Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout220609 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions Council questions and staff responses for items on June 9, 2022 City Council Meeting 7.5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a professional services contract with SynchroGrid, LLC. for $400,000 for protection and controls electrical engineering services. Sponsors: Timothy Crabb Question: I understand that there is no obligation to accept the lowest bid, but I am interested in the comparison. Can you please tell me the cost of using Power Engineer, Synchro Grid and TORLAN Engineering? Response: By law, engineering services cannot be bid and selected by cost. Firms must be evaluated by qualifications meeting the requirements of the engineering services requested. After selection, costs can be negotiated and, if they are deemed excessive or unreasonable the next most qualified firm can be engaged. The cost in this item is a “not to exceed” cost for engineering services that might be requested during the term of the contract. 7.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an Interlocal Agreement between the City of College Station and Grimes County regarding subdivision authority in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Sponsor: Molly Hitchcock Question: Can you please remind me of the details of council direction last June? I remember a council conversation where Dennis Maloney explained that one day decades from now, we may indeed annex and he preferred to keep platting authority because our standards were higher. I remember asking Michael Ostrowski at that same meeting what the advantage was to the city to release platting authority and he said there was not a benefit to the city, but that it would make it easier on applicants. He also said that this affects only about 1 or 2 situations that come through his dept annually. I do not remember feedback to staff to pursue an agreement relinquishing platting authority. But you are referencing feedback of a year ago, so I need some reminding on the details of those directives. Response: There were discussions regarding the City having more stringent platting requirements, including wider right of way dedication requirements. However, due to the lack of platting activity within this area, and that the agreement could be terminated quickly (90 days), the direction that staff took away from the discussion was to pursue an agreement with Grimes County similar to that of Burleson County. Under the Burleson agreement the City does relinquish platting authority to the County. If development patterns change in the future, the agreement can be terminated by the City, and the City could then resume platting authority. However, given the inability for the City to unilaterally annex property, development limitations of the area due to its environmental characteristics, and that we would not be serving this area with utilities (not our CCNs, no COCS utilities in area, and no plans to extend lines to area), significant development in this area is unlikely. 7.9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an updated Boards, Committees, and Commissions Handbook. Sponsors: Tanya Smith, Carla Robinson Question: Beginning on page 90 of the packet, all the boards commissions and committees are listed. I remember some time ago council approving a hospitality board with members picked by staff and auto approved by council to help advise staff on tourism matters. I cannot recall the name of that board, but I do not think I see it mentioned in this book. Should this board be included on one of these lists? Response: The Tourism Advisory Committee serves as an advisory board to the city manager and is not a council appointed board.