Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />October 11, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />112 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, <br />TEXAS, APRPOVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO <br />AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND HAYS COUNTY FOR <br />THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A DRUG TASK FORCE; <br />AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT ON BEHALF <br />OF THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. Guerra moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Mooney <br />seconded the motion. Mr. Guerra asked when the agreement expired <br />and was advised there is no set termination without notice to the <br />other party. Mr. Guerra stated he would like to have the budget of <br />the Task Force and for the agreement to have starting and ending <br />dates. Mr. Gilley stated he would get this information for the <br />council and that we do have audit reports. The Council stated they <br />want the agreement to have an October 1-September 30 period, the <br />requirement of a budget for Council's review and an audit performed <br />at the end of each year of the agreement. The Council voted <br />unanimously for adoption of the Resolution with the understanding <br />the Legal Department work out an agreement that the budget be <br />provided to the Council by the first meeting in November. <br /> <br />Mayor Morris introduced for consideration Item 12.C. (8) removed from <br />the consensus agenda, adoption of a Resolution, t~e caption which <br />was read as follows: <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, <br />TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A CABLE <br />PROGRAMMING SERVICE RATE COMPLAINT FORM TO THE FEDERAL <br />COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING TCI CABLEVISION OF TEXAS; <br />AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. Guerra moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Mooney <br />seconded the motion. Marcus Cathy of TCI advised the Council this <br />is a new requirement by FCC which they will review to see if TCI is <br />in compliance. The Council voted unanimously for adoption of the <br />Resolution. <br /> <br /> <br />Mayor Morris introduced a discussion regarding the Emergency Medical <br />Services request for proposals and direction to Staff. Mr. Gilley <br />asked the Council to make comments and suggestions regarding the <br />draft RFP. It is proposed ambulances be located on the north and <br />south sides of town. The information at the beginning of the RFP is <br />standard information in all City RFPs. The provider will train <br />their staff at their own expense. The RFP does not contain any <br />provisions calling for a City contribution of funds. provision <br />13. (c) regarding proposed revenue sources, the provider can request <br />subsidy, which would be income to the provider. provision 13. (a) is <br />in regard to a provider having more than one operation and what <br />amount of money would be contributed to the home corporation. Mayor <br />Morris stated she would like a percentage to be provided as well. <br />Nothing in the RFP addresses any contract or contribution from SWT. <br />Tom Partin stated each patient, even SWT students, are billed, and <br />he bills the University directly when he provides standy-by <br />services. Mr. Gilley confirmed to Mr. Cox audits would be provided <br />to the city. Mr. Hart stated a transition period if the service <br />changes was not addressed and needed to be clarified to have in <br />place. Mr. Gilley advised Mr. Hart a new provider would provide <br />their own ambulances and equipment, and the RFP needs to clarify <br />when the new contract is terminated that ambulances need to be in <br />place in the event the City has to take over the service. The <br />requirement of an annual audit will be in the contract but does not <br />necessarily need to be in the RFP. Dr. Randy Rogers of the EMS <br />Board stated there needs to be consideration of people surrounding <br />San Marcos, and asked if we were communicating with the County <br />regarding EMS service. He stated the numbers of people in the <br />surrounding area would not justify separate EMS service locations in <br />those areas. Dr. Rogers was advised the city has had ongoing <br />discussions with the county regarding EMS. Mr. Hart stated this <br />could be another tier of criteria to incorporate in the RFP and <br />wanted figures on what it would cost to provide services in the <br />surrounding area (Mr. Moore present at this time - 9:07 p.m.). The <br />RFP process is to determine certain information, including the cost <br />