07221996 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Regular Meeting July 221 1996 Page 4 Mayor Moore introduced for consideration Item 6.D. (3) removed from the consensus agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY OF 'SAN MARCOS WITH OTHER TEXAS CITIES IN THE TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR FRANCHISED UTILITY ISSUES; NAMING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE r-' STEERING COMMITTEE; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF A PARTICIPATION FEE; J AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I i Mr. Hart moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Hernandez seconded the motion. Mr. Cox asked Mr. Guerra when TML was preparing its legislative agenda, and Mr. Guerra advised this summer. Mr. ,Guerra stated TML is not taking this matter on but is supportive of these cities getting together to do so. The Council voted unanimously for adoption of the Resolution. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration Item 6.D. (7) removed from the consensus agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Guerra moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Cox seconded the motion. Mr. Gilley stated this is a major step forward with our surface water treatment plant construction contract. Mr. Cox asked j how this relates to our agreement with GBRA if this item and the ¡ following item are approved, are we committing; and Mr. Gilley stated this is only for design of the plant itself. He stated the' off-channel reservoir would have to be looked at and a recommendation would be made. Mr. Jenkins stated the City is not site specific at this time, and we must know the location for geotechnical testing to occur. Mr. Jenkins stated it would take approximately eighteen months for contract completion, but this can vary. The City is working closely with the engineers, and Staff will make sure the contract moves along. There are no liquidated damages in professional contracts. Ms. Hughson asked if the contractor understands the City's urgency, and Mr. Jenkins stated Staff has conveyed our sense of urgency in our first round of negotiations and they are present to hear firsthand what the Council directs. Mr. Mihalkanin asked if it is normal to not have a completion date. Mr. Jenkins stated it is typical in a design project because there are so many variables. It is not typical to have a completion date in a professional services contract as in a construction contract. Mr. Mihalkanin stated there are citizens who are concerned because the Council on the advice of Staff agreed to accept a delay of the wastewater treatment plant. He stated the City needs to make a good faith effort towards completing this. Mr. Mihalkanin stated on Page 4, Section 1.2.16, refers to nIfn the City withdraws water from Canyon Lake or the Guadalupe River. He stated it should be nWhenn the City withdraws water. . . . Mr. Gilley stated the proposal is for the City to design our portion of the plant. The well water intake from the Guadalupe River and the transmission line to the plant according to our contract with GBRA -- will be done by them. They will design and construct the line. The language in this agreement is if something should change our arrangement with GBRA, then if the City is then responsible for design and construction of that line, our contract with this company would be renegotiated to include that. Right now, that is not a part of this contract. Mayor Moore stated if we had an agreement with New Braunfels, we would have to haul water in tanks or lay a pipeline from New Braunfels. Mr. Gilley stated this agreement does not preclude other agreements with New Braunfels or GBRA. Mr. Mihalkanin expressed concern with the three sites near the San Marcos River which were evaluated stating if the plant is built at one of these sites, for it to be as cost effective as possible, we