Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout221208 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions Council questions and staff responses for items on December 8, 2022 City Council Meeting 8.2 Multi-family solid waste presentation Sponsors: Emily Fisher Question: These are questions I have , if you are already including these in your presentation, I certainly do not need them answered here. • Can you compare / contrast the different experiences SF, MF, and High Density residents have in terms of cost that shows up on their utility bill (do we all pay the same whether we live in an apartment, or a home, or a duplex) • SF gets weekly can, weekly large garbage and biweekly recycle – How do MF and apartment residents dispose of mattresses, furniture, or other large garbage items? What percent of apartment residents have access to a recycle option? • How do screening obligations compare across those groups? For instance, my SF can must be out of view within 24 hours, or I can get a citation. Apartments must have dumpsters screened as well – what about MF duplexes, etc, what is their screening expectation? • how is the container size determined? Can you share units that are the same across the different containers, like use all cubic yards, or all cubic feet, etc. Response: All the above questions will be addressed in the workshop presentation. 9.6 Employee Health Clinic Contract Amendment Sponsors: Alison Pond Question 1: This item appears to be an extension of the St. Joes clinic lease to complete negotiations for a new term. Is this correct? Is there a larger umbrella agreement with CommonSpirit and if so, is it coterminous with this lease agreement? When will the City of CS issue a new RFP for healthcare services with a local provider? Observation: CommonSpirit (formerly CHI) has experienced significant ownership structure changes necessitated by the need to capitalize, leadership changes, and credit rating changes in recent years. Material statements of financial condition from national ratings firms indicate CommonSpirit health systems / facilities in Texas continue to experience fiscal challenges. Response 1: The City went out for an RFP in 2021 and CHI/CommonSpirit was selected as the City’s Employee Clinic Partner. The lease agreement is a separate pass-thru agreement, and current clinic space is no longer available as of 12/31. The temporary 6-month extension of our current contract will allow the City to move to the expanded (and necessary) larger space, while allowing opportunity for the City to further engage with CHI regarding any longer-term agreements on the new space. Additional consideration for going out for RFP for ongoing Employee Clinic services will be determined in early 2023. Question 2: After the relocation where will the City be located? Response 2: After the relocation the Employee Health Clinic will be located at 4421 Hwy. 6 South, College Station, Texas (next to Lowes). 9.7 Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce FY23 Funding Agreement Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: Can you please share a list of other monies that we provide to BCS Chamber of Commerce in addition to this sum? Also Exhibit F number 3 lists Mayor Mooney instead of Mayor Nichols. Response: In most years, the City makes contributions to the Chamber of Commerce beyond the terms outlined in this funding agreement. In FY22 these contributions were: Crawfish Boil $3,500 Community Softball Classic $500 Unfunded portion of Leadership Brazos Scholarships $600 $4,600 City Staff will work with the Chamber of Commerce to ensure Mayor John Nichols is listed as the Mayor of College Station on all Chamber materials. 9.8 Arnold Road Fuel Station Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Question 1: Arnold Road Fleet Fuel Station – Staff Summary refers to a rejection of all prior bids for this work under two different RFPs. Why? Is this a simple combined award for the work? I’m just curious for more background as to why we specifically refer to the rejection of prior bids, rather than just announce the proposed awarded vendor? Did the scope of work materially change after the issuance of prior RFPs? Response 1: This project was released for RFP (request for proposal) three separate times. It ended up being put out multiple times because the bid numbers kept coming in over budget for the combined project. So, the decision was made to separate the two fuel stations (Arnold Road and King Cole Drive) and make the purchase of the pumps as a separate contract through a cooperative agreement. These changes did have a positive impact, and now this project is within budget. The first two RFP responses need to be rejected since we will not be awarding any contracts for those RFPs. Question 2: How much were each of the three bids for? I understand that you don’t have to go with the lowest bidder. I would still like to see the 3 bids please. Response 2: The proposals received were as follows: • Low proposal amount: $1,445,975.69 • Proposal amount accepted upon the completion of proposal evaluations, interviews, and final scoring process: $1,565,125.00. After negotiating with the highest-ranking bidder, the contract amount recommended for award is: $1,492,315.70 • Highest proposal amount: $1,624,573.65. Proposal was rejected for not using proper updated proposal sheet. 9.10 LULAC Oak Hill Supplementing Resolution 04-28-22-8.5 Sponsors: Debbie Eller Question: Can you please estimate how much money the city is contributing with the 2.[1]5% and the interest payments? Response: The total fees and interest are estimated to be $1,331,728. 9.11 Naming Policy Sponsors: Bryan Woods Question: Can you please submit the redline changes so I can see the alterations? I can’t identify any changes, and specifically do not see the inclusion of a staff report of potential costs of a renaming which suggestion was, as I remember, an outcome of our deliberations. Response: A redline version of the naming policy is attached, as well as Councilmember Brick’s written changes. Legal can add the staff report for costs if requested by Council. 9.12 Interlocal Agreement with the City of Georgetown Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question 1: Is there any particular reason to partner with the City of Georgetown? Is this the first kind of purchasing agreement we have had? I read through the agreement, but just curious if this is strictly large-scale purchases or are we anticipating using this possibly for everything? What should happen if we do a purchase but only half an order can get fulfilled? Who would get the half, or would we be on the hook to wait for the whole PO? I think it’s a great idea, just curious about some of the minutia. Response 1: It is common for us to have ILAs with other cities to take advantage of pricing agreements that they have in place. In this case, Georgetown reached out to us and would like to take advantage of an agreement we already have in place. The ILA allows Georgetown to take advantage of our contract terms, but all the risk related to anything they purchase is on them. Question 2: In our proposed cooperative purchasing agreement with the city of Georgetown, does the proposed agreement involve any third-party purchasing groups? If so, please identify the GPO(s). If so, do the 3rd party purchasing groups receive as remuneration any “administrative fees” or payments from awarded vendors? Response 2: There are no costs or fees generated between cities for ILAs to use their existing contracts. It is a courtesy between municipalities and standard practice.