HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2018 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
City Hall Council Chambers4:00 PMThursday, January 11, 2018
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071};
Possible action. The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or
contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information .
Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or
settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City
Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or
contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information .
After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The
following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City of
College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos
County, Texas
b. McCrory Investments II, LLC d /b/a Southwest Stor Mor v. City of College Station; Cause
No. 17-000914-CV-361; In the 361st District Court, Brazos County, Texas
c. City of College Station v. Gerry Saum, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the
Estate of Susan M. Wood, Deceased; Cause No. 17-002742-CV-361; In the 361st District
Court, Brazos County, Texas
Real Estate {Gov't Code Section 551.072};
Possible action The City Council may deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of
real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the
position of the City in negotiations with a third person. After executive session discussion,
any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Property located generally south of the intersection of SH 6 and William D. Fitch
Parkway in the College Station Business Park in College Station, Texas.
b. Properties located generally within the area bound by FM 2154, Greens Prairie Road W,
Royder Road and Greens Prairie Trail in College Station, Texas.
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018
January 11, 2018City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074};
Possible action. The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following public officer (s)
may be discussed:
a.Council Self Evaluation
b.Construction Board of Adjustments
c.Design Review Board
d.Parks and Recreation Board
e.Planning and Zoning Commission
f.Zoning Board of Adjustments
g.City Manager
h.City Attorney
i.City Internal Auditor
j.City Municipal Judge
Security {Gov't Code Section 551.076 };
Possible action. The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for
implementation, of security personnel or devices or a security audit. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject may be
discussed:
a. Cyber Security
6:00 p.m.
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City
Internal Auditor’s Audit of the Procurement Card Program.
17-07345.
Sponsors:Elliott
P-Card Audit ReportAttachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding providing
additional flexibility for the single -family Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay district.
18-00116.
Sponsors:Golbabai
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding support of a
proposal received in response to RFI 18-008 for the development of
18-00307.
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018
January 11, 2018City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
affordable housing in College Station through the Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs 2018 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
allocation process.
Sponsors:Eller
01 - Cover Sheet
02 - Summary
Bid Tab
LIHTC Census
Proposal Summary 2
Location Map
Attachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the new police station
design and pre-construction services.
18-00328.
Sponsors:Wozniak
9. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Architectural
Advisory Committee, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Greenways Advisory Board, Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos
Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of
Governments, Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance
Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS, Compensation and Benefits Committee, Experience
Bryan-College Station, Design Review Board, Economic Development Committee, FBT/Texas
Aggies Go to War, Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition, Historic Preservation Committee,
Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review
Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks
and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership,
Research Valley Technology Council, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of
Governments, Sister Cities Association, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU
Economic Development, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City
Endowment, Walk with the Mayor, YMCA, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of
Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
11. Adjourn
The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this
agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An
announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on January 5, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
_____________________
Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018
January 11, 2018City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary ’s Office at (979)
764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx .gov at least two business
days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does
not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a
reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano
al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo
411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta
propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 4 College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-0734 Name:Procurement Card Audit Report
Status:Type:Report Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/29/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:1/11/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of the
Procurement Card Program.
Sponsors:Ty Elliott
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:P-Card Audit Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of the
Procurement Card Program.
Reasons for the Audit: The Procurement Card Program has not received audit coverage since a
follow-up in 2009 that examined the implementation of ten audit recommendations issued in 2008.
Moreover, Fiscal Services has not received adequate audit coverage over the last few years due to
the implementation of the City’s new Enterprise Resource Planning system - Tyler Munis.
Results from the Audit:
In general, we found that the City’s Procurement Card Program was adequately mitigating risk and
encouraging efficient and effective use of procurement cards. As a result, City employees are
predominately using their cards to the achievement of the program’s objectives. Despite this positive
assertion, we believe some controls could be strengthened in order to further reduce risk. We have
summarized some of our key findings below:
System Controls.The City’s current credit provider allows the City to set up automatic declines of
purchases that: 1) meet certain fraud parameters, 2) are associated with certain merchant category
codes, and 3) exceed certain single and monthly transaction limits. Additionally, the bank
automatically cancels any City p-cards that were not used within 18 months. On the other hand, we
found that employees were not restricted from approving their own purchases in the City’s current
financial system. Furthermore, purchases could be allocated to funds that do not require any
department review. If other compensating system and procedural controls were not present, we
would classify this as a substantive risk to the achievement of the Procurement Card Program’s
objectives.
Program Procedures.Generally the City’s policies are effective and active, however, we found that
the City’s current disciplinary procedures for p-card violations do not match City policy. Additionally,
the City provides adequate training and resources for the p-card program and purchase approvals
were generally timely. Nevertheless, we found that some p-card accounts were being closed an
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-0734,Version:1
inappropriate amount of time (up to 201 days) after an employee left the City. Finally, we found,
based on actual spending patterns, that employees are frequently given higher spending limits than
necessary, however, the expansion of the department card program has significantly reduced the
number of p-cards available to staff.
Recommendations from the Audit:
We offered five recommendations that we feel will aid the Program in addressing our findings. These
are shown below:
1.Restructure internal controls to better ensure that transactions are appropriately reviewed.
2.Adjust the current process to ensure the p-cards of terminated employees are closed as
quickly as possible.
3.Investigate JP Morgan system controls that would prevent split purchases.
4.Prevent employees from exceeding highest approved single and monthly transaction limits.
5.Work with departments annually to reassign cardholders into appropriate spending categories
in order to reduce monetary risk.
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Performance Audit of
The Procurement Card Program
November 2017
City Internal Auditor’s Office
City of College Station
File #: 17.01
Why We Did this Audit
The Procurement Card Program has
not received audit coverage since a
follow-up in 2009 that examined the
implementation of ten audit
recommendations issued in 2008.
Moreover, Fiscal Services has not
received adequate audit coverage
over the last few years due to the
implementation of the City’s new
Enterprise Resource Planning system
– Tyler Munis.
In fiscal year 2016, the City spent
about $3,134,000 with about 540
active p-cards spread across all City
departments. These purchases made
up about 7 percent of non-personnel
expenses for the year.
What We Recommend
1. Restructure internal controls to
better ensure that transactions
are appropriately reviewed.
2. Adjust the current process to
ensure the p-cards of terminated
employees are closed as quickly
as possible.
3. Investigate JP Morgan system
controls that would prevent split
purchases.
4. Prevent employees from
exceeding highest approved
single and monthly transaction
limits.
5. Work with departments annually
to reassign cardholders into
appropriate spending categories
in order to reduce monetary risk.
What We Found
In general, we found that the City’s Procurement Card
Program was adequately mitigating risk and encouraging
efficient and effective use of procurement cards. As a
result, City employees are predominately using their
cards to the achievement of the program’s objectives.
Despite this positive assertion, we believe some controls
could be strengthened in order to further reduce risk.
We have summarized some of our key findings below:
System Controls. The City’s current credit provider
allows the City to set up automatic declines of purchases
that: 1) meet certain fraud parameters, 2) are associated
with certain merchant category codes, and 3) exceed
certain single and monthly transaction limits.
Additionally, the bank automatically cancels any City p-
cards that were not used within 18 months. On the other
hand, we found that employees were not restricted from
approving their own purchases in the City’s current
financial system. Furthermore, purchases could be
allocated to funds that do not require any department
review. If other compensating system and procedural
controls were not present, we would classify this as a
substantive risk to the achievement of the Procurement
Card Program’s objectives.
Program Procedures. Generally the City’s policies are
effective and active, however, we found that the City’s
current disciplinary procedures for p-card violations do
not match City policy. Additionally, the City provides
adequate training and resources for the p-card program
and purchase approvals were generally timely.
Nevertheless, we found that some p-card accounts were
being closed an inappropriate amount of time (up to 201
days) after an employee left the City. Finally, we found,
based on actual spending patterns, that employees are
frequently given higher spending limits than necessary,
however, the expansion of the department card program
has significantly reduced the number of p-cards available
to staff.
Audit Executive Summary:
Procurement Card Program
Procurement Card Audit 1
Introduction
The Office of the City Internal Auditor conducted this performance audit of the procurement card
program pursuant to Article III Section 30 of the College Station City Charter, which outlines the City
Internal Auditor’s primary duties.
A performance audit is an objective, systematic examination of evidence to independently assess the
performance of an organization, program, activity, or function. The purpose of a performance audit is to
provide information to improve public accountability and facilitate decision-making. Performance audits
encompass a wide variety of objectives, including those related to assessing program effectiveness and
results; economy and efficiency; internal control; compliance with legal or other requirements; and
objectives related to providing prospective analyses, guidance, or summary information. A performance
audit of the procurement card (i.e. p-card) program was included in the fiscal year 2017 audit plan based
on direction given by the Audit Committee.
Audit Objectives
This audit addresses the City’s response to risks presented by the procurement card program and
answers the following questions:
• Do City policies, procedures, and practices promote the efficient and effective use of
procurement cards?
• Do City procurement card program controls adequately mitigate risk?
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (with the exception of a peer review).1 Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following paragraphs further
detail the audit procedures used to obtain this evidence:
Interviews. To obtain general and background information of the City’s procurement card program, we
interviewed the Program Coordinators and the Accounting Manager.
Documentation. To identify criteria, we examined our previous audit work for this program and
researched professional literature including: the Government Finance Officers Association’s best
1 Government auditing standards require audit organizations to undergo an external peer review every three years. We are scheduled to
receive a peer review in fiscal year 2018.
Procurement Card Audit 2
practices, ASI Government’s 2 Acquisition Directions Advisory best practices, and the Internal Revenue
Service’s (IRS) rules and regulations. We also reviewed City policies and procedures including: the City’s
updated Procurement Card Policy as of February 2017; Tyler Munis 3 training manuals for approvers and
purchasing card transaction coding; a p-card process flow chart provided by the Accounting Division;
and a sign-in/out sheet created by the Program Coordinators for department cards. Finally, we
examined reports generated by JP Morgan for cardholders and transactions and Tyler Munis information
on entry and approval personnel.
Training Observation. We attended a procurement cardholder training on 10/13/16.
Transaction Analysis. To test the City’s p-card internal control system, we used generalized auditing
software to analyze all fiscal year 2016 transactions to determine:
• The number of cards that made a high cost 4 single transaction or exceeded their single
transaction limit;
• The number of cardholders that had high cost months or exceeded their monthly spending limit;
• The number of unused cards during fiscal year 2016;
• If any terminated or suspended employees had used their card;
• If any transactions had been made from inappropriate Merchant Category Codes (MCC); and
• If any potential split purchase had been made.
We also randomly selected a statistical sample 5 of 376 transactions that made up approximately
$56,900 from fiscal year 2016 and reviewed the documentation and approval workflow of each in Tyler
Munis to determine:
• If there was adequate supervisory review by the department;
• If both the department and accounting reviews were conducted in a timely manner;
• If the documentation for each transaction was adequate;6 and
• If there was a clear, sufficient business reason for each transaction.
Finally, we identified all department card transactions from fiscal year 2017 and selected a judgement
sample of 40 to determine:
• Who the purchaser of each department card transaction was; and
• If the purchaser had also approved the transaction.
2 Formerly Acquisition Solutions, Inc.; a federal government acquisition consultant.
3 Tyler Munis is an integrated ERP system currently used throughout the City that began implementation in 2015.
4 Where a high cost transaction or month is within 10 percent of the appropriate limit (i.e. single transaction or monthly limit).
5 This sample provides 95% confidence that the estimated mean is within ± 5 percent of the true mean.
6 Proof of purchase adequacy was based on IRS rules that require the following elements: 1) name of vendor, 2) transaction date, 3) a detailed
descript of goods or services purchased, 4) amount paid, and 5) the form of payment.
Procurement Card Audit 3
Background
The City’s procurement card approval process currently utilizes JP Morgan Chase as a credit provider
and Tyler Munis as the City’s financial system. Once purchases are made by cardholders, they are
uploaded into JP Morgan’s system. Each day, these transactions are then imported into the City’s
financial system by the Accounting Division. From here, entry personnel for each department or division
review the purchases and allocate them to the correct account (e.g. office supplies, travel expenses,
etc.) They then attach the appropriate documentation as provided by the cardholder.
Purchases are then reviewed by the appropriate supervisor (based on fund, department, or division)7
and are either approved or rejected. If approved, purchases are reviewed once more by Accounting
before being converted into journal entries. It is important to note that even if these procedures are not
performed, are not completed in a timely manner, or if a transaction is inappropriate, the purchase has
already been made and the City must pay the bank. This process is shown in more detail in Figure 1.
Figure 1: P-Card Purchasing Cycle
7 In the Tyler Munis system these are defined by organization and object codes.
Procurement Card Audit 4
In fiscal year 2016, the City spent $3,134,000 with procurement cards through about 17,500
transactions. Throughout this report, we estimated risk based on a statistical sample as described in the
methodology section. Table 1 below summarizes p-card spending by department. The “Percentage of
Expenses” column listed does not include personnel expenses for the calculation.
Table 1: FY16 Procurement Cards by Department
Department Num. of
Transactions
Transaction
Total
Percentage
of Expenses
Parks & Recreation 2,892 $0531,000 11%
Electric 8 2,304 $0523,000 5%
Public Works 2,833 $0489,500 4%
Water Services 2,070 $0357,000 6%
Information Technology 1,118 $0329,000 15%
Fire 1,481 $0269,000 7%
Police 2,154 $0257,000 8%
General Government 1,540 $0216,000 33%
Fiscal Services 556 $0091,000 5%
Planning & Development 579 $0071,500 16%
Total: 17,527 $3,134,000 7%
8 Non-personnel expenses used to calculate this percentage do not include purchased power; the percentage including this power expense
would equal less than 1%.
Procurement Card Audit 5
Findings and Recommendations
This audit focused on the procurement card program’s: 1) promotion of an ethical procurement card
environment, 2) alignment with the City’s spending needs, 3) separation of duties and appropriateness
of responsibilities, and 4) approach to monitoring and oversight.
Generally, we found that the City was adequately mitigating risk in these four areas; however, we
identified a few internal controls that could be improved.
Encourage a Suitable Procurement Card Environment
Criteria: A positive control environment is the foundation for all other standards as a climate and
culture of discipline and structure influences the quality of internal control. This involves
properly supporting the program with adequate resources for oversight and training, as well
as making clear what behaviors are and are not acceptable.
An agency should also develop written policies and procedures that outline appropriate
controls and ensure the ongoing success of a purchasing card program including: 1)
instructions, with written acknowledgment, on employee responsibility; 2) record keeping
requirements for review and approval; 3) clear guidelines on appropriate use; and 4)
ongoing training for cardholders and supervisors.
Potential
Risk: Based on our findings, the risk presented to the City in this area is sufficiently mitigated.
Scope: Fiscal year 2016 transactions; active procurement card accounts as of 5/11/17.
Observations:
1. City Policies. The City’s Procurement Card Policy includes sections detailing the appropriate use
of p-cards, including examples of pertinent and prohibited purchases as well as how an
employee should place an order with a vendor. It also lays out the potential consequences for
misusing procurement cards.
City policy requires original documentation to be kept on hand for two complete billing cycles
once they have been scanned and uploaded into the City’s financial system.
2. Training Procedures. Program Administrators typically conduct cardholder training once a week.
At this training, cardholder applicants are required to read the City’s Procurement Card Policy,
then read and sign the p-card User Agreement Form. Next, staff reviews proper and improper
card use, as well as the potential consequences for misuse.
Currently, there is no ongoing training process for p-card approvers; however, a training manual
is available to staff.
Procurement Card Audit 6
3. Resources. As of 5/11/17, the City had 403 active procurement cards and 95 City employees in
the procurement card approval hierarchy – five of which provide City-wide oversight.
Additionally, the City has 57 employees dedicated to purchase entry.
4. Disciplinary Action. According to City Policy, if a cardholder is found to have violated policy, their
card should be suspended for 30 days. If a cardholder is found to be in violation a second time,
their p-card is to be permanently suspended. However, we found no evidence in the JP Morgan
system of card suspension. According to City staff, instead Program Administrator’s notify the
violator’s supervisor and request an explanation for the cardholder’s first violation. At this time,
there have been no repeat offenders.
Procurement Card Audit 7
Establish Spending Limits Commensurate with Needs
Criteria: Cardholder spending limits should align with actual need on a single transaction and total
monthly basis. Changes in spending limit should be requested in writing through a
formalized procedure, and an annual review of the program should include an assessment
of credit limit appropriateness.
Potential Allowing many cardholders to have spending limits higher than necessary exposes the City
Risk: to higher monetary risk. However, this risk for the City is moderate to low.
Scope: Fiscal year 2016 transactions; active procurement card accounts as of 5/11/17.
Observations:
1. City Policies. The City’s Procurement Card Policy identifies four spending levels that consist of
both monthly and single transaction limits. These levels – along with the number of cards at
each level 9 – are shown in Table 2. This policy also specifies that a request for spending limit
change must be submitted in writing via e-mail to a Program Administrator and have approval of
the Finance Director or chosen delegate.
Table 2: Procurement Cards
Monthly Limit Single Transaction Num. of Cards
$10,000 $2,999 145
$05,000 $1,500 117
$03,000 $1,000 90
$01,000 $0,500 34
2. Single Transaction Limits. In our review, we found 175 high cost transactions.10 However, while
about 88 percent of transactions are under $500, about 90 percent of cardholders have their
single transaction limit set higher than this. Moreover, we noted that about 43 percent of
organizational units 11 did not make any single high cost transaction.
We also found that 218 transactions were declined based on the cardholder’s single transaction
limit. There is also evidence that the single transaction limit can and has been temporarily raised
for an individual purchase. However, according to the Purchasing Manual Chapter 7.04, “all
purchases greater than $3,000 but $50,000 or less must . . . obtain three or more competitive
quotes when feasible and practical.” We found two instances of a single purchase exceeding
$3,000, for a total amount of about $8,000 – about $2,000 over the highest single transaction
limit in total.
3. Monthly Transaction Limits. We found that 248 cardholders during fiscal year 2016 did not have
a monthly credit limit according to the JP Morgan system – however all currently active cards
have a set monthly credit limit. Additionally, we found 11 active cards whose monthly limit does
9 This number is based on the single transaction limit of each card.
10 Where a high cost transaction is within 10 percent of the appropriate limit (i.e. single transaction or monthly limit).
11 The City of College Station has 10 departments comprised of 61 organizational units as defined in this report.
Procurement Card Audit 8
not match their single transaction level based on Table 2. Two of these eleven cards had a
higher monthly level than the corresponding level stated in the Purchasing Manual – including
one monthly limit of $15,000.
Furthermore, we did not find any evidence that a transaction was declined based on exceeding
the cardholder’s monthly limit. We also found 4 instances where a cardholder exceeded the
maximum monthly transaction limit as stated in the Purchasing Manual (section 6.03), totaling
to about $42,000 (about $2,000 over). This being said, only 11 cardholders spent over $9,000 in
a month during fiscal year 2016.
4. Unused Procurement Cards. Almost 60 percent of the City’s organizational units had at least one
unused procurement card during fiscal year 2016, resulting in 89 unused cards. According to City
staff, JP Morgan automatically cancels all procurement cards that have not been used for 18
months.
Procurement Card Audit 9
Ensure Separation of Duties and Appropriate Responsibility
Criteria: Agencies should establish an effective approval process through which cardholder
applicants must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance. This process should promote
and maintain adequate oversite as the agency’s needs grow and evolve. Moreover,
approving officials should be selected to ensure sufficient independence and rank to
adequately assess purchases. The responsibilities of cardholders, reviewing officials, and
agency program coordinators should not overlap. All individuals involved in the
procurement card process should be held accountable for timely and adequate participation
(i.e. submittal, entry, review and approval).
Potential Allowing employees to approve their own transactions increases the risk of fraud and
Risk: misappropriation of City funds. While purchase entry employees are different than
approvers, they are not generally of sufficient rank to question a purchaser approving their
own transactions.
Implementing department cards – while significantly reducing the number of procurement
cards – may hinder supervisory review on both the department and Accounting level as it
obscures employee responsibility for purchases. Additionally, department cards do not
necessarily limit employee access to City funds.
Scope: Statistical sample of fiscal year 2016 transactions; judgment sample of department card
transactions from 10/1/16 through 5/11/17.
Observations:
1. City Policies. Full- and part-time employees whose responsibilities includes routine purchases of
business-related goods and services are eligible to receive a procurement card upon supervisor
recommendation. Temporary employees are not eligible for p-cards. Recommended employees
are required to fill out an application that is approved by the department director, who indicates
the appropriate spending level. The Program Administrator then verifies that the employee
works for the City through the payroll system and issues the new card.
2. Approval Accountability. City procedures require that by each Friday, the transactions of the
previous week are correctly input with adequate documentation (e.g. itemized receipts, expense
reports, etc.), and the review is completed.12 At the beginning of each week, the Accounting
Division emails all City employees a list of unconverted transactions in an attempt to speed this
approval and conversion process along. However, it is often difficult to tell who in this process is
at fault for an untimely approval without examining the work flow for each transaction.
On average, departments complete their review of purchases nine days after the transaction
occurs (range: 2 to 35 days), and Accounting converts these transactions one day after
department review (range: 0 to 19 days).
12 At months end, all transactions must be reviewed and approved within five business days of the following month.
Procurement Card Audit 10
3. Approval Adequacy. The review for a particular purchase is determined by the account code
assigned by entry personnel. There is currently no overlap between purchase approval and entry
personnel.
Approximately 72 percent (± 5 percent) of total fiscal year 2016 p-card transactions have
adequate supervisor review, and thus are low risk. The p-card transactions that are at the
highest risk were 15 instances in our sample where the purchaser approved their own
transaction and 21 instances of transactions with no supervisory review. Transactions where the
purchaser could not be easily determined (i.e. department cards) or the approver was of a lower
or equal rank to the purchaser were considered medium risk. Table 3 summarizes the findings of
our statistical sample of fiscal year 2016 p-card transactions.
Table 3: Approval Findings Summary
Risk Level Count Amount
High 36 $7,311.06
Medium 70 $6,887.46
Low 270 $42,657.88
Total: 376 $56,856.40
This being said, we found physical evidence of supervisory and Accounting review on the
attached documentation of many transactions (i.e. transactions were rejected for approval,
supervisor signatures on receipts, etc.).
4. Department Cards. At the beginning of fiscal year 2017, the City expanded the use of
department cards (d-cards) in the procurement card program (the Police and Fire departments
had previously employed d-cards). These cards are to be used by several individuals within a
department or division and safeguarded by a single “custodian.” These custodians are charged
with keeping the cards safe from theft and misuse and ensuring accountability among users. City
Policy states that d-card users should utilize a sign-in/out sheet to maintain employee
accountability.
We calculated that the implementation of this program decreased the total number of City
procurement cards by about 25 percent. Of a judgement sample of 40 department card
transactions in fiscal year 2017, we noted that the actual purchaser could not be identified 6
times (15 percent). Of the transactions where we could determine the purchaser (85 percent),
the approver was adequate.
Procurement Card Audit 11
Develop a Multi-Faceted Approach to Monitoring and Oversight
Criteria: Agencies should have several levels of review and oversight in place including: 1) primary,
supervisory review and 2) agency-wide reporting. These levels help identify questionable
transactions, split purchases, improper cardholder limits, and fraudulent activity. Proper
oversight should also include periodic audits for card activity and retention of purchase
documentation and a regular review of spending per vendor and merchant category codes.
Moreover, agencies should be aware – and take advantage – of automatic procurement
card controls provided by the program’s service provider. These controls may include
automatic purchase denial based on Merchant Category Codes and credit limit, as well as
other reporting tools.
Potential Reviewed transactions indicate that inadequate documentation and questionable purchases
Risk: present a low risk to the City, and automatic controls are generally adequate to effectively
mitigate risk. However, allowing procurement cards to remain open for a significant period
of time after an employee is terminated increases the chance a non-business related
purchase will be made.
Scope: Fiscal year 2016 transactions; statistical sample of fiscal year 2016 transactions.
Observations:
1. Reporting. JP Morgan has several premade reports that can be utilized by the City for oversight
and monitoring purposes.
2. Number of Transaction Limits. According to City staff, there are no limits set on the number of
daily or monthly transactions a cardholder can make. However, we found three instances of a
purchase being denied due to an account exceeding its daily transaction count. Given this, we
were unable to determine whether this control was in use, however, other controls may more
effectively limit risk exposure such as the single and monthly transaction limits.
3. Automatic Fraud Protection. After reviewing JP Morgan’s records, we noted that the bank had
alerted the City for potential fraud 186 times during fiscal year 2016. When JP Morgan suspects
fraud they attempt to contact the cardholder to verify the purchase. If they cannot be reached
the card is immediately suspended. JP Morgan also notifies a Program Administrator by e-mail if
they have difficulties contacting the cardholder. The City also began switching to procurement
cards with security chips in February 2017 with cards provided to employees by June 2017.
4. Automatically Denied Transactions. During fiscal year 2016, 792 transactions were denied
instantly based on conditions set by JP Morgan for a total of about $646,000. The majority were
declined because of user error (i.e. the wrong expiration date entered, the incorrect address
used, the wrong CVV/CVC card number, etc.), however, we also found evidence that JP Morgan
Chase declines purchases due to its fraud protection strategy.
5. Terminated or Suspended Employee Purchases. Once an employee leaves the City their p-card
should be deactivated. We found that on average, it takes about 26 days to close an account
Procurement Card Audit 12
after an employee is terminated with a range of 0 to 201 days. No employees were found to
have made purchases after termination or while suspended in fiscal year 2016.
6. MCCs. Current MCC parameters are effective. JP Morgan allows the City to classify some
Merchant Category Codes 13 (MCC) as inappropriate and will automatically decline any purchases
made at these businesses. Only one purchase was made from a MCC that was not reasonably
related to City business for $1.09. There were 128 transactions for $28,000 declined based on
their MCC.
Using corresponding MCCs, we found evidence that some purchases are made from charitable,
civic, and political organizations, which are deemed inappropriate in the Purchasing Manual.
However, many of these purchase may be appropriate and necessary. For instance, many
professional organizations may be classified as charitable, civic, or political organizations by the
creditor such as the Texas Municipal League and the American Water Works Association, both of
which are potentially appropriate vendors.
7. Adequate Documentation. Approximately 91 percent (± 5 percent) of total fiscal year 2016 p-
card transactions have adequate supporting documentation based on IRS rules, and thus
present a low risk to the City. Moreover, we found that many departments used effective
secondary support documentation such as complete, detailed, and signed Travel Expense
Reports, detailed and signed Non-Taxable Meal Forms, and descriptive P-Card Receipt Reports
that were signed by the purchaser and their supervisor.
Table 4 presents a summary of the exceptions found during our review of a statistical sample of
the fiscal year 2016 transactions. Transactions without documentation were considered high risk
if they also had inadequate approval, while transactions with adequate approval but inadequate
documentation were considered medium risk.
Table 4: Potential Documentation Exceptions
Risk Level Count Amount
High 7 $4,117.89
Medium 25 $5,205.37
Low 344 $47,533.14
Total: 376 $56,856.40
8. Questionable Purchases. Approximately 96 percent (± 5 percent) of total fiscal year 2016 p-card
transactions were made for an identifiable business reason. Table 5 presents a summary of the
exceptions found during our review of a statistical sample of fiscal year 2016 p-card
transactions. Transactions of questionable purpose were considered high risk if they also had
inadequate approval, and those with adequate approval but questionable purpose were
considered medium risk.
13 Merchant category codes are four-digit numbers that a credit card issuer uses to categorize the transactions consumers complete using that
card.
Procurement Card Audit 13
Table 5: Questionable Purchase Findings
Risk Level Count Amount
High 10 $311.11
Medium 4 $517.06
Low 362 $56,028.23
Total: 376 $56,856.40
9. Potential Split Purchases. We identified 3 instances of split transactions in fiscal year 2016
totaling less than $1,000 above the cardholders’ limits. As a result we expanded our scope to
include transactions between 04/13/2015 and 05/11/2017 and found an additional five
instances where a cardholder split a purchase to avoid their single transaction limit.
Procurement Card Audit 14
Recommendations
In general, we found that the procurement card program has adequate controls to mitigate risk. As we
can see from Table 6 in Appendix A (following page), the percentage of exceptions is generally low and
does not reflect a material risk to the City of College Station. This being said, we have identified a few
control areas that could be improved to further mitigate risk. These are listed from most to least
significant below.
1. Restructure internal controls to better ensure that transactions are appropriately reviewed.
Specifically, we found that employees were not restricted from approving their own purchases
in the Munis system. Moreover, purchases coded to some funds do not require primary
supervisory approval. The current financial system should be adjusted to correct these control
vulnerabilities, and further documentation should be kept to clarify purchase responsibility for
department cards.
2. Adjust the current process to ensure the procurement cards of terminated employees are
closed as quickly as possible. On average, it takes about 26 days to close a terminated
employee’s p-card account. However, we found five instances where it took over two months to
close an employee’s p-card account, which leaves the City open to misuse of funds. Fiscal
Services should work with Human Resources and City departments to develop a process to be
notified about terminated employees as early as possible.
3. Investigate JP Morgan system controls that would prevent split purchases. We found evidence
of 3 split purchases in FY16. While these cardholders were adequately disciplined, this
disciplinary process did not follow written policy.
4. Prevent employees from exceeding highest approved single and monthly transaction limits.
According to the City’s Purchasing Manual, cardholders should not spend more than $3,000 on
any one transaction and should spend no more than $10,000 in one month. However, we found
evidence that cardholder limits had been occasionally changed – temporarily and permanently –
to bypass these stated limits.
5. Work with departments annually to reassign cardholders into appropriate spending categories
in order to reduce monetary risk. Only about 1% of fiscal year 2016 transactions were high cost.
Allowing employees to have spending limits higher than needed increases the City’s monetary
risk exposure.
Appendix A: Summary by Department
A summary of our findings and exceptions broken out by department can be seen in Table 6. It is important to note that the statistical
transaction sample indicates that the actual percentage of transactions for each department in each category is ± 5 percent of the stated
percentage.
Table 6: FY16 Summary by Department
Department
All Transactions Transaction Sample
Num. of
Cards
Num. of
Trans.
Total
Amount
Split
Purchases14
Num. of
Trans.
Approval
Timeliness (Days)
High Risk
Approvals
Questionable
Purchases
Inadequate
Documentation
Parks & Rec 54 2,892 $0531,000 2 65 7.0 31% 12% 11%
Electric 75 2,304 $0523,000 2 52 8.3 6% 4% 13%
Public Works 79 2,833 $0489,500 2 62 8.5 5% 3% 5%
Water Services 70 2,070 $0357,000 0 43 7.8 0% 0% 9%
IT 27 1,118 $0329,000 0 19 6.7 16% 5% 0%
Fire 63 1,481 $0269,000 1 34 9.2 0% 0% 12%
Police 65 2,154 $0257,000 1 53 11.1 7% 2% 8%
General Gov. 51 1,540 $0216,000 0 33 9.1 9% 0% 9%
Fiscal Services 28 556 $0091,000 0 10 11.9 0% 0% 10%
Plan. & Dev. 34 579 $0071,500 0 5 8.6 0% 0% 20%
Total: 544 17,527 $3,134,000 8 376 8.8 7% 3% 10%
14 This column includes all split purchases identified between 04/13/2015 and 05/11/2017.
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-0011 Name:Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/20/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:1/11/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding providing additional flexibility for the single-
family Neighborhood Conservation Overlay district.
Sponsors:Justin Golbabai
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding providing additional flexibility for the single-
family Neighborhood Conservation Overlay district.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
·Neighborhood Integrity
·Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): Receive staff’s presentation and provide feedback and direction as desired.
Summary: This request to allow for more flexible and customizable language to the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay (NCO) as supported by Action Item NI&CC 2.1 in Southside Neighborhood
Plan to “Amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include a Character Preservation zoning
option that provides the neighborhood with the flexibility to select the character elements and to
determine the area to which they may apply.” The Eastgate Neighborhood Plan similarly has actions
items to “Develop/amend the single-family overlay ordinance options” and to “work with
neighborhood residents to identify and resolve roadblocks to adopting or implementing a new type of
neighborhood overlay.”
The City’s single-family overlay districts are intended to provide additional standards for new
construction and redevelopment in established neighborhoods to promote development that is
compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood, preserve the unique characteristics of
College Station’s older neighborhoods, and balancing the need for the redevelopment of vacant or
underutilize property. One of the City’s single-family overlay options is the NCO District which allows
neighborhoods to choose from a variety of standards that are generally more restrictive from the
City’s general standards in order to address neighborhood specific issues. For a NCO District to be
established, a neighborhood stakeholder must submit a rezoning application that includes the list of
standards chose and a petition of at least 50%+1 of the subject area’s property owners who have
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-0011,Version:1
agreed to self-impose the new standards.
Planning and Development Services Staff is currently working with the Southside neighborhood on
an application to form a NCO District for College Park, Oakwood, and Dulaney neighborhoods.
Through this process, the neighborhood has felt that the language in the section of the UDO
governing NCO District options to be overly restrictive and rigid. Therefore, they have asked for
additional flexibility in the ordinance language that would allow more customization in the overlay to
better target neighborhood issues without overregulating other areas in the process. Some of the
requested changes include:
Ø Allowing maximum lot coverage calculations to be customized of what is and isn’t
included so they can exclude impervious elements such as patios and outdoor recreational
areas.
Ø Allow the neighborhood to customize what is included in tree preservation to able to
exclude certain invasive species of trees from tree protection as well as to be able to select a
larger caliper inch standard than the eight-inch caliper inches allowed for in the ordinance.
Ø Allow further restrictions on the amount and placement of parking areas.
Ø Allow minimum lot size calculations to only apply to new subdivisions as is currently
applied without the overlay.
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on whether or not to move forward with the development
of an ordinance amendment that provides additional flexibility to the NCO District.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-0030 Name:
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/27/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:1/11/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding support of a proposal received in response to
RFI 18-008 for the development of affordable housing in College Station through the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs 2018 Low Income Housing Tax Credit allocation
process.
Sponsors:Debbie Eller
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:01 - Cover Sheet
02 - Summary
Bid Tab
LIHTC Census
Proposal Summary 2
Location Map
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding support of a proposal received in response to
RFI 18-008 for the development of affordable housing in College Station through the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs 2018 Low Income Housing Tax Credit allocation
process.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply)
· Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Neighborhood Integrity
·Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends discussion and direction from Council regarding a resolution
of support for one application in the 2018 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit allocation process.
Summary: Staff will provide a presentation regarding the demonstrated need for more affordable
rental units in College Station, a summary of Fair Housing requirements; a summary of the 9% Low
Income Housing Tax Credit program and scoring criteria, and details regarding proposals received in
response to RFI 18-008 - Affordable Housing Development.
Seven proposals were received in response to the RFI: six senior developments and one family
development. The presentation will include locations of each proposed development, type of
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-0030,Version:1
development, number of units broken down by affordable and market rate, basic amenities and
services, and available or needed infrastructure. Staff will provide a recommendation for support.
However, Council has several options available including supporting one application, none, all, or a
combination or providing a resolution of no objection for one, none, all, or a combination.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Proposal Summary
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
..Title
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding support of a proposal received in response to RFI
18-008 for the development of affordable housing in College Station through the Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs 2018 Low Income Housing Tax Credit allocation process.
..Body
Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply)
Financially Sustainable City
Core Services and Infrastructure
Neighborhood Integrity
Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends discussion and direction from Council regarding a resolution of
support for one application in the 2018 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocation process.
Summary: Staff will provide a presentation regarding the demonstrated need for more affordable rental
units in College Station, a summary of Fair Housing requirements; a summary of the 9% Low Income
Housing Tax Credit program and scoring criteria, and details regarding proposals received in response to
RFI 18-008 - Affordable Housing Development.
Seven proposals were received in response to the RFI to develop affordable rental housing: six senior
developments and one family/workforce development. The presentation will include locations of each
proposed development, type of development, number of rental units broken down by affordable and
market rate, basic amenities and services, and available or needed infrastructure with estimated cost.
Proposal details:
All developers have received good to excellent references from other communities and have
multiple years of development experience with LIHTC, have been successful in receiving multiple
allocations in Texas, and own/manage multiple LIHTC properties in several communities across
the state.
All developments will include multi-story buildings, high-end interiors, energy efficiency
features, fully secured buildings or grounds; clubhouse with multi-purpose rooms providing a
variety of on-site services determined by tenants needs and wants.
Developments requiring infrastructure construction expenses could result in a lower number of
units or less amenities and potentially slow the development timeline.
All properties will pay ad valorem taxes.
Development must be opened and operational no later than December 2020.
Staff will provide a recommendation for support of one proposal. However, Council has several options
available including a resolution of support for one application, all, or a combination or providing a
resolution of no objection for one, all, or a combination. By not taking action of support or no
opposition, this could jeopardize a tax credit allocation for College Station.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Proposal Summary
3. Bid Tab
Development Name Developer Tract Type Units *Land Cost
Cost per
Sq. Ft.Investment
Zoning /
Land Use Pool
Transportation
Access
Estimated
Sewer
Construction
Expense
Estimated
City OP
Expense***
Staff
Scoring
Summary Other Information
Regency Lofts
LRS - Kent Hance / DWR - Donna
Rickenbacker Arnold Road Senior - 55 & up 120 $1,200,000
5.00
Acres /
$5.51 $13.7M
PDD /
Medical On Site Public - < 1 mile $0 $0 95.5
Site ready; Lowest Risk due to no need for
rezoning or sewer infrastruture requirements;
Immediate convenient proximity to grocery,
medical, pharmacy, and park.
The Huntington Site 1
MGroup - Mark Musemuche /
Oldham Goodwin Wheeler North Senior - 62 & up 132 $982,350
6.0 Acres
/ $3.76 $18M
Rural** /
Medical On Site On Site Shuttle $340,080 $482,100 91
Risk due to rezoning requirement and sewer
infrastructure requirements; Design & easement
acquisition costs unknown.
Avanti at Town Center
Madhouse Development Services -
Henry Flores YMCA Tract Senior - 55 & up 120 $1,481,040
4.00
Acres /
$8.50 $18M
PDD /
Urban
Mixed Use YMCA Public - < 1 mile $131,520 $227,400 91
Tenants will receive membership to YMCA; Risk
due to sewer infrastructure requirement;
Easement immediately available; Design costs
unknown.
The Huntington Site 3
MGroup - Mark Musemuche /
Oldham Goodwin Victoria Road Senior - 62 & up 132 $982,000
6.0 Acres
/ $3.76 $18M
Rural** /
Urban On Site On Site Shuttle $0 $0 90
Risk due to rezoning; sewer infrastructure
available; Longest distance to grocery & pharmacy
& public transporation
Rock Prairie Senior Village
Oaklake Community Housing
Corporation / Brownstone
Construction, Ltd.Perry Tract Senior - 55 & up 140 $2,500,000
7.15
Acres /
$8.03 $20M
Office** /
Medical On Site On Site Shuttle $321,840 $227,400 87.75
Phase 2 proposed future market rate senior
development; Risk due to rezoning requirement
and sewer infrastructure requirements; Design &
easement acquisition costs unknown; grocery &
pharmacy less convenient; Oaklake is a Non-profit
The Huntington Site 2
MGroup - Mark Musemuche /
Oldham Goodwin Wheeler South Senior - 62 & up 132 $982,350
6.0 Acres
/ $3.76 $18M
Rural**/
Medical On Site On Site Shuttle $348,000 $482,100 87.5
Risk due to rezoning requirement and sewer
infrastructure requirements; Design & easement
acquisition costs unknown.
Langford Square Saigebrook 3906 Rock Prairie Family 125 $2,406,690
6.5 Acres
/ $8.50 $15M - $18M
Rural** /
Medical On Site Public - < 1 mile $321,840 $227,400 85.75
1, 2, & 3 bedroom units for family & workforce;
planned services include "Art in Public Places";
several letters of support from community
organizations; Risk due to rezoning requirement
and sewer infrastructure requirements; Design &
easement acquisition costs unknown.
** Rezoning Required *** City OP Optional
Tax Credit Proposal Summary
* All proposals estimate 70% - 85% of the units
will be affordable with the balance at market
RFI 18-008 - Development of Affordable Housing - Bid Tab
Criteria Possible Points Langford SquareRegency LoftsAvantiRP Sr VillageHuntington #1Huntington #2Huntington #3Does not contribute to an over-saturation of affordable housing 6 points 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Demonstrates a high quality of design and construction 6 points 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Demonstrates successful management of similar developments 6 points 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Can be funded without public dollars from the city 6 points 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Does not negatively impact public services, traffic, etc. 6 points 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Prior experience in development of affordable housing (Up to 5 points)
None 0 points
Under 5 2 points
5 or more 5 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Infrastructure avaliability Up to 8 points 4 8 5 4 4 4 8
Number of affordable units (Up to 8 points)
10 or less 0 points
11-49 2 points
50-74 4 points
75-99 6 points
100 or more 8 points 8 6 6 6 8 8 8
Percentage of affordable units (Up to 8 points)
50 or less 0 points
51-60 2 points
61-70 4 points
70 or more 8 points 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Offer services/amenities at no extra cost/fees to the tenant 2 points 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Close proximity to serivces
Grocery Stores
Over 5 miles away 0 points
1-5 miles away 1 point
Under 1 miles away 2 points 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Health Services
Over 5 miles away 0 points
1-5 miles away 1 point
Under 1 miles away 2 points 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Public Parks
Over 5 miles away 0 points
1-5 miles away 1 point
Under 1 miles away 2 points 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Will the project incorporate security/safety features?Up to 3 Points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Does the project have appropriate zoning?(Up to 3 points)
Current incorrect zoning 0 points
In the process of rezoning 1 point
Appropriate zoning 3 points 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
Preservation of enivronmental assets and concern for landscaping 3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Staff Review 12 points
Column1 Column2 2 3 4 5 6 7
Feedback from other cities regarding working with developer during
planning, construction, lease-up and occupancy (Up to 3 points)
Unsatifactory 0 points
Satisfactory 1 point
Excellent 3 points 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Resident complaints received (Up to 3 points)
High number of complaints 0 points
Minimal complaints 1 point
No complaints 3 points 1 1 1 3 3 3 3
Community complaints received (Up to 3 points)
High number of complaints 0 points
Minimal complaints 1 point
No complaints 3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Code enforcement issues (Up to 3 points)
Several code enforcement issues 0 points
Minimal code enforcement issues 1 point
No code enforcement issues 3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Staff 1 Score 86 96 92 88 91 87 90
Staff 2 Score 86 96 91 88 90 90 93
Staff 3 Score 86 96 92 89 91 87 89
Staff 4 Score 85 94 89 86 92 86 88
Average Score 85.75 95.5 91 87.75 91 87.5 90
Langford SquareRegency LoftsAvantiRP Sr VillageHuntington #1Huntington #2Huntington #3
View.ashx %d×%d pixels
https://collegestation.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5709777&GUID=01D2711A-0487-4D70-9A8D-C9702DB0BBF5[1/5/2018 3:13:49 PM]
Proposal Locations & Summaries
Langford Square
Langford Square
Developer: Saigebrook Development, LLC
Principal: Lisa Stephens; Project Manager: Megan Lasch; Development Associate: Nathan Henry
Property Management: Accolade Property Management, Inc. – Irving, Texas
Type: Family/Workforce
Investment: $15M - $18M
Unit Mix: Maximum 125: 112 Affordable (85 – 90%)/13 Market Rate (10-15%)
1, 2, & 3 Bedroom units
Zoning: Rural
Land Use: Medical Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: Est. Developer Cost: $321,840*, OP by City: $227,400*
Additional Information: Art in Public Places; received several letters of support from community
organizations including BVCOG, Project Unity,
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
Rock Prairie Senior Village
Developer: Oaklake Community Housing Corporation (501c3) & Brownstone Construction, LTD.
Principal: JOT Couch, Executive Director; Russ Michaels, Esq. - Team Development Strategist
Property Management: Texas Inter-Faith Management Corporation – Houston
Type: Senior – 55 & Older
Investment: $20M
Unit Mix: Maximum 140: 96 Affordable/44 Market Rate (10-15%)
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: Office
Land Use: Medical Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: Est. Developer Cost: $321,840*, OP by City: $227,400*
Additional Information: Shuttle Services; Phase 2 with additional market rate units
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
Rock Prairie Senior Village
Avanti at Town Center
Developer: Madhouse Development, LLC
Principal: Henry Flores
Property Management: Accolade Property Management, Inc. – Irving, Texas
Type: Senior 55 & older
Investment: $18M
Unit Mix: Maximum 120: 96 Affordable/24 Market Rate
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: PDD
Land Use: Urban Mixed Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: Est. Developer Cost: $131,520*, OP by City: $227,400*
Other Information: Site includes proposed location of YMCA
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
Avanti at Town Center
Regency Lofts
Regency Lofts
Developer: LRS Housing, LLC. – Kent Hance, DWR Development Group, LLC. – Donna Rickenbacker
Experience: Over 35 LIHTC awards in Texas
Property Management: UAH Property Management Company – Dallas, Texas
Type: Senior – 55 & older
Investment: $13.7M
Unit Mix: Maximum 120: 84 Affordable/36 Market Rate
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: PDD
Land Use: Medical Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: In place
Other Information: City supported an application on this site in 2012 & 2013
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
The Huntington at College Station – Site #1
Developer: MGroup, Inc. – Mark Musemuche; Oldham Goodwin
Experience: 20 years; Own & Operate 29 Communities in Texas
Property Management: Oldham Goodwin
Type: Senior – 62 & older
Investment: $18M
Unit Mix: Maximum 132: 99 Affordable/33 Market Rate
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: Rural
Land Use: Medical Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: In place
Other Information: MGroup can place this development on any of the 3 identified sites
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
The Huntington at College Station – Site #2
Developer: MGroup, Inc. – Mark Musemuche; Oldham Goodwin
Experience: 20 years; Own & Operate 29 Communities in Texas
Property Management: Oldham Goodwin
Type: Senior – 62 & older
Investment: $18M
Unit Mix: Maximum 132: 99 Affordable/33 Market Rate
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: Rural
Land Use: Medical Use
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: In place
Other Information:
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
The Huntington at College Station – Site #3
Developer: MGroup, Inc. – Mark Musemuche; Oldham Goodwin
Experience: 20 years; Own & Operate 29 Communities in Texas
Property Management: Oldham Goodwin
Type: Senior – 62 & older
Investment: $18M
Unit Mix: Maximum 132: 99 Affordable/33 Market Rate
1 & 2 Bedroom units
Zoning: Rural
Land Use: Urban
Sewer Connectivity Requirements: In place
Other Information: City supported an application on this site in 2016 with MGroup
*Estimate does not include design/engineering or easement acquisition
Langford Square - Family
Rock Prairie Sr Village - Senior
Avanti at Town Center - Senior
Huntington Site 1 - Senior
Huntington Site 2 - Senior
Huntington Site 3 - Senior
Regency Lofts - Senior
Rock Prairie Road & State Hwy 6
LOCATION MAP – TAX CREDIT PROPOSALS
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-0032 Name:
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/28/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:1/11/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the new police station design and pre-construction
services.
Sponsors:Erica Wozniak
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the new police station design and pre-construction
services.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply)
·Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Provide feedback and approval of the proposed concept and pre-construction
services for the project.
Summary: On November 9, 2017 Staff presented 3 updated concepts for the new Police
Headquarters building and sought further direction. Today, staff is presenting a fully developed
concept for approval. Staff is also seeking direction from City Council on obtaining pre-construction /
estimating services for this project.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Amount available for the project: $28,000,000
Attachments:
College Station, TX Printed on 1/5/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™