Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout260827 -- City Council -- Agenda Questions(e,r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Rome ofraw Ad-Mrarirmirf. Council questions and staff responses for items on August 27th, 2026 City Council Meeting Item 7.2 Game Dav Traffic Control Sponsors: Emily Fisher Question: The TAMU interlocal says the parties split deployment costs evenly with no maximum, while this vendor contract is capped at $170,100. Please confirm the City's maximum 2026 exposure, the number of home games covered, and actual cost per game for the prior three seasons. Response: Per the ILA, the city will invoice TAMU within 30 days of the final home game for 50% of the total cost. Here is a breakdown of the current season and previous three seasons: 2026 Season 7 home games $170,100 total $24,300 per game City portion (50%) - $85,050 2025 Season 7 home games (home playoff game was invoiced separately and not included in this total) $135,273.60 total $19,324.80 per game City portion (50%) - $67,636.80 2024 Season 7 home games $128,800 total $18,400 per game City portion (50%) - $64,400 2023 Season 7 home games $122,535 total $17,505 per game City portion - $65,535* *ILA was renegotiated in 2024 to split costs evenly between city and TAMU. Prior to 2024, TAMU's portion was capped at $57,000 Item 7.4 Real Estate Contract with Corinth Group Sponsors: Michael Ostrowski Question: This is the tenth amendment and would allow a total feasibility period of 780 days. What concrete milestones have been completed, which remain open, whether the $10,000 extension fees are nonrefundable or credited at closing, and whether March 8, 2027 is the final outside date? Has the purchase price been revalidated against current market conditions? Response: Corinth has completed the site's concept planning, Phase 1 environmental review, geotechnical analysis, and a survey to divide the property into two separate parcels, enabling the City to sell the northern portion directly to an end user. The $10,000 extension fees are non-refundable except in the event of a default by the City, and the fees will be applied to the purchase price at closing. The City anticipates amending its contract with Corinth on September 24, 2026, to allow the direct sale of the northern parcel to an end user. Closing will then be contingent upon the successful closing of both projects. The purchase price with Corinth remains $8.00 per square foot, with the potential to credit two acres based on the creation of a plaza area. A June 2026 appraisal valued the entire 28.666 acre property at $9.00 per square foot, and the May 2024 appraisal valued it at $8.97 per square foot. Item 7.6 Adamson Lagoon Slide Improvements Sponsors: Jennifer Cain Question: The Adamson Lagoon contract lists a completion milestone of June 31, 2028, which is not a valid date. What is the correct completion date, and will the executed contract be corrected before signature? Response: The date should have been listed as 5/31/28. We will correct the contract prior to final execution. Item 7.7 Chapter 40 "Utilities" relating to utility meters Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: How will 'adequate access' be administered for locked gates, animals, accessibility needs, and customers who cannot use an app or visual aid? Is there a notice/appeal process before $50 or $150 per - occurrence fines, actual -cost charges, reconnect fees, or termination may stack? Response: Within the ordinance, it gives notice by tagging the residence for violation of adequate access and can be tagged up to 3 times. A 10-day compliance window will also be given. The tag will have ways to contact the city to arrange access to the meters. Item 7.9 Dispatch Radio Console Purchase Sponsors: Sam Rivera Question: The Motorola proposal incorporated into the contract describes itself as a budgetary submission that is not a binding offer, yet the contract sets a $213,693.17 not -to -exceed amount. Please confirm the proposal is a firm, enforceable offer; explain whether tariff/fuel adjustments can increase the price; and identify any recurring Essential Plus/SUA or maintenance costs not included in the stated one- time purchase. Response: The price of the technology services contract the Motorola representative signed is not to exceed $213,693.17. The Motorola Solutions proposal says "Firm Proposal" just above the "City of College Station" on page 307. Also, on page 349, it states that pricing does not expire until September 23, 2027. Last December, when we purchased $4.1 million in handheld radios, the Motorola representative told me the equipment was already in stock and not subject to additional charges. There is no written guarantee, but I expect the same to hold. BVWACS, which covers all our radio systems, will maintain the equipment. No additional increase is expected for the two additional consoles, since BVWACS charges only by the number of handheld radios. Item 7.11 BTD Funding Agreement Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: Section 3.1 requires the full $400,800 payment upon execution, while Section 3.2 refers to 'Monthly Payments' being contingent on quarterly reports. What payment structure is intended? Have all FY26 quarterly reports due to date been received and accepted? Response: The City began funding BTD in FY25. However, the FY25 funding specified that it would be paid after a mid -year review of BTD activity. This meant the City's FY25 funding agreement with BTD was not approved until the second half of the fiscal year. The FY26 funding agreement was intended to return to the normal fiscal year cycle, with quarterly payments. However, there were delays in receiving some necessary documents from BTD. We have now received all required documents and will therefore make the FY26 payment in one lump sum amount. The FY26 quarterly reports have been received and accepted. Item 7.12 Santour Court Loan Payoff Sponsors: Michael DeHaven Question: What discount rate and assumptions produce the approximately $400,000 present value of the $998,231.26 due in 2047? What alternatives were evaluated before recommending a $500,000 payoff and waiver of $498,231.26 in accrued interest? Please also confirm the full affordability restriction survives the payoff. Response: The approximately $400,000 present value was a discount rate of 4.25%. The $500,000 payment now would represent a discount rate of 3.25%. Therefore, the principal payment of $500,000 now is more financially beneficial than waiting for the 21 years. Santour Court Ltd. was looking for an early payoff and offered an amount below $500,000 so we evaluated what would be the most beneficial to the City to accept. The LURA (Land Use Restriction Agreement) in place on the properties is between Santour Court Ltd. and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The City is only a lien holder on the properties. The LURA has a 40-year affordability period and was signed on December 15, 2008, by Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Item 8.1 Tax Rate Public Hearing Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question: Is the voter approval rate (VAR) required to support the budget as presented? Response: The voter Approval rate (VAR) is 53.7682. Staff is recommending 53.0254 which is the rate the Council will hold the public hearing on and is the highest rate that could be adopted. The rate could be lowered to 52.7254 and still maintain a balanced budget for FY27, however the City will no longer have a forecasted balanced budget in years FY28 forward Item 8.4 Fee Resolution Sponsors: Mary Ellen Leonard Question 1: The fee -change memo says the solar/net-metering credit 'decreased to $0.0568 from $0.0550,' but $0.0568 is numerically higher. Which rate and direction are intended? Please provide the customer impact and corrected language. Response 1: The memo had the rates inadvertently switched. The Energy Buyback Rate went from $0.0568 down to $0.055 per KWh. This is reflected correctly in the Fee Resolution and in the presentation. Customer impact depends entirely on residents' energy production beyond their use. Question 2: The resolution says it is effective immediately, while the staff memo says the changes take effect October 1, 2026. Which date controls, and will the resolution be revised to match the intended effective date? Response 2: The resolution is effective immediately, but the rates will not be charged until the new budget year. Item 8.5 Harvey Road Townhomes Rezoning Sponsors: Garrett Seagraves Question: The cover sheet identifies Planning & Zoning Commission review but does not state its vote or recommendation. Please provide that result, the maximum realistic unit yield, expected trips, and how Harvey Road right-of-way dedication will be handled. Response: The commission unanimously recommended approval, 7-0. The maximum density for Townhouse zoning is 14 units per acre, but the applicant is proposing 55 units in the Trip Generation Letter provided with the application. The letter showed that the peak -hour trip count was 57.2 trips and did not reach the 150 trips required to trigger a full TIA. Harvey Rd right-of-way dedication would be addressed in the Preliminary Plan and platting process. The subject property would dedicate half of the deficiency if the properties across the street have not already dedicated right-of-way. Item 8.6 & 8.7 The Station (City Initiated) Sponsors: Jeff Howell Question: Please provide one consolidated table of public and private obligations for land, sewer, water, road/intersection improvements, trails, and maintenance associated with the proposed sports/hospitality development, including amounts, funding sources, timing, performance security, and development triggers. Response: These items are not part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. These items will be addressed through the future development agreement. Item 8.8 Corporate Parkway Extension Removal Sponsors: Jason Schubert Question: The model assigns about 4,300 vehicles per day to the removed Corporate Parkway connection in 2045, places more traffic on Midtown Drive, makes one segment congested, and increases emergency response time. Who is obligated to deliver and fund each mitigation, at what development threshold, and what happens if the baseball development is delayed or does not proceed? Response: The TIA identified 3 intersections that would need mitigation when the full build -out of the surrounding area occurs. None of those mitigations are required for the baseball complex to be completed so will be the responsibility of the City as the surrounding property owned by the City is developed. These mitigations (a southbound right -turn lane on Midtown Drive at William D. Fitch Pkwy and two roundabouts on Midtown Drive at the entrances to the development/business park) are not necessary until additional development occurs so if the baseball complex is delayed or does not proceed it will also postpone the need for those improvements. Item 8.9 Ordinance Amending Master Plan and Advisory Board References from Bicycle, Pedestrian„ and Greenways to Active Transportation Sponsors: Joe Allen Question: The ordinance changes the advisory board from performing technical reviews to receiving project updates. What substantive review or recommendation authority is being removed, and where will that independent review occur going forward? Response: The ordinance language change from "performing technical reviews" to "receiving project updates" was proposed as it more accurately reflects the board's currently existing role and operating procedure. Many of the projects presented to the BPG Board are informational in nature and do not require a technical review to be completed by board members. These projects directly relate to the topics of walking and biking and are presented at board meetings to ensure that the board's members are up to date on current planning activities in the city. In practice, this ordinance language change will not substantively alter the board's existing recommendation authority. Hopefully this answers Councilmember Mcllhaney's question. Please let me know if there are any other questions I can address. Item 8.10 300 Fidelity & 601, 603A, 603B Highlands PUE Abandonment Sponsors: Gillian Sitter Question: What legal and engineering basis supports an unconditional abandonment without the adjacent owner's consent? Please confirm the recorded blanket easement fully protects existing water/electric facilities until the replat and utility reconfiguration are complete Response: The engineering and legal basis to support this abandonment request is the establishment of the Temporary Blanket Easement recorded in Vol. 20723 Pg. 77 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas and the fact that the subject easements are wholly contained on the requesting applicant's owned properties. The Blanket Easement does fully cover the Water and Electric facilities and will not be released until utility reconfigurations and new specific easements have been appropriately dedicated. Easement Release is a formal application process.