Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout250227 -- City Council -- Agenda QuestionsciffN CM' OF COLLEGE STATION Mom ofTao" A¢:1d lArnivergrig. Council questions and staff responses for items on February 27, 2025 City Council Meeting 8.1 February 13th Meeting Minutes Sponsors: Tanya Smith Question: Staff was given direction to review policies and procedures of other municipalities to determine if there were any creative, yet legal, means being implemented to keep more of our dollars local. CM said doable and would report back. "Abatement" is misspelled in Item 8.4 of the February 13th minutes. Response: These edits have been noted. To amend the minutes, a councilmember must make a motion from the dais and the motion to approve the amended minutes must be approved by a majority vote. 8.5 Auto and Truck Tire Purchases Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: Are sales through the Bryan location of Southern Tire Mart? Response: Yes, Sales are through the Bryan location of Southern Tire Mart. Tire Services through this same agreement are with Brazos Valley Automotive in College Station. 8.7 Acquisition of Data Analvtics Consultant Sponsors: Ty Elliott Question: Have the security protocols of ThirdLine been independently audited? If so, is there a report of findings? Response: This question highlights an important consideration when engaging third -party vendors that handle financial or sensitive data. It is generally a best practice for such organizations to undergo an SSAE 18 audit, specifically a SOC 2 audit, to assess their internal controls related to data security and privacy. This was something I carefully considered when evaluating potential vendors. ThirdLine has not undergone a SOC 2 audit. However, both IT and I conducted independent evaluations of ThirdLine's data security practices and policies. These policies can be reviewed at the following link: https://thirdline.trustshare.com/home. Based on our assessments, we concluded that their security controls and practices are adequate for our needs. A key security measure is that ThirdLine does not have direct access to the City's systems. Instead, IT facilitates a secure data upload into their platform. Additionally, the data uploaded does not include sensitive information such as bank account details or Social Security numbers. We have reviewed the queries used to extract data to ensure that only non -sensitive information —such as data that could be obtained through open records requests or is otherwise publicly available —is included. In rare cases where an audit test requires sensitive data such Social Security numbers, those numbers are converted to a protected format before upload, ensuring that sensitive data remains secure. All data is stored, processed, and encrypted in AWS in a USA location. 8.8 Holleman Drive Emergency Culvert Repair Sponsors: Emily Fisher Question: Does the drainage utility fund typically cover repairs such as this? What other activities are supported by this fund? Will funding this deplete the fund balance to an unsustainable level for other expenses that draw against it? Response: Yes, the Drainage Utility Fund typically covers repairs such as this. Several activities come out of the Drainage Utility Fund, such as personnel, maintenance, equipment, and a few capital projects. The Drainage Utility Fund is stable and has sufficient funds to cover repairs such as this without depleting the fund balance. Additional information on the Drainage Utility Fund can be fund on Page 204 of the FY 25 Budget. 8.10 Texas Independence Park CAMR Contract Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Question 1: What are the criteria that made Skanska USA the best value over Dudley Construction? Response 1: There were a number of considerations that resulted in Skanska USA being recommended as the best value for College Station taxpayers. Per the evaluation criteria of RFP 25-019, Skanska USA separated itself in the following categories: - Project staff and experience on similar large-scale park projects - Contractor experience and qualifications on applicable previous park experience - Project management approach and quality control - Contractor safety program and record - Cost of services In addition to the RFP criteria, all firms were interviewed. As part of the interview, we requested the following items be submitted related to Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) construction: - A Cost Substantiated Payment Application - A Design Development Cost Estimate - A Sample Guaranteed Maximum Price Package Per the City's standard requirements and our standard CMAR Contract, the deliverables Skanska submitted met those requirements. Note: Capital Projects staff and Parks & Recreation Staff were part of the RFP and interview evaluation and selection process. Question 2: Can you pls forward the geo that killed the ball fields? Response 2: The Geotechnical Engineering firm was CME, however Halff as the lead on the project made assumptions during the design that ultimately resulted in the significant issues on the project. Question 3: How much money was expended prior to the ball fields being deemed a no-go due to the demo? Response 3: Shown on the budget slide, attached as TIP Budget Information 8.24.23. Question 4: How much of that money was "sunk" vs incorporated into/used by this concept? Response 4: All infrastructure and the restroom building will be utilized in the new park concept, however the ballfield specific design costs will not be reused. Question 5: Can you provide a rough timeline of the park's development starting with the ball field inception through today? Response 5: Shown on the timeline slide, attached as TIP Project History 8.24.23 Question 6: Have we ever taken steps to hold anyone accountable for the initial expenditures made for the ballpark? Response 6: Yes, to repay the City for the initial expenditures, Halff performed the preliminary design work for the new park for free. This service did not cover the full amount the City had expended. The City has letters prepared to send to Halff requesting a refund for the remaining design contract expenses. Question 7: What due diligence was performed and what fell through the cracks? Response 7: All the standard geotechnical and design due diligence were performed, ultimately the design team made an engineering assumption throughout the design that ultimately proved to be incorrect. Question 8: PAGE 253 and PAGE 260 do not match in their descriptions of funding source amounts and encumbrances. Please reconcile. Response 8: A project budget amendment was recently approved with the closeout of the contract with Vaughn construction for Texas Independence Ballpark Project, which changed the budget amount from $5M to $9.2M. The available budget is $9,200,000 in the Parks Capital Improvement Project Fund. A total of $1,804,894 has been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $7,395,106 for this contract and future expenses. Question 9: What is the source of funds for this project after the $5M (or $9.2M) for Parks CIP is expended? Response 9: We plan to submit the remaining funds needed as an unfunded project to be discussed during the FY26 budget process. The source of funds will be determined by the City Council. Question 10: To clarify, we are being asked to authorize $3,196,842 at this time? Response 10: No, we are only authorizing the pre -construction phase services for $45,000, for the work the CMAR will perform during the design process. The general conditions costs will be incorporated as necessary during the bidding phase when they provide a GMP (guaranteed maximum price) which will come back to the City Council for approval. The CMAR process is very transparent, and all costs are "open book" which is why they provide their estimated general conditions up front. Question 11: What was the $1,665,989 (or $1,804,894) that has been spent used for? Response 11: Master Planning, final design costs and staff time. This is the total amount currently expended and committed to date. Question 12: When did council first review the idea for this park and green light it for moving forward? Response 12: Staff first presented the new idea for this park on 8.24.23. At that same meeting Council gave direction to stop the ballpark project, but to complete the restroom building and stabilize the site then move forward with public engagement on a future park concept. Question 13: Was this approved as part of a bond package? Response 13: No Question 14: What local engagement has been conducted? Response 14: Public engagement has been conducted in a variety of ways including: a public meeting with over 40 attendees, an online survey with 553 responses, and an update to Council in a public meeting following this engagement on 5.13.24 9.2 Rec Center Update Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Question: How much has the city spent on external studies for each of these ideas? Response: Information on expenditures to date will be included in the presentation for this item. 9.3 Convention Center Feasibility Study Sponsors: Jeremiah Cook Question: How much has the city spent on external studies for each of these ideas? Response: Information on expenditures to date will be included in the presentation for this item.