1,524.96 4 wks $0.00
$60,050.00 $121,751.08 $39,865.00
N Y
Note: Item H2- this wildlife kit will not work with current R4 switch 147443R4 as it requires the SDA-5178. Item H3- Included
options: K-Silicone Insulators, S2- Cypoxy insulating unit in the operating shaft.
Y
Y
Stuart C. Irby
Y
$58,552.10
Wesco
Y
47
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Annual Water Meters
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on approving annual water
meter purchases from Aqua Metric Sales Company through the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (HGAC) contract (#WM08-12). Based on the attached contract unit pricing, the
estimated annual expenditure for water meters is: $300,868.30.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
2. Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval to purchase water meters from
Aqua Metric Sales Company through the HGAC contract.
Summary: Water meters will be purchased, stocked in the Water/Wastewater inventory,
and expensed as necessary for the ongoing water meter replacement program.
Aqua Metric Sales Company is the HGAC contract dealer for Sensus IPERL and OMNI water
meters. Products and services offered through HGAC have been subjected to either the
competitive bid or competitive proposal format based on Texas statutes under the Local
Government Code Chapter 252.
Meter Type Item Number
Estimated
Annual
Usage Unit Cost
Extended
Cost
5/8" x 3/4" (IPERL) 890-045-00018 850 $127.06 $108,001.00
1" (IPERL) 890-045-00019 125 $181.62 $22,702.50
1 1/2" Compound (OMNI C2) 890-045-00053 60 $1,050.40 $63,024.00
2" Compound (OMNI C2) 890-045-00012 60 $1,212.00 $72,720.00
3" Compound (OMNI C2) 890-040-00013 12 $1,535.20 $18,422.40
4" Compound (OMNI C2) 890-045-00014 6 $2,666.40 $15,998.40
Total Annual Cost of Meters: $300,868.30
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the
Water/Wastewater Fund. Various projects may be expensed as supplies are pulled from
inventory and issued.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A
Attachments: HGAC Contract Pricing Worksheet
48
Contract
No.:WM08-10 Date
Prepared:2/6/2013
Buying
Agency:Contractor:
Contact
Person:
Prepared
By:
Phone:Phone:
Fax:Fax:
Email:Email:
Quan Unit Pr Total
1 127.06 127.06
1 181.62 181.62
1 1,050.40 1050.4
1 1,212.00 1212
1 1,535.20 1535.2
1 2,666.40 2666.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6772.68
Quan Unit Pr Total
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
6772.68
Aqua-Metric Sales Company
Mike Cartwright
210-967-6300
CONTRACT PRICING WORKSHEET
For Catalog & Price Sheet Type Purchases
This Worksheet is prepared by Contractor and given to End User. If a PO is issued, both documents
MUST be faxed to H-GAC @ 713-993-4548. Therefore please type or print legibly.
City of College Station
Lisa Davis/Butch Willis
210-967-6305
Description
3/4" Sensus Iperls w 3 Wire TRPL Cable PC 17 L PL Page 3
A. Catalog / Price Sheet Items being purchased - Itemize Below - Attach Additional Sheet If Necessary
General Description
of Product:Sensus Iperls
ldavis@cstx.gov
Catalog / Price Sheet
Name: Sensus Meter Pricing
Total From Other Sheets, If Any:
Subtotal A:
B. Unpublished Options, Accessory or Service items - Itemize Below - Attach Additional Sheet If Necessary
(Note: Unpublished Items are any which were not submitted and priced in contractor's bid.)
Description
michael.cartwright@aqua-metric.com
1.5" OMNI C2 PC 17 K PL Page 10
2" OMNI C2 PC 17 K PL Page 10
4" OMNI C2 PC 17 K PL Page 10
3" OMNI C2 PC 17 K PL Page 10
1" Sensus Iperls w 3 Wire TRPL Cable PC 17 L PL Page 3
C. Trade-Ins / Special Discounts / Other Allowances / Freight / Installation / Miscellaneous Charges
Delivery Date: 2 Weeks ARO D. Total Purchase Price (A+B+C):
Subtotal C:
For this transaction the percentage is: Check: Total cost of Unpublished Options (B) cannot exceed 25% of the total of
the Base Unit Price plus Published Options (A+B).
Total From Other Sheets, If Any:
Subtotal B:
49
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2i
Annual Price Agreement for Wire and Cable
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the first renewal
of the annual price agreement for wire and cable with Techline for an amount not to exceed
$809,550.00.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
2. Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the first renewal of the annual price agreement
for wire and cable with Techline in an amount not to exceed $809,550.00.
Summary: The original award to Techline was approved by Council on March 8, 2012, Item
2e. This will be the first renewal term, as allowed in the terms of the price agreement.
These purchases will be made as needed during the term of the agreement. The various
electric wire and cable items are maintained in Electrical Inventory in an inventory account
and expensed as necessary.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Electrical Fund.
Various projects may be expensed as supplies are pulled from inventory and issued.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments: Renewal Acceptance Letter
50
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
-------
------
RENEWAL ACCEPTANCE By signing herewith, I acknowledge and agree to renew Bid 13-036, Annual Price Agreement for Wire and Cable, in accordance with all terms and conditions previously agreed to and accepted, for an amount not to exceed Eight Hundred Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and No/lOO Dollars ($809,550.00). I understand this renewal term will be for the period beginning March 8, 2013 through March 7, 2014. This is the first renewal.
/J CITY OF COLLEGE STATIONTECHLINE ,
By~kC/tJv By:______________
City Manager
Date:i~klff~Date: I ',.)4 ~'~
APPROVED:
Ci~·~
Date: 2-,-15
Executive Director Business Services
Date:
51
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2j
Release of Lien – 65 Acres Rock Prairie Road
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding release of lien for
65 acres the City owns on Rock Prairie Road.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Financially Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends release of the lien so the property may be bid
out and ultimately sold without the lien.
Summary: Staff continues to work toward the City Council’s direction to divest the City of
unused real property. In preparation for the sale of 65 acres the City owns on Rock Prairie
Road, it was discovered the lien from the 1986 sale of the property to the College Station
Economic Development Foundation was not released when the remainder of the tract was
conveyed back to the City in 1992.
The College Station Economic Development Foundation (created by the City in December
1985) signed a deed of trust securing a lien to the City in the amount of $3,000,000 when
the City deeded 749.98 acres to the Foundation. In 1988, the Foundation then conveyed
677.49 acres to W.D. Fitch in exchange for 200 acres (now the Business Park). The
Foundation conveyed the remaining 65 acres back to the City in 1992. The lien should have
been released at that time.
Budget & Financial Summary: The City will incur minor filing costs to record the release
of lien. Once the release is recorded, staff will bid out the sale of the property and the
proceeds from the sale are unencumbered and may be deposited in the General Fund.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments: Release of Lien
52
Page 1
O:12 PROJECTS/City Surplus Property/tract #4 65.00 acre tract/curative documents/release of lien.docx 02/12/2013
RELEASE OF LIEN
Date: __________________, 2013
Note:
Date of Origination: June 27, 1986
Original Amount: THREE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,000.000.00)
Maker: COLLEGE STATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
Payee: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Date of Maturity: As provided therein
Holder of Note and Lien: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Holder's Mailing Address (including county): P. O. Box 9960
Brazos County
College Station, TX 77840
Note and Lien Are Described in the Following Documents, Recorded in:
Deed of Trust dated June 27, 1986, executed by Dennis Goehring, President of
College Station Economic Development Foundation to William Kingdon Cole,
Trustee for City of College Station, Texas, recorded in Volume 894, Page 672, of
the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, and additionally secured by
Correction Deed of Trust dated February 9, 1988, executed by Dennis Goehring,
President of College Station Economic Development Foundation to William
Kingdon Cole, Trustee for City of College Station, Texas, recorded in Volume
1028, Page 642, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Deed of Trust to Secure Performance dated June 27, 1986, executed by Dennis
Goehring, President of College Station Economic Development Foundation to
William Kingdon Cole, Trustee for City of College Station, Texas, recorded in
Volume 894, Page 664, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Property Subject to Lien (including any improvements):
All that certain 749.98 acre tract or parcel of land, lying and being situated
partially in the S. W. Robertson League, Abstract No. 202, and partially in the
Nathan Clampitt League, Abstract No. 90, Brazos County, and being a portion of
53
Page 2
O:12 PROJECTS/City Surplus Property/tract #4 65.00 acre tract/curative documents/release of lien.docx 02/12/2013
a called 1265.37 acre tract conveyed by Robert F. Spearman to the City of
College Station, Texas, by deed recorded in Volume 408, Page 756, of the Deed
Records of Brazos County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes
and bounds on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof for al l intents
and purposes.
Holder of the note acknowledges the fulfillment of lien terms and conditions and hereby
releases the property from the lien.
When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
By:_______________________________________
NANCY BERRY, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
SHERRY MASHBURN, City Secretary
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ______ day of ______________, 2013, by
NANCY BERRY, as Mayor of the City of College Station, a Texas municipal corporation, on
behalf of said municipality.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: RETURN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO:
City of College Station City of College Station
Legal Department Legal Department
P.O. Box 9960 P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842-9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960
54
EXHIBIT A
55
EXHIBIT A
56
February 28, 2012
Consent Agenda Item No. 2k
2012 Annual Traffic Contact Report
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeffrey Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the annual
traffic contact report required annually by Senate Bill 1074, of the Texas 77th
legislative session.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): This item is presented according to statutory requirements.
Staff requests Council’s acceptance of this report.
Summary: Each year, in an effort to remain transparent to our community, the
Police Department employs an independent consultant to analyze traffic stop data
and develop this report. The report indicates that the department is in compliance
with state law and continues to employ best practice strategies.
Since January 1, 2002, the College Station Police Department, in accordance with the
Texas Racial Profiling Law (SB No. 1074), has been required to implement and
maintain policy and procedures to satisfy the requirements of the law. The attached
report indicates that we are in compliance with the law.
Budget & Financial Summary: n/a
Attachments:
• Cover letter to City Council- Dr. Alex del Carmen
• Summary of Analysis– Dr. Alex del Carmen
• A full copy of 2012 Annual Traffic Contact Report can be viewed in the City
Secretary’s Office.
57
February 1, 2013
College Station City Council
College Station, Texas 77842
Dear Distinguished Members of the City Council,
In 2001, the Texas Legislature, with the intent of addressing the issue of racial
profiling in policing, enacted the Texas Racial Profiling Law. Since 2001, the
College Station Police Department, in accordance with the law, has collected and
reported traffic and motor vehicle-related contact data for the purpose of identifying and
addressing (if necessary) areas of concern regarding racial profiling practices. In the
2009 legislative session, the Racial Profiling Law was modified and newer requirements
are now in place. These most recent requirements have been incorporated by the College
Station Police Department and are being addressed in this report.
In this particular report, you will find three sections that contain information on
traffic and motor vehicle- related contact data. In addition, when appropriate,
documentation is also a component of this report, aiming at demonstrating the manner in
which the College Station Police Department has complied with the Texas Racial
Profiling Law. In section 1, you will find the table of contents in addition to the Texas
Senate Bill (SB1074); which later became the Texas Racial Profiling Law. In addition,
you will find the Texas HB 3389, which, in 2009, introduced new requirements relevant
to racial profiling. Also, in this section, a list of requirements relevant to the Racial
Profiling Law as established by TCLEOSE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education) is included. In addition, you will find, in sections 2 and
3 documentation, which demonstrates compliance by the College Station Police
Department relevant to the requirements as established in the Texas Racial Profiling Law.
That is, you will find documents relevant to the implementation of an institutional policy
banning racial profiling, the incorporation of a racial profiling complaint process and the
training administered to all law enforcement personnel.
The last section of this report provides statistical data relevant to contacts, made
during the course of motor vehicle stops, between 1/1/12 and 12/31/12. In addition, this
section contains the TCLEOSE Tier 1 form, which is required to be submitted to this
particular organization by March 1st of each year. The data in this report has been
analyzed and compared to data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Fair Roads
Standard. The final analysis and recommendations are also included in this report.
The findings in this report serve as evidence of the College Station Police Department’s
commitment to comply with the Texas Racial Profiling Law.
Sincerely,
Alex del Carmen, Ph.D.
Del Carmen Consulting, LLC
58
Analysis and Interpretation of Data
59
Analysis
In 2001, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 1074 which became the Texas
Racial Profiling Law. That is, the law came into effect on January 1, 2002 and required
that all police departments in Texas collect traffic-related data and report this information
to their local governing authority by March 1st of each year. In 2009, the racial profiling
law was modified to include the collection and reporting of all motor vehicle related
contacts where a citation was issued or arrest made. In addition, since 2009, the law
requires that all police officers indicate whether or not they knew the race or ethnicity of
the individual before detaining them. Further, it is required that agencies report motor
vehicle related data to their local governing authority and to the Texas Commission on
Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE) by March 1st of each
year. The purpose in collecting and presenting this information is to determine if police
officers in a particular municipality are engaging in the practice of racially profiling
minority motorists.
The Texas Racial Profiling Law requires police departments to interpret motor
vehicle-related data. Even though most researchers would probably agree with the fact
that it is within the confines of good practice for police departments to be accountable to
the citizenry while carrying a transparent image before the community, it is very difficult
to determine if police officers are engaging in racial profiling, from a review or analysis
of aggregate data. In other words, it is challenging for a reputable researcher to identify
specific “individual” racist behavior from aggregate-level “institutional” data on traffic or
motor vehicle-related contacts.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3389, which modified the
existing Racial Profiling Law by adding new requirements; this took effect on January
1st, 2010. These most recent changes include, but are not exclusive of, the re-definition
of a contact to include motor vehicles where a citation was issued or an arrest made. In
addition, it requires police officers to indicate if they knew the race or ethnicity of the
individual before detaining them. Also, the new law requires adding "middle eastern" to
the racial and ethnic category and submitting the annual traffic data report to TCLEOSE
before March 1st of each year, starting this year. I am pleased to inform you that these
new requirements have been addressed by the College Station Police Department as it is
demonstrated throughout this report.
In an effort to comply with The Texas Racial Profiling Law, the College Station
Police Department commissioned the analysis of its 2012 motor vehicle contact data.
Thus, three different types of data analyses were performed. The first of these involved a
careful evaluation of the 2012 motor vehicle-related data. This particular analysis
measured, as required by the law, the number and percentage of Caucasians, African
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Middle Easterners and individuals
belonging to the “other” category, that came in contact with the police in the course of a
motor vehicle related stop, and were either issued a citation or arrested. Further, the
analysis included information relevant to the number and percentage of searches (table 1)
while indicating the type of search performed (i.e., consensual or probable cause). Also,
60
the data analysis included the number and percentage of individuals who, after they came
in contact with the police for a traffic-related reason, were arrested.
The additional data analysis performed was based on a comparison of the 2012
motor vehicle contact data with a specific baseline. When reviewing this particular
analysis, it should be noted that there is disagreement, in the literature, regarding the
appropriate baseline to be used when analyzing motor vehicle-related contact
information. Of the baseline measures available, the College Station Police Department
opted to adopt, as a baseline measure, the Fair Roads Standard. This particular baseline
is based on data obtained through the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) relevant to the number
of households that have access to vehicles while controlling for the race and ethnicity of
the heads of households.
It is clear that census data presents challenges to any effort made at establishing a
fair and accurate racial profiling analysis. That is, census data contains information on all
residents of a particular community, regardless of the fact they may or may not be among
the driving population. Further, census data, when used as a baseline of comparison,
presents the challenge that it captures information related to city residents only. Thus,
excluding individuals who may have come in contact with the College Station Police
Department in 2012 but live outside city limits. In some cases, the percentage of the
population that comes in contact with the police but lives outside city limits represents a
substantial volume of all motor vehicle-related contacts made in a given year.
Since 2002, several civil rights groups in Texas expressed their desire and made
recommendations to the effect that all police departments should rely, in their data
analysis, on the Fair Roads Standard. This source contains census data specific to the
number of “households” that have access to vehicles. Thus, proposing to compare
“households” (which may have multiple residents and only a few vehicles) with
“contacts” (an individual-based count). This, in essence, constitutes a comparison that
may result in ecological fallacy. Despite this, the College Station Police Department
made a decision that it would use this form of comparison (i.e., census data relevant to
households with vehicles) in an attempt to demonstrate its “good will” and
“transparency” before the community. Thus, the Fair Roads Standard data obtained and
used in this study is specifically relevant to College Station.
The final analysis was conducted while using the 2002--2009 traffic data and the
2010—2012 motor-vehicle related data. Specifically, all traffic-related contacts made in
2009 were compared to similar figures reported in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
and 2008. Similarly, motor vehicle contact data was compared while using data from
2010, 2011 and 2012. Although some researchers may not support the notion that in
eleven years, a “significant” and “permanent” trend can take effect, when considering this
analysis, it was determined that comparing eleven years of traffic/motor vehicle contact
data may highlight possible areas of consistency with regards to traffic and motor
vehicle-related contacts. That is, the eleven-year comparison has the potential of
revealing indicators that a possible trend of traffic and motor vehicle-based contacts with
regards to members of a specific minority group, may in fact, develop.
61
Tier 1 (2012) Motor Vehicle-Related Contact Analysis
When analyzing the Tier 1 data collected in 2012, it was evident that most motor
vehicle-related contacts were made with Caucasian drivers. This was followed by
Hispanic and African American drivers. With respect to searches, most of them were
performed on Caucasian drivers. This was followed by African Americans and Hispanics.
It is important to note that the arrest data revealed that Caucasian drivers were arrested
the most in motor vehicle-related contacts; this was followed by African Americans and
Hispanics.
Fair Roads Standard Analysis
The data analysis of motor vehicle contacts to the census data relevant to the
number of “households” in College Station who indicated, in the 2010 census, that they
had access to vehicles, produced interesting findings. Specifically, the percentage of
individuals of African American and Hispanic descent that came in contact with the
police was higher than the percentage of African American and Hispanic households in
College Station that claimed, in the 2010 census, to have access to vehicles. With respect
to Caucasians and Asians, a lower percentage of contacts were detected. That is, the
percentage of Caucasian and Asian drivers that came in contact with the police in 2012
was lower than the percentage of Caucasian and Asian households in College Station
with access to vehicles.
Eleven-Year Comparison
The eleven-year comparison (02-12) of traffic and motor vehicle related-contact
data showed some similarities. As illustrated in table 3, the percentage of drivers (from
different racial/ethnic groups) that came in contact with the College Station Police in
2012 was similar to the percentage of drivers, from the same racial/ethnic groups that
came in contact with the College Station Police Department from 2002 to 2011.
However, a few differences were noted. When comparing 2012 to the previous years,
there was an increase in percentage of contacts among Native American drivers. A
decrease in percentage was detected among Caucasians.
It is clear that commonalities in the data existed, when analyzing the search-
related contacts for all eleven years. An increase in percentage was detected among
Caucasians and African Americans while percentage decreases were noted among
Hispanics. When considering the arrests made, the data revealed that the percentage of
arrests increased among Caucasians, African Americans and Asians while a decrease in
percentage was evident among Hispanics. It should be noted that the 2010, 2011 and
2012 data should be analyzed while considering that since January 1st of 2010, a contact
was re-defined by the law; thus, making it statistically challenging to compare traffic
contacts (collected and reported from 2002-2009) with motor vehicle contacts (collected
and reported since 2010).
62
Summary of Findings
The comparison of motor vehicle contacts showed that the College Station Police
Department came in contact (in motor vehicle-related incidents) with a smaller
percentage of Caucasian and Asian drivers than the percentage that resided in College
Station and had access to vehicles. Further, the data suggested that the percentage of
African American and Hispanic drivers that came in contact with the police in 2012 was
higher than the percentage of African American and Hispanic households in College
Station with access to vehicles. In addition, the data showed that in a large number of
instances, officers did not know the race or ethnicity of individuals before detaining
them, when compared to instances where officers knew the race/ethnicity of individuals
before they were detained.
An examination of the eleven-year traffic and motor vehicle-related contact data
suggested that the College Station Police Department has been, for the most part,
consistent in the racial/ethnic composition of motorists it comes in contact with during a
given year. The consistency of contacts for the past eleven years is in place despite the
fact the city demographics may have changed, thus, increasing the number of subjects
likely to come in contact with the police.
While considering the findings made in this analysis, it is recommended that the
College Station Police Department should continue to collect and evaluate additional
information on motor vehicle contact data (i.e., reason for probable cause searches,
contraband detected) which may prove to be useful when determining the nature of the
contacts police officers are making with all individuals; particularly with African
Americans and Hispanics. Although this additional data may not be required by state
law, it is likely to provide insights regarding the nature and outcome of all motor vehicle
contacts made with the public.
As part of this effort, the College Station Police Department is also encouraged to:
1) Perform an independent search analysis on the search data collected in the
first quarter of 2013.
2) Commission data audits in 2013 in order to assess data integrity; that is, to
ensure that the data collected is consistent with the data being reported.
It should be noted that the information and analysis provided in this report serves
as evidence that the College Station Police Department has, once again, complied with
the Texas Racial Profiling Law.
63
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2L
Construction Contract #13-011
Wolf Pen Creek Water Line and Water Fountains Rehabilitation Project
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Amy Atkins, Assistant Director, Operations, Parks and Recreation Department
Relationship to Strategic Goal: Neighborhood Integrity; Diverse Growing Economy
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a construction contract
with Dudley Construction, LTD., in the amount of $54,905.00, for rehabilitation, additions,
and upgrades to water lines and existing water fountains at various locations throughout
Wolf Pen Creek Park, Project Number PK13-07.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval and award of the construction contract
with Dudley Construction, LTD., for water line and water fountain rehabilitation in the
amount of $54,905.00, and sixty (60) construction days.
Summary: The proposed rehabilitation project includes the removal, replacement and/or
addition of water lines, pipes, hose bibs, valve boxes, water fountains and other equipment
to complete the project.
Budget & Financial Summary: Two (2) sealed, competitive bids were received and
opened on February 5, 2013. The bid summary is attached. Funds are available from
Community Park Zone C Parkland Dedication Funds.
Attachments:
1. Bid Tab Number #13-011
2. Wolf Pen Creek Upper Trail Water Line Site Map
3. Construction Contract with Dudley Construction, LTD., (on file in the City Secretary’s
Office)
64
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
WOLF PEN CREEK WATER LINE AND WATER FOUNTAINS REHABILITATION PROJECT
BID TABULATION FOR #13-011
OPEN DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @ 2:00 P.M.
Item Qty Unit Description Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total
1 1 LS Mobilization and project overhead (not to exceed 5% of
work items)$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00
2 2 EA Re-sod disturbed water fountain pad replacement areas
as per the plans and specifications, complete and in place $175.00 $350.00 $315.00 $630.00
3 1 LS Re-seed disturbed water line trench areas as per the
plans and specifications, complete and in place $630.00 $630.00 $787.50 $787.50
4 2611 LF Furnish and install 1.5" SCH 40 PVC water pipe as shown
in the drawings, complete and in place $5.00 $13,055.00 $7.04 $18,381.44
5 98 LF
Furnish and install 3" PVC casing pipe by bore as shown
on the plans and specified by the Engineer, complete and
in place
$34.00 $3,332.00 $28.35 $2,778.30
6 3 EA Tie into existing fountain at meter box with 3/4" SCH 40
PVC and install 3/4" ball valve, complete and in place $303.00 $909.00 $212.10 $636.30
7 1 EA Tie into existing fountain with 3/4" SCH 40 PVC and install
3/4" ball valve and 10" meter box, complete and in place $450.00 $450.00 $213.15 $213.15
8 1 EA Tie into existing 2.5" PVC water line including all fittings
and piping as required, complete and in place $400.00 $400.00 $313.95 $313.95
9 1 LS
Tie into water meter at Dartmouth, install tee with two
ball valves to existing and proposed water lines as shown
on the plans and specified by the Engineer, complete and
in place
$450.00 $450.00 $303.45 $303.45
10 3 EA Furnish and install 3/4" hose bib and 10" valve box and
connect to proposed line, complete and in place $155.00 $465.00 $99.75 $299.25
11 4 EA
Remove existing valve box and hose bib, abandon existing
line, install 3/4" hose bib and 10" valve box and connect
to proposed water line as shown on the drawings and
specified by the Engineer, complete and in place
$260.00 $1,040.00 $225.75 $903.00
12 1 EA
Remove existing hose bib and valve box and abandon
existing line as shown on the drawings and specified by
the Engineer, complete and in place
$200.00 $200.00 $84.00 $84.00
13 64 LF
Furnish 3" galvanized casing pipe and straps as shown on
the plans and specified by the Engineer, complete and in
place
$36.00 $2,304.00 $40.95 $2,620.80
14 64 LF
Furnish and install 1.5" SCH 40 PVC insulated water line
inside of galvanized casing pipe as shown on the plans
and directed by the Engineer, complete and in place
$5.00 $320.00 $3.94 $252.16
15 1 LS
Remove large stone, install 3" galvanized casing pipe, and
replace stone as shown on the plans and specified by the
Engineer, complete and in place
$900.00 $900.00 $924.00 $924.00
16 2 EA
Remove existing fountain and install Haws Model #3150
Water Fountain (or approved equal) without disturbing
existing pavers and curb, and tie into new 3/4" ball valve
outside of paver base as shown on the plans , complete
and in place
$6,200.00 $12,400.00 $5,651.00 $11,302.00
17 2 EA
Remove existing fountain, remove and stockpile existing
pavers, demolish existing curbs, re-grade fountain paver
base, pour new curb, reset existing pavers and concrete
base and install Haws Model #3150 Water Fountain (or
approved equal), and tie into new 3/4" ball valve outside
of paver base as shown on the plans, complete and in
place
$7,600.00 $15,200.00 $7,147.35 $14,294.70
Bid Certification
Bid Bond
Indicates a correction to the submitted bid, based on the unit cost.
Dudley Construction, LTD.VOX Construction, LLC.
$57,424.00
Y
Y
Y
Y
$54,905.00Total Base Bid
65
66
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2m
Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the application and
acceptance of an Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division (CJD) Grant.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council approval
Summary: The CJD’s mission is to create and support programs that protect people
from crime, reduce the number of crimes committed, and to promote accountability,
efficiency, and effectiveness within the criminal justice system. CJD focuses on the
enhancement of Texas' capacity to prevent crime, provide service and treatment options,
enforce laws, train staff and volunteers, and the restoration of crime victims to full physical,
emotional and mental health.
This CJD grant will provide 100% funding for the purchase of varying equipment to be
utilized by the Police Department including pistol simmunitions and ammunition, storage
space for the drug vault in evidence, and lightweight, carbon fiber ladders for use by the
SWAT team. The pistol simmunitions and ammunition will provide the opportunity for
reality based firearm training. The drug vault is currently at maximum capacity with 5,581
pieces of evidence. The additional storage would maximize the current space and would
provide an area for any future evidentiary needs. The lightweight carbon fiber ladders
offers the SWAT team a stable, easily transported means of accessing high areas that they
currently do not have access to without the assistance of the Fire Department or by using
cumbersome equipment.
There is no local match requirement for CJD, but grant funding will only be provided for the
initial equipment purchase. Due to this, any other associated costs such as maintenance,
repair, or replacement will be the responsibility of the grantee agency.
Budget & Financial Summary: The purchase of the pistol simmunitions and ammunition
will cost approximately $11,645. Annual maintenance, repair, or replacement is estimated
to not exceed $1000. The purchase of the evidence storage space will cost approximately
$5,565 with no anticipated maintenance. The purchase of the ladders will cost
approximately $3,990 with no anticipated maintenance costs. A budget amendment will be
brought forward to appropriate these grant funds into the police department budget.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
67
68
69
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2n
Contract Administration Audit Report
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Ty Elliott, City Internal Auditor
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City
Internal Auditor’s Contract Administration audit report.
Recommendation(s): Accept the audit report for public record and give direction
to management to implement the recommendations contained in the audit report.
Summary: The fiscal year 2012 audit plan included an audit of the City’s contract
administration policies and procedures. The audit was selected based on direction
from the Audit Committee and an analysis of city-wide risk.
In selecting the contracts that would receive a detailed investigation, we selected
contracts which carry the greatest amount of risk for the city; but also represented
a variety of contract types and a variety of city departments. The three contracts
ultimately selected were: (1) a sewer pipe construction contract managed by Public
Works, (2) a tree trimming service contract managed by College Station Utilities,
and (3) a little league facility user agreement managed by Parks and Recreation.
Results from the audit
: At a minimum, an organization’s policies and procedures
regarding contract administration should state that (1) responsibility and authority
should be clearly assigned and well defined, (2) monitoring functions should focus
on the outcomes of services provided, (3) contract administrators should create and
keep documentation on the contractor’s performance, (4) contract documentation
should be well organized, (5) contractor performance reviews should be followed-up
on, (6) contingency for contractor’s failure should be addressed, and (7) payments
should be linked to satisfactory performance. The table below summarizes how the
three contracts under review aligned with best practices.
7 Best Practices for Contract Administration South
Knoll
Rios
Trees CSLL
1. Assigned & Defined Responsibility & Authority: Yes Yes Mostly
2. Focused Monitoring Functions on Outcomes: Yes Yes No
3. Kept Contractor Performance Documentation: Mostly Mostly No
4. Organized Files and Documentation: Yes No No
5. Followed-up on Contractor Performance: Yes Mostly No
6. Developed Contingencies for Contract Failure: Yes Yes No
7. Linked Payments to Satisfactory Performance: Yes Yes N/A
Attachments: The Contract Administration audit report is on file and available for
review in the City Secretary’s Office.
70
February 28, 2013
Consent Agenda Item No. 2o
BVWACS Capital Improvement Project
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Ben Roper, IT Director
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of the
Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications System (BVWACS) Capital Improvement Project,
and authorizing the City’s cost share of $72,428.93 to be paid to the BVWACS Managing
Entity (BVCOG).
Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply)
1. Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval.
Summary: : On June 26, 2008, Council approved the ILA establishing the BVWACS and
the ILA appointing the Brazos Valley Council of Governments (BVCOG) to act as the
Managing Entity for the BVWACS. On October 17, 2012, the BVWACS Governing Board
approved entering into a contract with Motorola for $458,553 to upgrade seven Dispatch
consoles at Brazos 911. This project cost was offset by $35,000 Motorola equipment trade-
in allowance, $61,523.71 Homeland Security Grant Funds and approximately $130,000 in
existing BVWACS Capital funds. Based on current BVWACS contribution amounts, College
Station’s Capital assessment from the BVCOG for this project is $72,428.93
Budget & Financial Summary: Funding for this project is included in the approve FY
2013 Budget in the Equipment Replacement Fund.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A
Attachments: None
71
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking Recommendations
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development
Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
approval of recommendations made by the Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure and Neighborhood
Integrity
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their
February 21, 2013 meeting and recommended approval of the recommendations 6-0. Staff
recommended approval of the recommendations.
Summary: The Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force of the College Station City Council
and Planning and Zoning Commission was created through City Council Resolution on
February 9, 2012. The Task Force was created to address community concerns of
neighborhood parking issues and emergency access. The scope of the Task Force was to
gather and evaluate data related to neighborhood parking issues, solicit input from
stakeholders, formulate recommendations, and forward final recommendations to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for final action.
The City Council’s Strategic Plan, updated in 2012, identified neighborhood parking issues
as a problem affecting the City’s Neighborhood Integrity. College Station’s older
neighborhoods were developed when automobiles were less prevalent. Many of these
established residential neighborhoods include streets designed as “yield streets”, consisting
of narrow pavement, at times with no curb and gutter. Yield streets contribute greatly to
neighborhood character when working as intended. However, many of these streets are in
neighborhoods that have converted to high percentages of renter-occupancy. An increase
in the number of people per residence has resulted in a higher density of on-street parking.
These conditions have caused the yield street design to fail in many instances. A number of
neighborhoods are experiencing overcrowding and emergency access concerns due to an
increase in on-street parking.
Approach:
• land use planning,
The City currently uses a limited number of options to alleviate on-street parking
problems, which the Task Force recommends continuing. These options include:
• development regulations,
• neighborhood plans,
• enforcement, and
• parking removal.
Additionally, the Task Force recommends the following existing standards/processes be
expanded:
• Increase the current minimum requirements for off-street parking, increasing the
standard to one parking space required for each bedroom in a single-family dwelling.
• Only consider removing parking on one or both sides of a street per a
recommendation from the City’s Traffic Management Team when there is a safety
concern verified by the City.
72
• Neighborhood initiated parking removal not related to public safety will be addressed
through a private process, such as deed restrictions and covenants.
The Task Force held multiple meetings to discuss and develop a new set of solutions to
address parking problems. In addition, stakeholder meetings were held on September 26,
2012 and November 14, 2012 to present new parking solutions to community members and
gain feedback on the proposals.
After discussion, Task Force members chose to limit the focus of their efforts to community
concerns of neighborhood parking issues related to emergency access. They developed
their recommendations based on how solutions would be applied, either at a city-wide level
or in new neighborhoods.
The Task Force recommends three solutions to aid in the reduction of neighborhood parking
problems and emergency access city-wide. These recommendations include:
• refine the current parking removal process to allow parking removal on one or both
sides of a street per a recommendation from the City’s Traffic Management Team
(only if there is a verified safety concern),
• increase the off-street parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms
provided, and
• require no more than 50% of the front portion of the property be used for parking or
be impervious.
The Task Force recommends for new developments:
• minimum garage/required parking setbacks.
In addition, new development would also be required to provide an additional solution,
selected from the following six recommended options:
• wide streets,
• narrow streets,
• parking removal with platting,
• alley-fed off-street parking,
• wide lot frontages, or
• overflow parking areas.
Some solutions, such as narrow streets and parking removal with platting, would require the
provision of additional off-street parking measures to ensure adequate parking is available.
If the City Council approves the recommendations given by the Task Force, City Staff would
begin to create ordinances to address the concerns outlined above. Public hearings would
be held beginning in the spring, to gather input from the community regarding the
ordinance language. It is anticipated that ordinance amendments may be presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation and then to City Council for final
action in the summer
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: N/A
Attachments:
1. Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force Resolution
2. Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force Recommendations Report
3. Stakeholder Meeting Sign-In Sheet, September 26, 2012
4. Stakeholder Meeting Sign-In Sheet, November 14, 2012
73
RESOLUTION NO 2Oq1207
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
TEXAS APPROVING THE FORMATION OF A JOINT NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING
TASK FORCE
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of College Station Texas recognizes there exists an
issue with adequate onstreetparking on certain streets in certain neighborhoods and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of College Station Texas recognizes that issues with
adequate onstreet parking can impede traffic flow and hamper emergency response now
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
TEXAS
PART 1 That the City Council hereby approves the formation of a joint task force
consisting of three Council members and three Planning ZoningCommissionerswiththethreeCouncilmemberstobeappointedbytheCouncil
and the three Commissioners to be appointed by the Planning ZoningCommission
PART 2 That the City Council hereby approves that said task force shall select among
itself a Chair from among the appointed Council members
PART 3 That the City Council hereby approves that said task force shall convene meetings
as deemed necessary shall gather and evaluate data related to neighborhood
parking issues shall solicit input from stakeholders shall formulate
recommendations and subject said recommendations to public hearing and shall
forward final recommendations to the Planning Zoning Commission and the
City Council for final action
PART 4 That the City Council hereby approves that said task force shall complete its work
on or before February 1 2013 upon which time said task force shall be deemed
disbanded without further action necessary from the Council
PART 5 That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage
ADOPTED this Q day of AD 2012
ATTEST APPROVED
City Secretary MAYOR
74
APPROVED
tlA
City Attorney
75
1 | P a g e
Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force
Recommendations Report
A Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force of the College Station City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission was created through City Council Resolution on February 9, 2012. The scope of the Task
Force was to gather and evaluate data related to neighborhood parking issues, solicit input from
stakeholders, formulate recommendations, and forward final recommendations to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council for final action. The Task Force consisted of the following
appointed Council Members and Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Council Member Blanche Brick (Chair) Commissioner Jerome Rektorik
Council Member Julie Schultz Commissioner Jim Ross
Council Member David Ruesink Commissioner Jodi Warner
The Issue
The City Council’s Strategic Plan, updated in 2012, identified neighborhood parking issues as a problem
affecting the City’s Neighborhood Integrity. It is important to protect the unique character of
neighborhoods because they contribute greatly to a unique sense of place and community identity.
Neighborhood parking has an impact on the
quality and stability of neighborhoods. One
way to maintain neighborhood integrity is
through solutions aimed at decreasing on-
street parking problems. In order to identify
effective solutions, it is important to first
understand what factors and situations cause
failing on-street parking conditions.
College Station’s older neighborhoods –
neighborhoods located primarily within
Eastgate, Southside, and South Knoll areas –
were developed as early as the 1930’s when
automobiles were less prevalent.
Many of these established residential
neighborhoods in the City include streets designed as “yield streets”, consisting of narrow pavement, at
times with no curb and gutter. These streets allow for two-way traffic and limited on-street parking.
These neighborhoods were created at a time when vehicles were not as abundant; with narrow streets,
small lots, and limited off-street parking. Yield streets contribute greatly to neighborhood character
when working as intended. However, many of these streets are in neighborhoods that have converted
to high percentages of renter-occupancy. Houses originally intended for single-family occupancy are
being utilized as investment property or being demolished and replaced by larger houses with more
bedrooms, which are rented. An increase in the number of people per residence has resulted in a higher
density of on-street parking. These conditions have caused the yield street design to fail in many
instances. Parking problems on these streets are increasing with the rapidly increasing population. The
Task Force has restrained itself to the development of a set of tools to address emergency access issues.
76
2 | P a g e
As on-street parking increases on yield streets it also causes associated impacts on emergency service
delivery. When vehicles fill both sides of streets built to yield design standards, fire trucks cannot pass
through the street to reach citizens in need of assistance. A number of neighborhoods have
experienced overcrowding and emergency access concerns due to an increase in on-street parking.
Current Approach
The City currently uses a limited number
of options to alleviate on-street parking
problems. These options include land
use planning, development regulations,
neighborhood plans, code enforcement,
and parking removal. Additional
solutions are necessary to prevent
further emergency access concerns. The
first recommendation of the Task Force
is to continue current practices.
Additionally, the Task Force
recommends existing options be
expanded.
Land Use Planning
When different land uses are separated far from one another they require greater distances of travel.
This creates an environment where homes, jobs, and shopping are segregated and often require
vehicles to travel from one use to the next. College Station is dominated by suburban style land uses
that encourage the use of vehicles and require intensive amounts of parking. Land Use Planning allows
the City to prepare for a compatible mix of uses, within one development or as separate developments,
where shared parking and other forms of transportation may be incorporated.
Later, at the site planning stage, larger scale single-use developments can be designed to encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use to minimize the amount of parking that may be required within the
site.
Development Regulations
Development regulations are city ordinances created to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens. More specifically, development regulations are the mechanism for implementing
the goals of the City’s comprehensive plan. Currently, College Station limits single-family residences to
four unrelated people and requires a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for each single-family
dwelling unit. This guarantees that each single-family residence will have available parking and may
reduce congestion of on-street parking. The Task Force recommends an increase of the current
minimum requirements for off-street parking, increasing the standard to one parking space required
for each bedroom in a single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood planning and special studies
The City’s current Neighborhood Planning Process includes a multi-step process. Through the
Neighborhood Plan community members identify issues that should be addressed. Next, City staff
compiles data and works with neighborhood members to analyze key issues and develop each plan.
Once a plan is completed public notifications are sent out for a public hearing and Council action.
77
3 | P a g e
Neighborhood plans assist neighborhoods in developing area-specific approaches to implementing
parking goals. At this level, plans can focus on identifying parking issues specific to small defined areas.
These plans are a helpful tool in identifying known parking and emergency access problems. Staff and
citizens propose solutions for these problems to be implemented in neighborhood plans.
Enforcement
Parking enforcement is a reactive tool used by the city to prevent vehicles from parking illegally. Both
the Planning and Development Services Department and the Police Department are responsible for
ensuring compliance with City codes and ordinances. Citations may be issued by both departments
when a parking violation occurs.
Planning and Development Services has four full-time employees and eight part-time employees who
work in the Northgate District that, in addition to other duties, are responsible for providing parking
enforcement with the Northgate area. The Northgate District employees monitor 103 on-street parking
meters, a 117-space surface parking lot, and look for violations such as parking in a fire lane, parking in a
bike lane, and parking too close to a fire hydrant. In 2012, the City issued 6,425 parking citations in the
Northgate area.
Parking Removal Program
Currently, parking is permitted on all city streets unless prohibited by ordinance and where prohibited
by state law. The Task Force recommends the City consider removing parking on one or both sides of
a street per a recommendation from the City’s Traffic Management Team only if there is a safety
concern verified by the City. The City would continue to receive parking removal requests from
neighborhoods or citizens and evaluate the impact on-street parking has on public safety in the
area. The following is the City’s process that must be followed in order to remove parking from public
streets:
1. Concern Initiation –A citizen informs the City of a potential problem resulting from on-
street parking (Citizen Initiated) or the City observes the need to remove on-street
parking from a street(s) (City Initiated).
2. Concern Evaluation – The City’s Traffic Management Team (TMT) will evaluate the
citizen initiated request or city initiated concern and analyze the impact existing on-
street parking has on public safety. If the existing on-street parking is determined to
impact public safety, the TMT will approve a recommendation which will be included on
a future City Council Agenda as a public hearing.
3. Public Notice – Per the recommendation from the TMT to remove on-street parking on
a specific street(s), notices will be mailed to property owners and residents on both
sides of the street(s) where parking is proposed to be removed. These notices will
provide the date of the City Council meeting when the public hearing for the proposed
ordinance will occur.
4. Public Hearing – The proposal to remove on-street parking from a specified street(s) will
be presented to council, followed by a public hearing where citizens can voice their
opinions. Then the City Council can discuss and vote on the proposed parking removal
ordinance.
78
4 | P a g e
The Task Force recommends the City only pursue neighborhood initiated parking removal when it is
related to public safety. In all other cases, the individual neighborhood would need to address
parking issues through a private process, such as deed restrictions and covenants. The Task Force
reviewed the current Parking Removal Program during its meetings and recommends the process be
continued and enforced with the noted refinements.
Recommended Solutions
The Task Force held six meetings to discuss and develop a set of solutions to address parking problems.
In addition, stakeholder meetings were held on September 26, 2012 and November 14, 2012 to present
new parking solutions to community members and gain feedback on the proposals.
The Task Force identified neighborhood parking issues within three neighborhood contexts:
established neighborhoods with existing problems,
established neighborhoods with emerging problems, and
future neighborhoods with potential problems.
After discussion, Task Force members chose to limit the focus of their efforts to community concerns of
neighborhood parking issues related to emergency access. They developed their recommendations
based on how solutions would be applied, either at a city-wide level or in new neighborhoods. The Task
Force further defined existing city practices that warrant expansion or adjustment. Based on meeting
discussions and stakeholder feedback, the Task Force recommends the following to Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council:
City-wide Recommendations
The Task Force recommends a set of solutions to aid in the reduction of neighborhood parking problems
city-wide. These recommendations should be required for redevelopment and new development.
Increased Off-Street Parking Requirements
Currently, College Station requires a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for each single-family
dwelling unit. The Task Force recommends an increase of the current minimum requirements for
off-street parking, increasing the standard to one parking space required for each bedroom in a
single-family dwelling, up to four required parking spaces.
Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces for every single-family residential use
would increase the availability of off-street parking for residences. If utilized, this would alleviate
congestion caused by on-street parking and would ensure off-street parking is available if action to
remove on-street parking was required.
Maximum Front Yard Coverage
This recommendation is that no more than 50% of the front portion of the property be used for
parking or be impervious. This recommendation is currently being implemented in “Area 5” as a
result of the Southside Area Neighborhood Plan. It requires all parking be located within the areas
described below:
1. Anywhere on the lot behind the structure with no limit on the size of the area;
2. Anywhere in the side yards of the lot with no limit on the size of the area; and,
79
5 | P a g e
3. An area located in front of the structure not to exceed a size equivalent to 50% of the front
portion of the property. The front portion of the property is the area of the lot within the side lot
lines, the front setback, and the public right-of-way line (see graphic). The square footage of parking
allowed by this calculation may be located within or outside the boundary of the area used for
calculations (see graphic). The portion of the driveway located between the front property line and
structure shall be included in the maximum parking area square footage.
Context Specific Recommendations
The Task Force has developed a set of recommendations for use in new development and other context
specific settings to aid in reducing neighborhood parking problems. These recommendations are
proactive approaches to parking problems that may arise. These recommendations are intended to
maintain the certainty of access for emergency vehicles in neighborhoods while also providing sufficient
parking opportunities for residents and additional traffic calming measures for pedestrians. The Task
Force understands these recommendations provide benefits but may also introduce new challenges.
Some of the recommendations will increase construction costs and some may decrease development
yield of neighborhoods.
The Task Force recommends minimum garage/required parking setbacks for new development and an
additional solution, chosen from six recommended options described below. Some solutions, such as
narrow streets and parking removal with platting, require the provision of additional off-street parking
measures to ensure adequate parking is available.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Minimum Garage/Required Parking Setback (Mandatory)
This practice requires garage and off-street parking areas intended to meet parking requirements,
occur behind a specific point on the lot increasing the driveway length on each lot thereby providing
additional off-street parking and avoiding blockage of sidewalks.
80
6 | P a g e
Wide Streets (Option 1)
Current local subdivision street standards generally include slower design speeds and a 27-foot wide
pavement consisting of one 20-foot yield lane and varying 7-foot parking on both sides. Wider
streets function similar to current collector street standards, which generally include higher design
speeds and a 34-foot or wider pavement consisting of two 12-foot lanes and a 7-foot parking lane
on both sides. If the street includes bike lanes then no parking is allowed on the street.
Wide streets allow for access through a street, even when high volumes of parked vehicles are
present on both sides of the street. This also ensures that emergency access is maintained. Wide
streets often induce higher travel speeds requiring traffic calming measures to improve safety and
these roads are more costly to construct.
Narrow Streets (Option 2)
Current local subdivision street standards generally include slower design speeds and a 27-foot wide
pavement consisting of one 20-foot yield lane and varying 7-foot parking on both sides. Streets may
narrow to a 20-foot street width. In situations where a building is greater than 30-feet, a street
adjacent to the structure must be at least 26-feet in width to allow access for aerial fire apparatus.
Narrow streets increase pedestrian and vehicular safety because they encourage slower traveling
speeds. Narrow streets do not accommodate on-street parking, ensuring that emergency access is
maintained. Narrow streets must be accompanied by alley fed off-street parking and/or overflow
parking areas. Construction costs are lower for narrower streets but the savings is likely offset by
the costs associated with required construction of alleys and overflow parking.
Parking Removal with Platting (Option 3)
This recommendation consists of parking removal on one or both sides of the street at the time of
platting through Council action. Parking removal can be used in response to parking problems on
existing streets to maintain certainty of emergency access. This option must be accompanied by
other measures, such as overflow parking and minimum garage setbacks to provide adequate off-
street parking.
Alley-Fed Off-Street Parking (Option 4)
setback for
required parking
uncovered required
parking area
covered required
Parking area
81
7 | P a g e
Alleys are designed to provide access to the rear or side of a property and are generally 20-feet in
width. They also may be used for public vehicular or utility access. Residential lots served by an
alley should only have driveway access via the alley and provide ample off-street parking. Alley-fed
parking areas help ensure adequate off-street parking exists, even if parking removal must occur on
the streets in a development.
Wide Lot Frontages (Option 5)
Currently, R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning permits lots as narrow as 50-feet in width. This
recommendation would require a minimum lot frontage of 70-feet decreasing the density within
neighborhoods and increasing more on-street parking area in front of every lot. This option would
decrease development yields.
Overflow Parking Areas (Option 6)
Overflow parking consists of remote parking facilities that are privately maintained and located
outside of the right-of-way on private property, such as HOA common areas. These parking areas
are provided in addition to minimum lot-based off-street parking requirements to increase off-street
parking within a neighborhood. Overflow parking areas should be designed as part of a site’s overall
design and may have multiple uses or be part of a larger community gathering area. To minimize
the environmental impact of overflow parking, alternative paving may be used in these areas.
In summary, The Task Force recommends three solutions to aid in the reduction of neighborhood
parking problems city-wide. These recommendations include:
refine the current parking removal process to allow parking removal on one or both sides of a
street per a recommendation from the City’s Traffic Management Team only if there is a verified
safety concern,
increase the off-street parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms provided, and
require no more than 50% of the front portion of the property be used for parking or be
impervious.
The Task Force also recommends for new developments:
minimum garage/required parking setbacks.
In addition, new development would also be required to provide an additional solution, chosen from the
following six recommended options:
wide streets,
narrow streets,
parking removal with platting,
alley-fed of-street parking,
wide lot frontages, or
overflow parking areas
Some solutions, such as narrow streets and parking removal with platting, would require the provision
of additional off-street parking measures to ensure adequate parking is available.
82
8 | P a g e
Additional Issues
The Task Force scope only addresses the emergency assess portion of on-street parking concerns. The
recommendations provided by the Task Force do not solve other neighborhood problems stemming
from increased densities in single-family neighborhoods. At some point, it may be necessary to discuss
solutions aimed at decreasing the population density in these areas. This may include considering
options to reduce rental conversions through revised subdivision regulations and city ordinances
reducing the number of unrelated persons in single-family residences.
Next Steps
If the City Council approves the recommendations given by the Task Force, City Staff would begin to
create ordinances to address the concerns outlined above. Public hearings would be held beginning in
the spring, to gather additional input from the community regarding the ordinance language. It is
anticipated that ordinance amendments may be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
recommendation and then to City Council for final action in the summer.
83
84
85
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Public Utility Easement Abandonments – 301 Southwest Parkway
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director – Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving
an ordinance vacating and abandoning a 0.006 acre public utility easement, a 0.006 acre
public utility easement, and a 0.072 acre public utility easement located on Lot 2R of the
William Brooke Hunter Estates Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Volume 7627,
Page 19 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Summary: This easement abandonment accommodates future development of the tract.
There are no public or private utilities in the subject portion of easement to be abandoned.
The 0.006 acre, 0.006 acre, and 0.072 acre public utility easements to be abandoned are
located on Lot 2R of the William Brooke Hunter Estates Subdivision according to the plat
recorded in Volume 7627, Page 19 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
2. Attachment 2 - Location Map
3. Attachment 3 - Ordinance
4. Attachment 4 - Ordinance Exhibit "A"
5. Attachment 5 - Application for Abandonment (On file at the City Engineer’s Office)
86
A
RIZ
O
N
A S
T NEVADA STP
H
O
E
NIX S
T
O
N
E
Y H
E
R
V
E
Y D
R
SOUTHLAND STC
A
R
O
LIN
A S
T
D
E
T
R
OIT S
TALABAMA STG
E
O
R
GIA S
T
WE
L
L
B
O
R
N
R
D SOUTHWEST PWHOLLEMAN DR±
Vicinity Map
Proposed PublicUtility EasementAbandonments
87
SOUTHLAND STSOUTHWEST PWWE
L
L
B
O
R
N
R
D
Location Map
±
Proposed 0.072 Acre PUE Abandonment
Proposed 0.006 AcrePUE Abandonment
Proposed 0.006 Acre PUE Abandonment
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 3
301 Southwest Parkway Rezoning
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning
Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning 6.326
acres located at 301 Southwest Parkway from PDD Planned Development District to PDD
Planned Development District to amend the Concept Plan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their
February 21, 2013 meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request.
Staff also recommended approval of the request.
Summary: This request is to revise the previously approved PDD Planned Development
District to amend the Concept Plan.
The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map
amendments:
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated as
Urban and Natural Areas – Reserved on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and
Character Map. The proposed rezoning to multi-family is consistent with this
designation.
2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property
and with the character of the neighborhood: The existing zoning and conforming
uses of nearby property are consistent with the proposed use. The proposed multi -
family use specified in the PDD is compatible with existing multi-family developments
that exist primarily along Southwest Parkway from Welsh Avenue to Wellborn Road. In
addition, multi-family uses can serve as a step down intensity from more intense
commercial development.
The subject property and the adjacent multi-family development to the east are bound
by 100-year floodplain and floodway. There is known flooding in the area. In order to
prevent further flooding issues, staff and the applicant have studied the impacts the
proposed floodplain revisions will have on this property and the surrounding area.
3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The
proposed PDD would permit the development of multi-family dwelling units. The
property is suitable for the development of multi-family uses. In addition, preliminary
flood data has been prepared by the applicant to confirm the location and impact of the
revised floodplain.
105
A portion of the property is proposed to remain undeveloped, to function in its natural
state, as floodplain with the exception of a proposed multi-use path as shown on the
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. The proposed Concept Plan depicts
revisions to the floodplain in order to construct a pool, office structure, parking, and
portion of one residential building in the existing 100-year floodplain. A revised
floodplain study has been submitted by the applicant, and analysis has been completed
to determine that these structures will not adversely impact the floodplain and
surrounding properties.
4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The
property is currently zoned PDD Planned Development District, which allows for the
development of multi-family uses. Any planned development on the subject property
will be required to utilize the shared driveway access off of Southwest Parkway that
currently exists.
5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
The property can currently be marketed under the existing PDD Planned Development
District zoning. However, special planning should be done with regard to the existing
floodplain located on the property.
6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There is an existing 12-
inch water main available to serve this property. Sanitary sewer service to the property
is available via an existing 10-inch main. Drainage is mainly to the east within the
drainage basin of Bee Creek Tributary B. The property is partially encumbered by 100-
year floodplain and floodway. All utilities shall be designed in accordance with BCS
Unified Design Guidelines at the time of site development. Access to the property is
available through Southwest Parkway or an existing 50-foot Access Easement with the
adjacent property to the west. Existing utilities and access are adequate for the
proposed use at this time. In addition, as a condition for approval staff is
recommending a public access easement be provided to accommodate the multi-use
path and a drainage easement be provided from the terminus of the multi-use path to
the property line.
REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN
The following land uses are proposed for the PDD: natural areas of floodplain and open
space; and multi-family residential units consisting of approximately 12 dwelling units per
acre. The stated purpose statement of the PDD is as follows:
“The purpose of the PDD is to build a multi-family development. The project
will preserve the floodplain as open space and dedicate and develop a multi-
use path as shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
The development will meet neighborhood protection standards to protect the
single-family development to the north.”
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) provides the following review criteria for PDD
Concept Plans:
The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding area; The applicant has proposed a
multi-family residential land use, which conforms to the existing character along the
segment of Southwest Parkway from Welsh Avenue to Wellborn Road. The majority of
106
property within this area is developed as some form of multi-family dwelling.
The Concept Plan calls for the preservation of the flood plain as open space, with the
exception of a multi-use path. The applicant has proposed a revised floodplain line in
order to accommodate additional structures and a multi-use path on the property. A
revised flood study has been completed, and the resulting data shows the Concept Plan
will be sustainable and in harmony with the character of the surrounding area.
1. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be
consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section: The proposed Concept Plan
is in conformity with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has
completed an additional flood study to be sensitive to the surrounding developments.
Approximately a third of the property is in the floodplain and should remain undeveloped
as open space with the exception of the proposed multi-use path. The applicant has
provided the necessary data to ensure that the floodplain will be adequately preserved
and not adversely impact surrounding properties. In addition, the Concept Plan proposes
the development and dedication of a multi-use path as shown on the City’s Bicycle,
Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan, and will be required to restore removed
vegetation with appropriate native species.
2. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and
will not adversely affect adjacent development: The proposed development will not
adversely affect the adjacent developments. Data has been provided through the revised
floodplain study which states flooding issues will be not increased with the construction of
this development.
3. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a
public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a
homeowners association: The proposed development will take access to Southwest
Parkway via a shared driveway access with the Southwest Crossing shopping center to
the west and have at least one central access point within the development to the multi-
use path.
4. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements,
including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities: The
development includes the dedication and development of a multi-use path as shown on
the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. In addition, a public access easement
will be provided to accommodate the multi-use path. At the April 13, 2010 Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the Board approved the request to allocate a portion
of Parkland Dedication funds towards the development and construction of the multi-use
path.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: The Concept
Plan proposes modifications to the existing floodplain. The applicant has provided revised
floodplain data to show this development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of
vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses
reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in
the area: The increased number of trips of 33 vehicles at the peak hour will have
minimal affect on the transportation system and No Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be
required. However, due to the location of the proposed multi-use path, mid block safety
improvements will have to be provided such as a raised median for pedestrian refuge,
signage, pavement markers and pedestrian flashers. This improvement would also help
107
with the current safety concern of students crossing at this location for the existing bus
stop. These improvements will be the responsibility of the City to provide at a future
date.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments:
1. Background Information
2. Aerial & Small Area Map (SAM)
3. Rezoning Map
4. Existing Concept Plan (adopted on 7/8/2010, ordinance no. 3256)
5. Concept Plan
6. Ordinance
108
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: February 7, 2013
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: February 28, 2013
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public
hearing:
None
Property owner notices mailed: 29
Contacts in support: None
Contacts in opposition: None
Inquiry contacts: 2
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use
North General Suburban R-1 Single-Family
Residential
single-family
residences,
Southland
Subdivision
South
(across
Southwest
Parkway)
General Commercial and
Natural Areas –
Reserved
PDD Planned
Development District
undeveloped
East Natural Areas –
Reserved, Urban
R-4 Multi-Family apartment complex
West General Commercial GC General
Commercial
shopping center
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1969
Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential upon annexation (1969),
R-1 Single-Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial (1975)
C-1 General Commercial to PDD Planned Development District (2010)
Final Plat: Subject property was final platted as part of William Brooke Hunter
Estates in 2004 and subsequently replatted in 2006.
Site development: A portion of the property has been developed as a driveway access for
the existing Southwest Crossing shopping center. In 2009, portions of
the site, including part of the Natural Areas – Reserved, were graded
and filled to accommodate commercial development.
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 4
Earl Rudder Freeway South @ University Oaks Business Park Rezoning
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an
amendment to Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning
Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning
approximately 1.27 acres from R-1 Single-Family Residential to O Office for the property
located at 1402 Earl Rudder Freeway South, generally located at the northwest corner of
Earl Rudder Freeway South frontage road and University Oaks Boulevard.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their
February 7, 2013 meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request.
Staff also recommended approval of the request.
Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for
zoning map amendments:
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated as
Suburban Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with this designation.
2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property
and with the character of the neighborhood: The proposed rezoning will allow for
the development of offices which typically generate lower traffic counts and requires
limited identification.
3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The
proposed rezoning is appropriate for this area due to its location on the frontage road of
Earl Rudder Freeway South and its proximity to single-family land uses.
4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
Currently, the subject property is zoned R-1 Single-Family which is not suitable for this
area due to it only having frontage to Earl Rudder Freeway S. As an office use, the
development will act as a buffer to the single-family development.
5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
The current zoning is not marketable to single-family development due to its proximity
to Earl Rudder Freeway South and basic site constraints.
6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing 6- and
118
12-inch water mains available to serve this property. There is adequate sanitary sewer
capacity in the downstream system to accommodate the proposed use; however sewer
mains will still need to be extended to serve the property with site development.
Drainage is mainly to the south within the Carters Creek Drainage Basin. Access to the
site will be available via the Earl Rudder Freeway South Frontage Road. Drainage and
other public infrastructure required with site development shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Existing
infrastructure, with the exception of the referenced sanitary sewer extension, appears to
be adequate for the proposed use.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: Yes
Attachments:
1. Background Information
2. Aerial & Small Area Map (SAM)
3. Draft Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes – February 7, 2013
4. Ordinance
119
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: February 7, 2013
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: February 28, 2013
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public
hearing:
N/A
Property owner notices mailed: 13
Contacts in support: N/A
Contacts in opposition: N/A
Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report.
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive
Plan
Zoning Land Use
North General Suburban R-1 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family Homes
South (across
University Oaks
Blvd)
Natural Areas –
Reserved and Urban
Redevelopment
GC General
Commercial
Vacant
East (across Earl
Rudder Freeway
South)
General Commercial GC General
Commercial
Sam’s Club, Lock &
Roll Storage
West General Suburban R-1 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family Homes
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1958
Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential
Final Plat: This property is currently unplatted.
Site development: Vacant
120
121
122
February 7, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 7, 2013, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Jodi Warner, Jim Ross, Brad Corrier,
Vergel Gay, Bo Miles, and Jerome Rektorik
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie Schultz
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell, Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Jason Schubert, Matt
Morgan Hester, Teresa Rogers, Venessa Garza, Joe Guerra, Carla Robinson, Jordan Wood,
Jennifer Pate, and Brittany Caldwell
1.
Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order
2.
3.
Pledge of Allegiance
No one spoke.
Hear Citizens
4.
All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations.
Consent Agenda
4.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes.
• January 17, 2012 ~ Workshop
• January 17, 2012 ~ Regular
Commissioner Miles motioned to approve Consent Agenda Item 4.1. Commissioner
Rektorik seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
Regular Agenda
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
123
February 7, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
6. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an amendment to
Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map” of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning approximately
1.27 acres from R-1 Single-Family Residential to O Office for the property located at
1402 Earl Rudder Freeway South, generally located at the northwest corner of the Earl
Rudder Freeway South frontage road and University Oaks Boulevard. Case #13-900002
(M. Hester) (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 28, 2013
City Council Meeting -subject to change)
Commissioner Miles recused himself because he is the owner of the property.
Staff Planner Hester presented the rezoning and recommended approval.
Glenn Jones, J4 Engineering, stated that he was available for questions.
Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
Paul Martinez, 1405 Tara Court, stated that he did not feel that Suburban Commercial
was an appropriate land use for the property.
Ms. Hester clarified that the rezoning was R-1 Single-Family Residential to O Office and
the property is designated as Suburban Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Jones stated that the plan is currently single-tenant building for a local insurance
office. He said that they intend to meet all the requirements and want to leave as much
natural landscape as possible.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the rezoning.
Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Commissioner Corrier seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
7. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an amendment to
Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance”, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map” of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by rezoning approximately
6.3 acres from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District
to amend the concept plan for the property located at 301 Southwest Parkway. Case #12-
00500247 (T. Rogers) (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February
28, 2013 City Council Meeting -subject to change)
8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on an update to the Commission regarding
the creation of new residential zoning districts in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. Case #13-00900030 (T. Rogers/J. Prochazka)
124
February 7, 2013 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning 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 was no discussion regarding future agenda items.
10. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________
Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist
Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services
125
126
127
128
129
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 5
Church Avenue - Road Realignment – City Participation Agreement
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director- Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion for a City Participation
Agreement for design and reconstruction of Church Avenue being made per City Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance, Section 8.5, Responsibility for
Payment for Installation Costs for a total requested City participation of $111,095.00 and
for an ordinance pursuant to Section 212.072(b) of the Texas Local Government Code
authorizing the City Participation Agreement.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the City Participation Agreement.
Summary: Associated with the development of Rise at Northgate development the City
required the realignment and reconstruction of Church Avenue to remove an existing
horizontal road curve to an improved intersection. All improvements will be to Northgate
standards such as 10 foot sidewalks with pavers, street trees, and benches, etc. This city
participation request is the construction cost difference associated with the additional
improvements required by the realignment.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds for this request are available from the Street OP
Fund.
Attachments: Executed Copies will be provided at Council Meeting
1. Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
2. Attachment 2 - City Participation Agreement
Exhibit A. A description of the Property
Exhibit B. A description of the Area 1 Work
Exhibit C. A description of the Area 2 Work
Exhibit D. Scope and cost estimate of the Project
Exhibit E. Affidavit of All Bills Paid form
Exhibit F. Insurance Requirements
Exhibit G. Certificates of Insurance
Exhibit H. Bond Forms
3. Attachment 3 - Ordinance
130
131
Contract No.________________
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
DRI/CA COLLEGE STATION, LLC AND LINBECK GROUP, LLC
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of College Station, a Texas home rule
municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and DRI/CA COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter “Developer”) and LINBECK GROUP,
LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, hereinafter (Developer’s Contractor).
WHEREAS, Developer is developing property within the City of College Station, more
particularly described as Lot 1, Block 1, of the 717 Subdivision in College Station, Brazos
County, Texas (hereinafter “Property”) a description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, Developer is required to construct certain public infrastructure, such as roadways,
utilities, sidewalks, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, etc. that relate to Developer’s
proposed development (the “Area 1 Work”) a description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
B; and
WHEREAS, City is required or desirous of constructing certain public infrastructure affecting
Developer’s development (the “Area 2 Work”) a description of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, because of this and in order to comply with City’s overall development scheme
both Developer and City agree that it is in the best interests of the public to jointly construct
certain the Area 1 Work and the Area 2 Work; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the data, reports and analysis, including those
provided by Developer’s engineers, and determined that such public improvement qualifies for
joint City- Developer participation; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer agree as to the nature and proportion of joint
participation as further recited herein and as may be required in accordance with Section
212.071of the Texas Local Government Code, et seq and Chapter 252 of the Texas Local
Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Developer and the Developer’s Contractor have entered into a separate
agreement of even date herewith setting forth in detail their respective rights, obligations and
liabilities to each other in connection with the Developer’s Contractor’s construction of the work
contemplated to be performed under this Participation Agreement ;and
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the recitations above and the promises and
covenants herein expressed, the parties hereby agree as follows:
132
City’s Participation Agreement with 2
DRI/CA and Linbeck
I.
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Approved Plans means the plans and specifications that meet the requirements of this
Participation Agreement, the City of College Station Codes and Ordinances and any other
applicable laws and that have been submitted to, reviewed and approved by the City of College
Station relating to the Project.
1.2 City or College Station means the City of College Station, a Texas home rule municipal
corporation located at 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840.
1.3
Developer means DRI/CA COLLEGE STATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company with its principal office located at 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4900, Chicago, IL
60601.
1.4 Developer’s Contractor means LINBECK GROUP, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Company with its principle office located at 3900 Essex, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77027.
1.4 Effective Date. The date on which this Agreement is signed by the last party whose
signing makes the Agreement fully executed.
1.5 Final Completion. The term "Final Completion" means that all the work on the Project
has been completed, a written guarantee of performance for a one year maintenance period has
been provided, all final punch list items have been inspected and satisfactorily completed, all
payments to materialmen and subcontractors have been made, all documentation, and all
closeout documents have been executed and approved by the Developer and Developer’s
Contractor as required, the Letter of Completion and other City documentation have been issued
for the Project, all reports have been submitted and reporting requirements have been met, and
Developer and Developer’s Contractor has fully performed any other requirements contained
herein.
1.6 Letter of Completion: A letter issued by the City Engineer stating that the construction
of public improvements conforms to the plans, specifications and standards contained in or
referred to in City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance.
1.7 Property means that one certain tract of land Lot 1, Block 1, of the 717 Subdivision in
College Station, Brazos County and as further described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein made a part hereof.
1.8 Project means the design and construction of the Area 1 Work and the Area 2 Work
more generally described as Church Avenue roadway improvements including sidewalks,
crosswalks, storm sewer, trees, irrigation, driveway, signage, and striping as detailed in Exhibit
B and Exhibit C.
133
City’s Participation Agreement with 3
DRI/CA and Linbeck
II.
CITY COST PARTICIATION AND LAND ACQUISITION
2.1 Project Cost and Participation. The Developer and the City have agreed to share the
estimated and actual costs of construction of the Project as provided herein. The not to exceed
price of the Project is $533,745.00 as set forth in Exhibit D, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference (the “Not To Exceed Price”). The Not To Exceed Price is
subject to adjustment as set forth in Paragraph 2.7. The Developer shall pay $422,650.00, which
amount is allocable to the Area 1 Work and subject to adjustment as set forth herein, and the City
shall pay $111,095.00 or 21% of the cost the Project (the “Participation Amount”), which
amount is allocable to the Area 2 Work and subject to adjustment as set forth herein, toward the
Not To Exceed Price of the Project. The City’s Participation Amount can only exceed
$111,095.00 or 21% of the cost the Project with subsequent City Council approval and
authorization. The City and Developer’s payment obligations with respect to increases in the Not
To Exceed Price shall be as set forth in Paragraph 2.7.
2.2 City’s Acquisition of Land for the Project. The City will obtain dedication of the land
relating to the Project for the Area 2 Work either by plat or by deed.
2.3 Automatic Termination: Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, if the City
does not obtain the land dedication for the Project within 180 days after the execution of this
Agreement, then this Agreement will automatically terminate and the City will not liable for any
costs to the Developer or Developer’s Contractor.
2.4 Public Bidding. The total estimated cost of the Project is as set forth in Exhibit D. The
City’s cost participation will not exceed 30% of the total cost of the Project. Since the City’s cost
participation is 30% or less of the total cost of the Project and is located within the boundaries of
the City, the Project need not be competitively bid.
2.5 Scope and Cost of Project. Developer’s engineer’s detailed scope and cost estimate of
the Project is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
2.6 Application for Initial and Final Payment.
(1) Initial Payment Application for Initial 50% Payment by the Developer’s Contractor
to the City for payment to the Developer’s Contractor pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement must include the following in a form acceptable to City:
(a) Final Completion of the Project in accordance with the Approved
Plans;
(b) Issuance of the Letter of Completion relating to the Project; and
(c) Certification from Developer and Developer’s Contractor stating
that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, the work is in
compliance with all applicable City Codes, Ordinances and standards
relating to the Project, the Property and its subdivision and development;
and
134
City’s Participation Agreement with 4
DRI/CA and Linbeck
(2) Final Payment Application for Final Payment by the Developer’s Contractor
to the City for payment to the Developer’s Contractor pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement must include the following in a form acceptable to City:
(a) Fully executed Affidavit of All Bills Paid, the form of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
(b) A breakdown of actual costs of the Project with supporting
documentation, including all payment receipts.
2.7 Payment.
(1) Developer’s Contractor shall submit the written applications for City to pay the
Participation Amounts within thirty (30) days after the above requirements are
met according to the Project. Applications may not be submitted prior to Final
Completion. City will pay Developer’s Contractor the Participation Amount in
one payment within thirty (30) days after receipt of a complete written application
for participation payment from Developer’s Contractor.
(2) Estimated Cost / Actual Cost. In the event of a decrease in the Not To Exceed
Price, the parties’ estimated participation costs shall be adjusted according to the
percentage of participation specified in this Paragraph 2. The actual participation
cost shall be determined based upon the actual cost of the Project. All costs in
excess of the Not To Exceed Price, as may be adjusted, shall be borne by the
Developer’s Contractor.
2.8 Reports, books and other records. Developer and Developer’s Contractor shall make
its books and other records related to the Project available for inspection by City. Developer and
Developer’s Contractor shall submit to City any and all information or reports requested to verify
the expenditures submitted for City participation eligibility including, but not limited to bid
documents, payment applications, including any supporting information, cancelled checks,
copies of construction and engineering documents, as determined by the City Engineer in his
reasonable discretion, for the verification of the cost of the Project detailed in Exhibit D of this
Agreement. The submission of these reports and information shall be the responsibility of
Developer and Developer’s Contractor and shall be certified by Developer’s or Developer
Contractor’s Licensed Professional Engineer at Developer’s expense and signed by an authorized
official of the entity.
2.9 Changes due to unforeseen conditions.
(1) If concealed or unknown physical conditions are encountered by Developer’s
Contractor in the performance of the Area 2 Work that differ materially from
those indicated in the Approved Plans, the Not To Exceed Price shall be adjusted
by the amount determined by the City and the responsibility for such cost increase
shall be borne 100% by the City. The City’s Participation Amount can only
exceed $111,095.00 or 21% of the cost the Project with subsequent City Council
135
City’s Participation Agreement with 5
DRI/CA and Linbeck
approval and authorization. The Developer and Developer’s Contractor would not
be responsible for any additional work or costs in the performance of Area 2
related to concealed or unknown physical conditions that the City does participate
in under this Agreement.
(2) If concealed or unknown physical conditions are encountered by Developer’s
Contractor in the performance of the Area 1 Work that differ materially from
those indicated in the Approved Plans, the Not To Exceed Price shall be adjusted
by the amount determined by the Developer and the responsibility for such cost
increase shall be borne 100% by the Developer.
(3) If concealed or unknown physical conditions are encountered by Developer’s
Contractor that affects the performance of both the Area 2 Work and the Area 1
Work that differ materially from those indicated in the Approved Plans, the Not
To Exceed Price shall be adjusted by the amount determined jointly by the City
and the Developer and the responsibility for such cost increase shall be borne by
the Developer and the City in accordance with Paragraph 2.7. The City’s
Participation Amount can only exceed $111,095.00 or 21% of the cost the Project
with subsequent City Council approval and authorization. The Developer and
Developer’s Contractor would not be responsible for any additional work or costs
in the performance of Area 2 related to concealed or unknown physical conditions
that the City does participate in under this Agreement.
III.
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE, AND
INSURANCE
3.1 City is a political subdivision of the state and enjoys governmental immunity. By
entering into this Agreement, City does not consent to suit, waive its governmental
immunity, or the limitations as to damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
3.2 Developer and Developer’s Contractor agree to and shall indemnify, hold harmless,
and defend City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from an d against any
and all claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits, and liability of every kind, including
all expenses of litigation, court costs, expert fees and attorney's fees, for injury to or death
of any person, or for damage to any property, or for breach of contract, arising out of or in
connection with the work done by Developer or Developer’s Contractor under this
Agreement, regardless of whether such injuries, death, damages or breach are caused in
whole or in part by the negligence of the Developer or Developer’s Contractor.
3.3 Developer and Developer’s Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from
any claims of suppliers or subcontractors of Developer or Developer’s Contractor for
improvements constructed or caused to be constructed by Developer or Developer’s
Contractor. Developer and Developer’s Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless
136
City’s Participation Agreement with 6
DRI/CA and Linbeck
from any and all injuries to or claims of adjacent property developers resulting from or
relating to their performance under this Agreement.
3.4 Developer and Developer’s Contractor assume full responsibility for the work to be
performed hereunder, and releases, relinquishes and discharges City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers, from all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and
character, including the cost of defense therefore, for any injury to or death of any persons
and any loss of or damage to any property that is caused by, alleged to be caused by,
arising out of, or in connection with, Developer 's or Developer’s Contractor’s work to be
performed hereunder. This release shall apply whether or not said claims, demands, and
causes or action are covered in whole or in part by insurance and regardless of whether or
not said claims, demands, and causes of action were caused in whole or in part by the
negligence of the Developer or Developer’s Contractor.
3.5 Insurance: The Developer and Developer’s Contractor shall procure and maintain, at their
sole cost and expense for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder by Developer and Developer’s Contractor, their agents, representatives,
volunteers, employees, or subcontractors. Said insurance shall list College Station, its officers,
agents, employees, and volunteers as Additional Insureds. See Exhibit F for required limits of
liability insurance. Certificates of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverages on the
most current form approved by the Texas Department of Insurance, shall be attached hereto as
Exhibit G.
IV.
PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Right to Inspect the Work. City may inspect the improvements for compliance with the
Approved Plans during construction. In the event that it is determined by City that any of the
work or materials furnished is not in strict accordance with the Approved Plans, City may
withhold funds until the nonconforming work conforms to the Approved Plans.
4.2 Independent Contractor. Developer’s Contractor shall be solely responsible for
selecting, supervising, and paying its subcontractors and for complying with all applicable laws,
including but not limited to all requirements concerning workers compensation and construction
retainage. The parties to this Agreement agree all employees, volunteers, personnel and materials
furnished or used by Developer in the installation of the specified improvements shall be the
responsibility of Developer or Developer’s Contractor and understands that Developer and
Developer’s Contractor shall not be deemed employees or agents of City for any purpose.
4.3 Payment for materials and labor. Provided that the City remits the Participation
Amount to Developer’s Contractor as set forth in Paragraph 2.7, Developer or Developer’s
Contractor shall be solely and exclusively responsible for compensating any of Developer
Contractor’s employees, subcontractors, materialmen or suppliers of any type or nature
whatsoever and insuring that no claims or liens of any type will be filed against any property
owned by City arising out of or incidental to the performance of any service performed pursuant
137
City’s Participation Agreement with 7
DRI/CA and Linbeck
to this Agreement. Provided that the City remits the Participation Amount, then in the event a
statutory lien notice is sent to City, Developer or Developer’s Contractor shall, where no
payment bond covers the work, upon written notice from the City, immediately obtain a bond at
its expense and hold City harmless from any losses that may result from the filing or
enforcement of any said lien notice.
4.4 Affidavit of bills paid. Prior to the issuance of the Final Payment Developer’s
Contractor shall provide City a notarized affidavit stating that all bills for labor, materials, and
incidentals incurred have been paid in full, that any claims from manufacturers, materialmen, and
subcontractors have been released, and that there are no claims pending of which Developer or
Developer’s Contractor has been notified. Such affidavit shall be in a form as substantially set
forth in Exhibit E which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
4.5 Requirements of Applicable rules remain. This Agreement does not alter, amend,
modify or replace any other requirements contained in the College Station Code of Ordinances,
Unified Development Code, or any other applicable law.
V.
GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT
5.1 Bonding Requirements. The City’s participation is 30% or less of the total value of the
Project, accordingly, Developer shall execute a performance bond to ensure construction of the
Project. Developer’s Contractor will execute a payment bond to ensure payment to
subcontractors, if any. The bonds must be executed by a corporate surety in accordance with
Chapter 2253 of the Texas Government Code. The bonds shall be in the total amount of the Not
To Exceed Price as approved by City. The Bond Forms are attached in Exhibit H.
VI.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Amendments. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective and binding unless
and until it is reduced to writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties.
6.2 Choice of law and Venue. This Agreement has been made under and shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Texas. Performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Brazos
County, Texas, United States of America.
6.3 Authority to enter into Agreement. Each party represents that it has the full power and
authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. The person executing this Agreement on
behalf of each party has been properly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement.
The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer and Developer’s Contractor
represents that he or she is authorized to sign on behalf of Developer and Developer’s Contractor
and agrees to provide proof of such authorization to the City upon request.
6.4 Agreement read. The parties acknowledge that they have read, understand and intend to
be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
138
City’s Participation Agreement with 8
DRI/CA and Linbeck
6.5 Notice. Any notice sent under this Agreement (except as otherwise expressly required)
shall be hand delivered, written and mailed, or sent by electronic or facsimile transmission
confirmed by mailing written confirmation at substantially the same time as such electronic or
facsimile transmission, or personally delivered to an officer of the receiving party at the
following addresses:
DRI/CA College Station, LLC City of College Station
Attn: Brad Moeller City Engineer
161 N. Clark, Suite 4900 P.O. Box 9960
Chicago, Illinois 60601 College Station, TX 77842
Linbeck Group, LLC With copies to:
Attn: Bryan Tufts, Project Manager City Attorney and City Manager
3900 Essex Lane, Suite1200 PO Box 9960
Houston, TX 77227-2500 College Station, TX 77842
Each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this section. Any
communication addressed and mailed in accordance with this section shall be deemed to be
given when so mailed, any notice so sent by electronic or facsimile transmission shall be deemed
to be given when receipt of such transmission is acknowledged, and any communication so
delivered in person shall be deemed to be given when receipted for by, or actually received by,
the party.
6.6 Assignment. This Agreement and the rights and obligations contained herein may not be
assigned by Developer or Developer’s Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
6.7 Default. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by Developer, City may terminate
this Agreement and exercise any and all legal remedies available to it.
List of Exhibits:
A. A description of the Property
B. A description of the Area 1 Work
C. A description of the Area 2 Work
D. Scope and cost estimate of the Project
E. Affidavit of All Bills Paid form
F. Insurance Requirements
G. Certificates of Insurance
H. Bond Forms
139
City’s Participation Agreement with 9
DRI/CA and Linbeck
DRI/CA COLLEGE STATION, LLC CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPER
BY: __________________________ BY: _________________________
Mayor
Printed Name:__________________
Title:__________________________ ATTEST:
Date:______________ _____________________________
City Secretary
Date:______________
LINBECK GROUP, LLC APPROVED:
DEVELOPER’S CONTRACTOR
BY: __________________________ _____________________________
City Manager
Printed Name:___________________ Date:______________
Title:__________________________ _____________________________
City Attorney
Date:______________ Date:______________
_____________________________
Executive Dir. Business Services
Date:______________
140
City’s Participation Agreement with 10
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit A
Description of the Property
141
City’s Participation Agreement with 11
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit B
Description of Area 1 Work
142
City’s Participation Agreement with 12
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit C
Description of Area 2 Work
143
City’s Participation Agreement with 13
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit D
Scope and Cost Estimate of the Project
144
City’s Participation Agreement with 14
DRI/CA and Linbeck
RISE - PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
2/1/2013
SCOPE and COST ESTIMATE
Work Item
Cost
Roadway
Demo existing paving
Design of Road Realignment
6" Lime Stabilize subgrade
Establish Finish Grade
7" Concrete Paving (Includes apron at Univ.)
Thermo Pavement Striping
Layout and Construction Staking
Cross Walks w/ Brick Pavers ( 4 crosswalks for total of 160 lf)
Stop Signs (3 total)
Added Drain Inlet to existing storm sewer pipe
Handicap Ramp at eastern intersection of Church & University
Demolition of existing paving / Curb & Gutter
Replace Taco Bell driveway Entrance
Additional Brick Paver Sidewalk (210 lf)
Two New Handicap Ramps
Tree Wells (1 Each)
New Trees (1 Each)
Back Fill Behind Sidewalk
Sodding
Additional Drain Inlet
Inlet Reconstruction for new storm sewer route
Remove existing storm sewer and Replace with 100 lf of 24" HDPE
existing storm for reroute of at parking
Subtotal
$301,095
Initial Storm Sewer
15" RCP installation and backfill (~15 lf)
36" RCP installation and backfill (~210 lf)
42" RCP installation and backfill (~210 lf)
Approximately 6 storm junction boxes
Subtotal
$144,150
Sanitary Sewer
25' Bore and Jack (with Steel Casing)
145
City’s Participation Agreement with 15
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Subtotal Sanitary Sewer
$8,600
Water
Removal of existing 6" line within University
Relocation of existing fire hydrant
12"x8" Cut-in Tapping Sleeve & Valve
12" Water Line Offset @ Sanitary Crossing
8" Water Line Offset @ Water Line Connection
Approximately 150 lf 6" Water Line
Approximately 60 lf 12" Water Line
Subtotal Water
$79,900
Total
$533,745
Note:
Sidewalk along "The Stack" side of roadway to be installed as part of "The
Stack" construction .
Budget excludes relocation of any existing utilities, except as noted above.
146
City’s Participation Agreement with 16
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit E
Affidavit of All Bills Paid Form
147
City’s Participation Agreement with 17
DRI/CA and Linbeck
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§ AFFIDAVIT OF BILLS PAID
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared _____________________________
(“Affiant”), _________________________ of ___________________________ (“Contractor”),
who being first duly sworn, deposed and state the following:
“My name is __________________________. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind,
capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts stated in it, which facts
are true and correct.
Pursuant to that certain _____________________ contract, dated as of ____________, 20__ (the
“Contract”) by and between the City of College Station, Texas, and
____________________________________, Contractor furnished labor and materials to
construct ____________________________________________________________ on the real
property known as ___________________________ (more particularly described in the
Contract) the “Project”.
To the extent that Contractor constructed or contracted for the construction of such
__________________________________________, Contractor, has paid each of its sub-
contractors, laborers and materialmen in full for all labor and/or materials provided to Contractor
on the Project.
To the best of Affiant’s knowledge, Contractor has not received notice of any claims pending
against the Project in connection with the ______________________________ described in the
Contract.
Further, Affiant saith not.
Executed this ________ day of _____________________, 20__.
AFFIANT:
______________________________
Printed Name:__________________
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this _____ day of ___________, 20__.
______________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
148
City’s Participation Agreement with 18
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit F
Insurance Requirements
During the term of this Agreement, Developer’s and Developer Contractor’s insurance policies
shall meet the following requirements:
I. Standard Insurance Policies Required:
A. Commercial General Liability
B. Business Automobile Liability
C. Workers' Compensation
II. General Requirements Applicable to All Policies:
A. Only Insurance Carriers licensed and authorized to do business in the State of
Texas will be accepted.
B. Deductibles shall be listed on the Certificate of Insurance and are acceptable only
on a per-occurrence basis for property damage.
C. "Claims Made" policies are not accepted.
D. Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in
limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City
of College Station.
E. The City of College Station, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, are to
be named as “Additional Insured” to the Commercial General Liability and
Business Automobile Liability policies, and further providing that the
Developer’s and Contractor’s policies are primary to any self-insurance or
insurance policies procured by the City. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, agents,
employees or volunteers.
III. Commercial General Liability
A. General Liability insurance shall be written by a carrier with a “A:VIII” or better
rating in accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
B. Limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
with an annual aggregate limit of $2,000,000.00, which limits shall be endorsed to
be per Project.
C. Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO form GC 00 01.
149
City’s Participation Agreement with 19
DRI/CA and Linbeck
D. No coverage shall be excluded from the standard policy without notification of
individual exclusions being attached for review and acceptance.
E. The coverage shall include, but not be limited to the following:
premises/operations with separate aggregate; independent contracts;
products/completed operations; contractual liability (insuring the indemnity
provided herein) Host Liquor Liability, Personal & Advertising Liability; and
Explosion, Collapse, and Underground coverage.
IV. Business Automobile Liability
A. Business Automobile Liability insurance shall be written by a carrier with a
“A:VIII” or better rating in accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
B. Minimum Combined Single Limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily
injury and property damage.
C. Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO Number CA 00 01.
D. The Business Auto Policy must show Symbol 1 in the Covered Autos Portion of
the liability section in Item 2 of the declarations page.
E. The coverage shall include owned autos, leased or rented autos, non-owned autos,
any autos and hired autos.
F. Pollution Liability coverage shall be provided by endorsement MCS-90, with a
limit of $1,000,000.00.
V. Waiver of subrogation in a form at least as broad as ISO form 2404 shall be provided in
favor of the City on all policies obtained by the Developer and Developer’s Contractor in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer and Developer’s Contractor
shall be responsible for all deductibles which may exist on any policies obtained in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. All coverage for subcontractors shall be
subject to the requirements stated herein. All Certificates of Insurance and endorsements
shall be furnished to the City’s Representative at the time of execution of this Agreement,
attached hereto as Exhibit F, and approved by the City before work commences.
VI. Workers’ Compensation Insurance
A. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Title 28, Section 110.110 of the Texas
Administrative Code, all employees of the Contractor, all employees of any and
all subcontractors, and all other persons providing services on the Project must be
covered by a workers’ compensation insurance policy: either directly through
their employer’s policy (the Contractor’s or subcontractor’s policy) or through an
executed coverage agreement on an approved Texas Department of Insurance
150
City’s Participation Agreement with 20
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) form. Accordingly, if a subcontractor
does not have his or her own policy and a coverage agreement is used, contractors
and subcontractors must use that portion of the form whereby the hiring
contractor agrees to provide coverage to the employees of the subcontractor. The
portion of the form that would otherwise allow them not to provide coverage for
the employees of an independent contractor may not be used.
B. Workers’ compensation insurance shall include the following terms:
1. Employer’s Liability minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 for each
accident/each disease/each employee are required.
2. “Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsement, WC
42 03 04” shall be included in this policy.
3. Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Workers’ Compensation coverage or
Item 3C must contain the following: All States except those listed in Item
3A and the States of NV, ND, OH, WA, WV, and WY.
C. Pursuant to the explicit terms of Title 28, Section 110.110(c) (7) of the Texas
Administrative Code, the bid specifications, this Agreement, and all subcontracts
on this Project must include the following terms and conditions in the following
language, without any additional words or changes, except those required to
accommodate the specific document in which they are contained or to impose
stricter standards of documentation:
“A. Definitions:
Certificate of coverage (“certificate”) – An original certificate of insurance, a
certificate of authority to self-insure issued by the Division of Workers
Compensation, or a coverage agreement (DWC-81, DWC-83, or DWC-84),
showing statutory workers’ compensation insurance coverage for the person's or
entity's employees providing services on a project, for the duration of the project.
Duration of the project - includes the time from the beginning of the work on the
project until the Contractor’s/person’s work on the project has been completed
and accepted by the governmental entity.
Persons providing services on the project (“subcontractors” in § 406.096 [of the
Texas Labor Code]) - includes all persons or entities performing all or part of the
services the Contractor has undertaken to perform on the project, regardless of
whether that person contracted directly with the Contractor and regardless of
whether that person has employees. This includes, without limitation,
independent Contractors, subcontractors, leasing companies, motor carriers,
owner-operators, employees of any such entity, or employees of any entity which
furnishes persons to provide services on the project. “Services” include, without
151
City’s Participation Agreement with 21
DRI/CA and Linbeck
limitation, providing, hauling, or delivering equipment or materials, or providing
labor, transportation, or other service related to a project. “Services” does not
include activities unrelated to the project, such as food/beverage vendors, office
supply deliveries, and delivery of portable toilets.
B. The Contractor shall provide coverage, based on proper reporting of
classification codes and payroll amounts and filing of any coverage agreements,
that meets the statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code, Section 401.011(44)
for all employees of the Contractor providing services on the project, for the
duration of the project.
C. The Contractor must provide a certificate of coverage to the governmental entity
prior to being awarded the contract.
D. If the coverage period shown on the Contractor’s current certificate of coverage
ends during the duration of the project, the Contractor must, prior to the end of
the coverage period, file a new certificate of coverage with the governmental
entity showing that coverage has been extended.
E. The Contractor shall obtain from each person providing services on a project,
and provide to the governmental entity:
(1) a certificate of coverage, prior to that person beginning work on the
project, so the governmental entity will have on file certificates of
coverage showing coverage for all persons providing services on the
project; and
(2) no later than seven calendar days after receipt by the Contractor, a new
certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, if the coverage
period shown on the current certificate of coverage ends during the
duration of the project.
F. The Contractor shall retain all required certificates of coverage for the duration
of the project and for one year thereafter.
G. The Contractor shall notify the governmental entity in writing by certified mail or
personal delivery, within 10 calendar days after the Contractor knew or should
have known, or any change that materially affects the provision of coverage of
any person providing services on the project.
H. The Contractor shall post on each project site a notice, in the text, form and
manner prescribed by the Division of Workers Compensation, informing all
persons providing services on the project that they are required to be covered,
and stating how a person may verify coverage and report lack of coverage.
152
City’s Participation Agreement with 22
DRI/CA and Linbeck
I. The Contractor shall contractually require each person with whom it contracts to
provide services on a project, to:
(1) provide coverage, based on proper reporting of classification codes and
payroll amounts and filing of any coverage agreements, that meets the
statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code, Section 401.011(44) for all
of its employees providing services on the project, for the duration of the
project;
(2) provide to the Contractor, prior to that person beginning work on the
project, a certificate of coverage showing that coverage is being provided
for all employees of the person providing services on the project, for the
duration of the project;
(3) provide the Contractor, prior to the end of the coverage period, a new
certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, if the coverage
period shown on the current certificate of coverage ends during the
duration of the project;
(4) obtain from each other person with whom it contracts, and provide to the
Contractor:
(a) A certificate of coverage, prior to the other person beginning work
on the project; and
(b) A new certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, prior
to the end of the coverage period, if the coverage period shown on
the current certificate of coverage ends during the duration of the
project;
(5) retain all required certificates of coverage on file for the duration of the
project and for one year thereafter;
(6) notify the governmental entity in writing by certified mail or personal
delivery, within 10 calendar days after the person knew or should have
known, of any change that materially affects the provision of coverage of
any person providing services on the project; and
(7) Contractually require each person with whom it contracts to perform as
required by paragraphs (a) - (g), with the certificates of coverage to be
provided to the person for whom they are providing services.
J. By signing this contract, or providing, or causing to be provided a certificate of
coverage, the Contractor is representing to the governmental entity that all
employees of the Contractor who will provide services on the project will be
covered by workers’ compensation coverage for the duration of the project; that
153
City’s Participation Agreement with 23
DRI/CA and Linbeck
the coverage will be based on proper reporting of classification codes and payroll
amounts; and that all coverage agreements will be filed with the appropriate
insurance carrier or, in the case of a self-insured, with the Commission’s Division
of Self-Insurance Regulation. Providing false or misleading information may
subject the Contractor to administrative penalties, criminal penalties, civil penal-
ties, or other civil actions.
K. The Contractor’s failure to comply with any of these provisions is a breach of
contract by the Contractor that entitles the governmental entity to declare the
contract void if the Contractor does not remedy the breach within ten calendar
days after receipt of notice of breach from the governmental entity.”
VII. Certificates of Insurance on the most current form approved by the Texas Department of
Insurance, shall be prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized
agent, and shall contain the following provisions and warranties:
A. The company is licensed and authorized to do business in the State of Texas.
B. The insurance policies provided by the insurance company are underwritten on
forms provided by the Texas Department of Insurance or ISO.
C. All endorsements and insurance coverages according to requirements and
instructions contained herein.
D. The form of the notice of cancellation, termination, or change in coverage
provisions to the City of College Station.
E. Original endorsements affecting coverage required by this section shall be
furnished with the certificates of insurance.
154
City’s Participation Agreement with 24
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit G
Certificates of Insurance
155
City’s Participation Agreement with 25
DRI/CA and Linbeck
Exhibit H
Performance and Payment Bonds
156
City’s Participation Agreement with 26
DRI/CA and Linbeck
PERFORMANCE BOND
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THE COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
THAT WE, ____________________________________, as Principal, hereinafter called “Developer” and
the other subscriber hereto _____________________________________, as Surety, do hereby acknowledge
ourselves to be held and firmly bound to the City of College Station, a municipal corporation, in the sum of
_________________ ($_______) for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made to the City of College
Station and its successors, the said Developer and Surety do bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, and assigns, jointly and severally.
THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Developer has on or about this day executed a Contract in writing with the City of
College Station for __________________________________________________________________ all of such
work to be done as set out in full in said Contract Documents therein referred to and adopted by the City Council, all
of which are made a part of this instrument as fully and completely as if set out in full herein.
NOW THEREFORE, if the said Developer shall faithfully and strictly perform Contract in all its terms,
provisions, and stipulations in accordance with its true meaning and effect, and in accordance with the Contract
Documents referred to therein and shall comply strictly with each and every provision of the Contract, including all
warranties and indemnities therein and with this bond, then this obligation shall become null and void and shall have
no further force and effect; otherwise the same is to remain in full force and effect.
It is further understood and agreed that the Surety does hereby relieve the City of College Station or its
representatives from the exercise of any diligence whatever in securing compliance on the part of the Developer
with the terms of the Contract, including the making of payments thereunder and, having fully considered it’s
Principal’s competence to perform the Contract in the underwriting of this Performance Bond, the Surety hereby
waives any notice to it of any default, or delay by the in the performance of his Contract and agrees that it, the
Surety, shall be bound to take notice of and shall be held to have knowledge of all acts or omissions of the
Developer in all matters pertaining to the Contract. The Surety understands and agrees that the provision in the
Contract that the City of College Station shall retain certain amounts due the Developer until the expiration of thirty
days from the acceptance of the Work is intended for the City’s benefit, and the City of College Station shall have
the right to pay or withhold such retained amounts or any other amount owing under the Contract without changing
or affecting the liability of the Surety hereon in any degree.
It is further expressly agreed by Surety that the City of College Station or its representatives are at liberty at
any time, without notice to the Surety, to make any change in the Contract Documents and in the Work to be done
thereunder, as provided in the Contract, and in the terms and conditions thereof, or to make any change in, addition
to, or deduction from the work to be done thereunder; and that such changes, if made, shall not in any way vitiate the
obligation in this bond and undertaking or release the Surety therefrom.
It is further expressly agreed and understood that the Developer and Surety will fully indemnify and save
harmless the City of College Station from any liability, loss, cost, expense, or damage arising out of or in connection
with the work done by the Developer under the Contract. In the event that the City of College Station shall bring
any suit or other proceeding at law on the Contract or this bond or both, the Developer and Surety agree to pay to the
City the actual amounts of attorney’s fees incurred by the City in connection with such suit.
This bond and all obligations created hereunder shall be performable in Brazos County, Texas. This bond
is given in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2253 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, which is
incorporated herein by this reference. However, all of the express provisions hereof shall be applicable whether or
not within the scope of said statute.
Notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered when actually
157
City’s Participation Agreement with 27
DRI/CA and Linbeck
received or, if earlier, on the third day following deposit in a United State Postal Service post office or receptacle,
with proper postage affixed (certified mail, return receipt requested), addressed to the respective other party at the
address prescribed in the Contract Documents, or at such other address as the receiving party may hereafter
prescribe by written notice to the sending party.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the said Developer and Surety have signed and sealed this instrument on the
respective dates written below their signatures and have attached current Power of Attorney.
ATTEST, SEAL: (if a corporation) ___________________________________
WITNESS: (if not a corporation) (Name of Developer)
By: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Date:
ATTEST/WITNESS (SEAL) _______________________________________
(Full Name of Surety)
By: __________________________________ _______________________________________
Name: (Address of Surety for Notice)
Title:
Date: _______________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Name:
Title:
Date:
REVIEWED: THE FOREGOING BOND IS ACCEPTED
ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:
______________________________________ _______________________________________
City Attorney’s Office
158
City’s Participation Agreement with 28
DRI/CA and Linbeck
TEXAS STATUTORY PAYMENT BOND
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THE COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
THAT WE, ____________________________________, as Principal, hereinafter called
“Principal” and the other subscriber hereto _____________________________________, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of ______________, licensed to
business in the State of Texas and admitted to write bonds, as Surety, herein after called
“Surety”, do hereby acknowledge ourselves to be held and firmly bound to the City of College
Station, a municipal corporation, in the sum of _________________ ($_______) for payment
whereof, the said Principal and Surety bind themselves, and their heirs, administrators,
executors, successors and assigns jointly and severally.
THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH THAT:
WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a certain contract with the City of College
Station, dated the ______ day of _______________, 20__, for
______________________________________________________________________, which
contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied
at length herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that if Principal shall pay
all claimants supplying labor and material to him or a subcontractor in the prosecution of the
work provided for in said contract, then, this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to
remain in full force and effect;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this bond is executed pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 2253 of the Texas Government Code and all liabilities on this bond shall be determined
in accordance with the provisions, conditions and limitations of said Code to the same extent as
if it were copied at length herein.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the said Principal and Surety have signed and sealed this
instrument on the respective dates written below their signatures.
159
City’s Participation Agreement with 29
DRI/CA and Linbeck
ATTEST, SEAL: (if a corporation) _______________________________________
WITNESS: (if not a corporation) (Name of Contractor)
By: ____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Date:
ATTEST/WITNESS (SEAL) _______________________________________
(Full Name of Surety)
By: _____________________________________ _______________________________________
Name: (Address of Surety for Notice)
Title:
Date: _______________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Name:
Title:
Date:
REVIEWED: THE FOREGOING BOND IS ACCEPTED
ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:
____________________________________ _______________________________________
City Attorney’s Office
160
CHURCH AVE.CHURCH AVE.CHURCH AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS
161
CHURCH AVE.CHURCH AVE.AREA 1
CHURCH AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS
162
CHURCH AVE.CHURCH AVE.AREA 2
CHURCH AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS
163
164
165
February 28, 2013
Regular Agenda Item No. 6
RFP #13-025 – City Wide Towing Contractor
To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding contracting for
vehicle towing and storage services.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff is seeking direction from the Council as to whether or not we
wish to proceed with the acceptance of bids.
Summary: Annually, the Police Department oversees the inspection and permitting of
approximately 61 wreckers and 11 vehicle storage facilities that belong to 29 different
wrecker companies. This process is extremely time intensive. In July, 2012, Police
Department employees spent 256 total hours over a two week period completing these
inspections. Each company that submits vehicles for inspection is charged a flat rate of
$200 for these inspections. Successfully passing this inspection allows them to be
considered for use on the wrecker rotation schedule that is currently in place. With 29
companies currently on rotation, the total amount collected for these inspections in 2012
was approximately $5800.
In an effort to streamline these inspections and to be more consistent in towing procedures,
the city issued RFP 13-025 to request proposals for a city wide towing contractor. The
intent of this RFP was to solicit proposals from any and all qualified contractors in an effort
to award a city wide towing contract(s). It was fully expected that no less than two and
perhaps more contractors would be selected. The selected contractors would be awarded
contracts for all city generated tows including those from the Police Department, Fleet
Services, or any other city department needing towing services.
Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP. Our Staff wishes to present to the
Council the results from the RFP response and is seeking direction from the Council as to
whether or not they wish to proceed with awarding a contract or if we should seek other
options at this time.
Budget & Financial Summary: None
Attachments:
1. None
166