Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout221027 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions Council questions and staff responses for items on October 27, 2022 City Council Meeting 7.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Visit College Station's 2022 "Christmas in College Station" Campaign. Sponsors: Aubrey Nettles Question: What plans are there to alleviate traffic congestion on public roadways due to Santa Wonderland queuing? Response: Santa’s Wonderland has taken several steps to address the traffic concerns for the upcoming season, including: • Hiring a traffic engineer and are currently working with TxDOT on changes that include new deceleration lanes on the feeder road • Santa's Wonderland has completed work adding turn lanes that will also improve ingress and egress at the park • Utilizing date specific ticketing on peak dates to better limit and manage crowds • Expanding on-site parking and cues to speed entry into the park • Implementing a new and improved bus drop off location this season • Working with Post Oak Mall to expand the parking agreement for 2022 and promote this alternative through enhanced marketing We are verifying the status of the contract with Post Oak mall for parking but know that Santa’s Wonderland has secured a bus fleet of 19 buses that will be running daily to and from Santa’s Wonderland. They will provide the buses, drivers, and cover other associated costs. 8.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a revision to the Community Development Minor Repair Program guidelines to increase the grant amount available to $10,000. Sponsors: Debbie Eller Question: How many applications were received last year? Response: Seven applications were received in FY 2022. Question: Can you offer an example of a property that is only partially within city limits? Response: The City limit lines do not follow property lines, so it is possible that a property be located both in the City limits and outside of the City limits. This provision would allow for the property to be considered for eligibility. We have not received an application from a property that is partially outside of the City limits. Question: #4 lists employee history as a requirement, does this mean unemployed or retired individuals are not eligible? Response: After further review of Section D - Applicant Eligibility Criteria, item #4 should be removed as all income eligibility requirements, including employment and income information, are included in #1. Please see the revised guidelines with this change included in the original revisions. Question: I understand and agree with the proposed update. Could staff provide a summary of the number and value of grants given over the past five years or so? And indicate the types of repairs funded. Response: FY2018 - FY2022: Applications Received: 31 Activities Completed: 17 Activities Underway: 5 Applications Pending: 9 FY2018 - FY2022 CDBG Budgeted: $412,280 The budget typically includes funding for 10 activities. Number completed depends on eligible applications received. Types of Repairs Completed: HVAC, Plumbing, Roofs, Water Heaters, Windows, Siding/painting, Ramps/Stairs, Driveways/Drainage. Average Grant per Activity: $11,547 (all expenses including staff costs for grant administration and contract/construction oversight) 8.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a construction contract with Marek Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of $709,931 for improvements to Steeplechase and Central Park. Sponsors: Steve Wright Question: How many trees are being removed for the $2,085 Steeplechase charge? Response: The fee includes removal of two Crepe Myrtle Trees along with the necessary clearing and grubbing for a 4’ wide concrete drainage flume, approximately 12’-15’ long, and a 10’X10” dog washing area. The specifications require the contractor to clear 5 feet on each side of the fume. Question: How many trees are being removed for the $16, 275 Central Park charge? Response: The fee includes the removal of one tree in this area along with the necessary clearing and grubbing to install 2 separate, 4’ wide drainage flumes, totaling approximately 400 feet in length. The specifications require the contractor to clear 5 feet on each side of the fume. Question: Protecting 12 trees will cost $24, 336. This is over $2000 per tree. How large are these trees? Response: This line item is in alternate 2, which is not part of the proposed contract. Question: I see that the Base Bid is $621,048. Could you identify which of the alternative bids were accepted to total $709,931? Response: Alternates # 1 ($61,663), # 3 ($23,710) and # 4 ($ 3,510). Total costs of the alternates are $88,883. 8.14. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a funding agreement between the City of College Station and Keep Brazos Beautiful for FY23 in the amount of $46,730. Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: Page 199 of our packet lists the KBB actuals for FY21-22 as blanks. Are those the most current summations? If not, could we get the up to date totals Response: The KBB contract is attached. Pages 15- 19 (Exhibit A) contains the balance sheet and profit & loss statement as of 09/13/22. 8.17. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a change order not to exceed $97,760 to the construction contract with CB&I Group, Inc. for the Rock Prairie Elevated Storage Tank Project. Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Question: Is this the new water tower? Are the original valves faulty? Or did we break them? Why are we paying more money for something brand new that is not working? Response: Yes, this agenda item is related to the new Rock Prairie Elevated Storage Tank (EST). These existing subject valves were not installed with this Rock Prairie EST project, nor did the contractor, CB&I Group, break, or damage the valves associated with this project. The Rock Prairie EST project requires several valves along SH6 to permanently be closed to isolate and create the second pressure plane for the new water tower. In recent months, staff evaluated and inspected the general isolation locations and identified that some existing distributions valves did not adequately close, and some were decades old. The subject change order is to replace some existing valves and add valves to optimize the boundary of the pressure planes for future maintenance and operation considerations. 9.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 1, "General Provisions," Section 1.10 "Transitional Provisions,” Article 3, "Development Review Procedures," Section 3.4 "Plat Review,” Section 3.12 “Building Permit,” Article 4, "Zoning Districts," Section 4.1 "Establishment of Districts,” Article 5, "District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards," Section 5.1 "Residential Zoning Districts,” Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards,” Article 6, "Use Regulations," Section 6.3 "Types of Use,” Section 6.4 “Specific Use Standards,” Article 7, "General Development Standards," Article 8, "Subdivision Design and Improvements," Section 8.3 "General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design for Subdivisions within the City Limits,” Section 8.8 "Requirements for Park Land Dedication,” Article 11, "Definitions," Section 11.2 "Defined Terms,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by amending certain sections related to the creation of a Middle Housing zoning district. Sponsors: Matthew Ellis Question: Why is Shared Housing not listed in Middle Housing Exhibit E ? Response: The District Purpose Statement is meant to guide the types of development within the district. Shared Housing is an allowed use in Middle Housing but is not a separate product type. Each product, such as a townhouse or duplex, could contain a Shared Housing use, as allowed in the Use Table in Exhibit G. However, Middle Housing products may not necessarily contain Shared Housing uses if the design of the structures doesn’t meet the various criteria that are set forth in the Shared Housing definition. Question: In section 7.6.B.3.a why is there a maximum point value for landscaping? How does the city benefit from having a maximum? Response: The requirements of the section set a maximum that the city can require for landscaping on a lot. The purpose behind the requirement is to ensure that landscaping standards create the look and feel of a development while allowing for flexibility on the site. Developers can, and often do, provide more landscaping points than the minimum. Question: In section 7.8.C “All dumpsters shall be screened.” Is marked thru for deletion. Does this mean there are dumpsters that do not have to be screened? Response: Staff from Planning & Development Services and Public Works collaborated on this section to ensure changes were made that improved the clarity of Section 7.8. For this item, the standard was captured in Section 7.8.C.9, which states, “All required containers and dumpsters shall be screened by means of an approved six-foot high opaque device on a minimum of three sides.“ Question: In section 7.8.C.2 yard is used as a measure of volume. Can you please tell me for comparison’s sake what the volume of a single family refuse container is as expressed in yards? Is there a standard anticipated refuse rate per bedroom? If so, could you please share that rate expressed in yards? Response: A standard 64-gallon cart holds approximately 0.121 cubic yards (224lbs) of uncompacted, municipal solid waste per Toter, the City's single-family solid waste cart vendor. This is the standard roll- cart receptacle for a single-family home in College Station. We do not have a standard anticipated refuse rate per bedroom, but Public Works staff calculates the average monthly refuse per single-family residence utilizing monthly reports provided by BVSWMA and UCS; FY21's average, generated refuse was 0.1108 cubic yards (205lbs) per month per single-family residence. 9.4. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 3, "Development Review Procedures," Section 3.3 "Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning),” and Article 5, “District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards,” Section 5.11 "Single-Family Overlay Districts,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, by amending certain sections relating to the Restricted Occupancy Overlay. Sponsors: Alyssa Halle-Schramm Question: This amendment allows groups to pay one fee. Does the current fee cover 100% of the city cost? If not, what fee would equal the expense of city staff and time? Response: The fee is intended to cover the city’s costs.