The URL can be used to link to this page

1998-05-18City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 12, 1998 TO: Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board of Directors FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Board Meeting -- May 18,1998 The Board of Directors of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation will meet on Monday, May 18, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Note that this will be a short meeting, not only because we have a short agenda, but also because the Councilmembers will be interviewing Board appointment candidates at 7:00 p.m. Given the limited time availability, we encourage you to let us know if you have any questions or concerns which might be addressed prior to the meeting. The following items will be addressed at the meeting: Executive Session - As has become our practice, we will begin the meeting with a brief Executive Session to discuss the status of land acquisition. Approval of the April 20, 1998 Meeting Minutes - If you have suggested corrections, we encourage you to notify Kim Bush (ext. 702). She will be happy to make the changes prior to the meeting and bring corrected copies to the Board for approval on consent agenda. Aizenda Item No. 5. Budaet Amendment - Brunson Properly Award - This item has been placed on the consent agenda because it is simply a formality. Essentially, you will be amending your budget to include funds for payment of the judgment in full (including a token amount for the settlement of the Brunsons' counterclaim against the city related to alleged damages), as well as interest which has accrued on the difference between the original commissioner's award and the jury's final judgment. Your approval of this item formally appropriates the funding to pay and account for the final judgment. Agenda Item No. 6. Professional Services Contract with MESA Design Contract - President David Yelton requested that we place this item on the agenda at our last meeting. We have placed it on the agenda as a consider item to allow you flexibility, although we are not sure that the Board will wish to take any formal action. It is no secret that there have been numerous problems related to this contract, and the frustration of the Board and staff is clearly evident. The attached report drafted by Kevin Hugman, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation delineates many of the problems and Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board of Directors Board Meeting -- May 18, 1998 Page 2 issues. He has objectively evaluated the issues in order to make a recommendation to you regarding our future relationship with MESA. There are two major points to consider. First, how much more work needs to be completed on the contract and how much of the overall scope of services have we already paid for? The second issue relates to the management of the project until completion. How should we manage the contract if we continue with MESA? How would, we manage the project if we decide to move forward with a different consultant? In order to answer the questions, Kevin consulted Greg Last, Director of Community Development, as well as Ben Henry. Both have extensive experience in working with consulting firms for these types of services, and both have expressed concerns about making a change at this point in the contract. As Greg pointed out, the portion of the contract remaining is small; therefore, a new consultant has less incentive to take the project, much less place their most talented people on the job. Hiring anew consultant for the job is, at best, a "shot in the dark." We might end up with something better, we might not. It is worth noting that we will need a consultant to complete the job. There are still engineering and architectural items to be completed, which cannot be handled in-house. 4W In summary, staff is not comfortable recommending that you terminate the professional services contract with MESA, although you could do so easily given that the agreement states that it may be terminated with thirty (30) days written notice. Given the factors identified in Kevin's report, we believe that the key to a successful resolution to our problems with MESA lie with the staff. As Interim Director, Kevin is prepared to begin aggressively managing the work efforts of MESA, ensuring that the remainder of the work on the project is performed to a level meeting our expectation. Agenda Item No. 8. Financial Report/Budget - Your packet contains the updated financial report/budget. Note that the Brunson item under consideration is listed in the last column. Once you approve the budget amendment, this item will be incorporated in the line item. Note also that Finance Director Lou Ann Heath has amended the budget to reflect the bid award to Pittman Construction and the change order to James Arnold for dirt work, approved at the April SPDC meeting. Questions about this report should be directed to Lou Ann Heath. Menda Item No. 9. Status Report of SPDC Projects - This report contains the latest updates. Please feel free to contact Ben Henry at extension 824 with any questions. Ll R Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board of Directors Board Meeting -- May 18, 1998 Page 3 Other Items of Interest West Beach Lot Acquisition - Your packet contains the most recent map illustrating lot acquisition for Bob Jones Park. Note that six condemnation hearings are scheduled for the next two weeks. Bicentennial Park Expansion - Staff is working with MESA and Pittman on the drainage issues, as discussed at your April meeting. In addition, we are putting the final touches on the acquisition of the Wilkinson tract and the Crossroads Square property exchange, two tracts included in the expansion of the park. We will schedule a groundbreaking ceremony as soon as we have a solid schedule. As always, we appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. SKY City of Southlake, Texas 1 May 14, 1998 TO: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager FROM: Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance SUBJECT: SPDC Budget Amendment - Brunson Property Award The SPDC Capital Projects Budget Report to be presented to the SPDC Board at their meeting on May 18, 1998 includes in column I, line 16, $312,142 as the amount for the Brunson property settlement. The judgment, signed by the judge on May 11, is for $280,068.60. Interest is part of the settlement, and is calculated at 10% for 375 days, from May 1, 1997 through May 11, 1998, for $28,774.17. In addition, the City owes taxable court costs of $3,299.15. All together, the additional cost totals $312,141.92. When added to the amount previously paid for the Brunson parcel, the total amount paid will be $1,161,880 ($849,738 + $312,142). This amount will further reduce the Reserve for Anticipated Projects (line 27) from its current $355,752 to $43,610. The reserve had previously been reduced by $15,980 for the Carroll Middle School parking lot and $129,033 for the Bicentennial Park Phase II contract award. The budget amendment for $312,142 is included in the Capital Projects Budget report for the consideration of the SPDC Board. Iw:101 V 5 C� City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 13, 1998 TO: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Contract with MESA Design for Bicentennial Park, Phase II As you are aware, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the performance of MESA Design Group as the design consultant for Bicentennial Park, Phase II. At its last meeting, the SPDC directed staff to put an item on this month's agenda to discuss their contract. As you have requested, staff has reviewed the contract with MESA, reviewed billings to date, and discussed the advantages/disadvantages of terminating their contract. Following are some points that should be considered in this decision. 1) Does MESA hear or care about staff/citizen input? There have been numerous incidents with MESA that have exasperated staff and board members wherein it seemed that MESA did not incorporate outside input (staff or citizens) into the design process. Staff experience with other consultants has also not been much more positive though. It is the opinion of several staff that MESA is not used to the amount of client involvement as in Southlake, where staff and board members are typically heavily involved in these processes. This opinion is shared by Community Development Director Greg Last and Park Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry, both of whom have a number of years experience working for private design firms. As such, MESA may not be atypical in this sense, and the working relationship with another firm may not prove to be any better. 2) How much of MESA's original work scope has been billed and/or paid for? A review of billings paid indicate that MESA has been paid for a substantial amount of work specified in the contract to date. Attached is a copy of an invoice dated April 9, 1998, which indicates the percentage complete for the various phases included in their project scope. As shown on the attached invoice, MESA shows to be 100% complete for the major portions of their job scope, including schematics, design development and construction documents. These were all specified as lump sum amounts in the contract, so even though we know they are not 100 % complete in these phases, they are not entitled to additional fees. Bidding is shown as 80% complete, but MESA is reworking Bid package #2 and still must develop bid package #3 6-1 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 13, 1998 TO: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Contract with MESA Design for Bicentennial Park, Phase II As you are aware, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the performance of MESA Design Group as the design consultant for Bicentennial Park, Phase II. At its last meeting, the SPDC directed staff to put an item on this month's agenda to discuss their contract. As you have requested, staff has reviewed the contract with MESA, reviewed billings to date, and discussed the advantages/disadvantages of terminating their contract. Following are some points that should be considered in this decision. 1) Does MESA hear or care about staff/citizen input? There have been numerous incidents with MESA that have exasperated staff and board members wherein it seemed that MESA did not incorporate outside input (staff or citizens) into the design process. Staff experience with other consultants has also not been much more positive though. It is the opinion of several staff that MESA is not used to the amount of client involvement as in Southlake, where staff and board members are typically heavily involved in these processes. This opinion is shared by Community Development Director Greg Last and Park Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry, both of whom have a number of years experience working for private design firms. As such, MESA may not be atypical in this sense, and the working relationship with another firm may not prove to be any better. 2) How much of MESA's original work scope has been billed and/or paid for? A review of billings paid indicate that MESA has been paid for a substantial amount of work specified in the contract to date. Attached is a copy of an invoice dated April 9, 1998, which indicates the percentage complete for the various phases included in their project scope. As shown on the attached invoice, MESA shows to be 100% complete for the major portions of their job scope, including schematics, design development and construction documents. These were all specified as lump sum amounts in the contract, so even though we know they are not 100 % complete in these phases, they are not entitled to additional fees. Bidding is shown as 80% complete, but MESA is reworking Bid package #2 and still must develop bid package #3 6-1 �4 4 Shana K. Yelverton Contract with MESA Design May 13, 1998 Page 2 (buildings). Contract administration and construction observation (CA/CO) and platting are shown yet as 0%, but these are minor amounts compared to the total amount of the project. The additional services fees authorized by SPDC are shown to be 28 % expended. The bottom line is that only $58,475.20, at most, remains to be billed by MESA, representing 35 % of the total contract amount. 3) Is there anyone else that can come in to do the work, given the amount of money left in the contract? This is a very difficult question to answer. There are several points to consider. First, there are only a few other design firms with extensive park experience. Two of these are Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, and Schrickel, Rollins. Both have worked for the City in the past. The question is, if they were even able to accept the work and complete the project in a timely manner, would they be better than MESA? +r Second, if the City were to go with an engineering firm, since much of the remainder of the work is engineering related or contract administration and construction management, there is still some design work to be done. The tennis pro shop is still under design by MESA and so if it were not completed, who would the City contract with to complete this design, and at what cost? Third, the contract with MESA requires 30 days notice to terminate, and "the City would still be responsible for payment of all consultant fees and reimbursables expended through the date of termination for services properly performed." How much of the remaining $58,475.20 this would amount to is unclear. It has already been stated that MESA shows 100 % of their fees earned for design development and construction documents, even though we know they are not complete in these areas. We surmise that MESA has resigned itself to taking a loss in some of these services, but another consultant would necessarily take this rework into consideration in their fee proposal. 4) What would be the effect on completion of Bicentennial Park Phase II? As stated before, it is difficult to ascertain the tangible costs associated with changing consultants. There is also an intangible cost associated with a change and that is the time lost on the project due to bringing another consultant up to par with the project status. Certainly, the 30 day l0 A Shana K. Yelverton Contract with MESA Design May 13, 1998 Page 3 termination period could help somewhat, but it is very likely that the project construction start will be delayed beyond that. If the City were to continue with MESA, how can we improve their accountability? 1) Staff would meet with MESA and make it clear that we will be involved with all aspects of the project and that as the client, we have final review and approval prior to implementing any phase. Bid specifications will be reviewed by staff and will not be advertised until we are comfortable with the bid requirements. 2) Future potential projects will not be considered with MESA unless significant improvements are made in their working relationship with the City and the quality of their work. 3) Staff recommendations and directions to MESA will be thoroughly documented. .�r 4) MESA will be held accountable for the quality of work of their subcontractors and staff will reiterate this point to them. Staff will devote significant time to aggressively manage the consultants from this date forward and not accept any work until it meets our level of expectation. Given the above, it is staff s recommendation that we continue the contract with MESA Design Group, incorporating those measures necessary to assure the consultant provides the level of service that the City expects. Please contact me if you have any further questions. 0=1 KH Attachment: Invoice from MESA Design Group, dated April 9, 1998 [ 63 Invoice MESA DESIGN GROUP City of Southlake 400 N. White Chapel Ave. Attn: Kim McAdams Southlake, TX 76092 Project: 97043.00 BICENTENNIAL PARK PHASE II Professional Services: March 1, 1998 through March 31, 1998 Fee April 9, 1998 Invoice No: 97043.00-0000010 Percent Phase Fee Complete Earned SCHEMATIC 27,000.00 100.00 27,000.00 DESIGN DEV 27,000.00 100.00 27,000.00 CONST. DOCUMENTS 27,000.00 100.00 27,000.00 BIDDING 6,750.00 80.00 5,400.00 CA/CO 6,750.00 0.00 0.00 SURVEY 7,500.00 100.00 7,500.00 PLATTING 5,500.00 0.00 0.00 SOIL BORINGS 4,200.00 100.00 4,200.00 ADD. SERVICES 39,410.00 28.00 11,034.80 L Total Fee 151,110.00 Total Earned 109,134.80 low Previous Fee Billing 109,134.80 Current Fee Billing 0.00 Total Fee Reimbursable Expenses Reimb Reproduction Exp. 287.81 Reimb Telephone/Commun. 2.93 Reimb Postage/Delivery 103.80 Reimb Printing 462.23 Reimb In -House Prints 24.50 Reimb In -House Copies 18.75 Reimb Mileage 109.74 Total Reimbursables 1.1 times 1,009.76 Reimb Repro/Printing Credit Total this invoice Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 0000007 1 /13/98 1,088.11 0000008 2/10/98 37,903.40 0000009 3/18/98 11,010.85 Total 50,002.36 k IL 3100 McKinnon Street / Suile 905 LB 152 / Dallas, Texas 75201 214/871-0568 fax 214/871-1507 C� — 0.00 1,110.74 -500.00 $ 610.74 kw E C O a 'C O m 00 U rn rn aci a�i r a ° cO p d >, v :a f6 'SO- m 15 w U � 0o Q m rn N d � d y rn a Y O7 M w LL 7 O t` 0 y C O -p I . . . I I . N 't N i i i N (D r r r >O 0 0 N M N M N_ M .y a _ Q Cc CO L C L N C 7 o U ts3 to to (ss to EA t EA � � tR (�s (s� (s� v4 to v3 a co (O w O r N N 0 O 0 CDLO f- co co 00 M ' Cn r ' r N N r- to 0)ti ' CO r r- .O N C m (o r-� O r N co f- IT r N O 00 C 7 O 5 0 0 (M --f 1l- tp O O O M r I- O 00 O v r� r- O co (O O In r (O U. p L IT N 0 r It 0 co 0)M r � t5 Q N C ~ Q (() (O (M N y O EA (f? (h b'i 64 ll? tR 60, ER 64 6F? ER 11 (ri tR EA IC, Eg ffi G? m co (O LO NMR O 0 ' LO co ' ' LO ' ' (o co ti 0 O (( ti � C V) m (00 c p p M O u) co 0) O O r r w 14 U L p. Qi r to IT U Q N N } 0) cc � r y U LL O 64 to 03, V). 64 6% ER ui tR tt? ER tR (A to (H (A 60T 64 t/H CO O O O O M r coo W O O ' r M N O O O O tp O O O O w N N Cl) O O N t0 to O O O O tD O Oi O O to w 00 I O t0 -- r h O O O O O * W)M CD CD 1- r N to O r O) O tp O O m to d w h O le o O) r d' O N t0 It W) r N M N d r to r r M t- co CO) t0 M r M M 0 C r tp r.: r Q m LL fA to V% fa tR V9. 44 tR to {A t/i to to to tR to to tR L U) co T w R' 16 .. ~ cc o Y a G ch M ui m L m Z Y O Y U w a C m E ^mo 0) � m O L a) N mm °) w �0 L c pn r s L m — o Z U o 7 •«- O U) m L c i r p N V Y y c> d a , d 7 y w (n to D C N N m z N O j O C to m N N w C a)L N ' ' ~ d 0 U Y z p O L (i 0) ' d Y Y .:. C m y � a C 'p O C Co o M Co y a F- c (A m C LL N (� O h L O m w C O C D > y V m .O i7 LO rf 01 L O O)f6 C C ma`�iU tQ �� y (� p oa �0O j :� O a O O C Q' = y(n JEM tr E �ZmC) N 0 0U—LL w S -0m� N w F-J � L ,� C ` 0O � z z zQo Z a� o w w> > a U)IX w w�in ��lI in r N M tq t0 1� 00 O) O r r r N r M r 14 r tot0 r r h r co r O) r O N r N N N M N N to N w N 1` N co N c" N O t") r t'9 N t'9 M m 7-/ a rn N M 00 rn M LO m tz N a I C O N � a -o U m co E ° w o a >, m �O N y U c M 0) O C VD w a c m — L+ LL 7 O p to r- C . . . . . . . O E p > o U Q C M _ y CO m C U (DO 0 >1 U U C D 6f} 6A 69 6R? 6f} fA 69 64 69 69 69 69 6H 69 6% fi} 6R 6FT N Q� Cl)f- v O M M y I_- LO c0 c CV) C)O O LO LO M p c0 c0 O M M M U- O U N O ` Ll E ¢ to ¢ •N m y 0 H p h I. 69 69 69 69 6% 64 64 69 69 69 64 69 EA 64 69 69 6F? (D m N N - O CN i N - O i t OL 00 co ' ' CO N O I C 0 0 M � � M � I,- M Cl) 0 r- ce) m LU y Q ami ¢ } a) Ln LL Q 4'} 6% 6% 69 60. E9 69 6% 6% 69 6fi 6%. 69 6F? 69 64 69 64 O' O 0) O O O O O O O co O O O It O O LO O O O O O O co 00 O O co � O tt) M O O O O O O w O O O O OI 00 t0 N V O O 60606 CO 00 t0 t0 tq t0 L: OCI 0) 'd w+ ID O O e- tq CO e- 0o I } m LLa fA Y} 4i 41, 41, 40, 41 41, 11, /A /A to d? 14 41, 41, 41! N! N 0 N 69 11 co M m 0 o L a CDC O � � o ci O m 1R �. c o o C C O O = 0 h U) 0 O O N N N � N a yk O E O m Q p C fN m ca> N w 6) c° o C o M w y t= ' d m> d O C O C O Q U)0 O 43 i U U- p) N U 3 0 tp n 0- O fti d a > C (� ' c0 H y U 0 r U_ J fC a O E y y Q .mim � O LL 7 C U - v m Q a O U N > 0) E C C N ftt 2 (D O J u) d N' N C LLM C E O Q C a C .0 N fn E rn m , m a? >O m E E ;0 •C w C m d -� -a U 7 C •C (n N U d ID (n fn O m (- -o ¢ O cn qt LL W rn cn 0 Li ~ Y ¢ ~ w o O a ¢ - O t) m U w o d O C f0 10 It{ O w N ICi 0 Q r o o a o r aoi �6 — a C 1-61 co On in in co co cD 7-cl;p v 0 N N tT m d d O N M 00 rn c•M LO -o m m n N d kw E C O O O) a -o m EO U w rn N N a o cO 0L d T w O ma to U C Y co 0 EO 0 EL ^ 0) 0 rn a Y � 03 ." 7 LL O U c ,0 aD E o U Q � as _ C � � 0 U � EA EA 6R EA Eli EA EA EA EA EA EA EA ff> tl� EA EA Eli EA ER EA EA EA EA N W CY) CD co co NIC 5 U 0 coLL (co E(O .�- C 0 7 Q N C F a Q w 0) F- O O to a O d EA EA EA EH EA EA Ei! Eli Eli EA EA EA EA 6% EA EA EA Eli Eli EA 6F? EA (f} y� O i i i i i i . i i i . i� i LO i i N 1 N co C 0 E(O Eno V V 0 0 Eco M co M co M to O W V y m CL Q Q N � F- U � N f5 LL 0 EA EA 6% EA EA EA EA Eli EA EA EA EA EA 6% EA Eli EA ER EA EA 6% EA EA ' EO ' ' ' O O N EO ' ' ' O O O O O O O' � ' 00 co O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O t0 O 0) O O h EA N O O 000000 00 O 00 r. C C C � O) O-0 O EO O O 00 d ID 1- N Oa) 0 to C..0 0 N } � m U. 0) EA 4H to 1R IR fA fA EA to EA sA iR di ER EA 419,40). IT '8 ER fA EA to EA to N Y 3 a co v 0) �n h cct N EA ~ rn N c 0 c r- o LL CO LO 00 N E 0) z � N O r to � O O x cc N O O N � M > ED ' II II >O O C U U) 649II II m 3 C V N LO N (fl ) L a CL C. CD C II O O N CO f f/i O O E E a)�N�U �N X x 0 O �0 x x O O C O) C > O m o o Q o M O O O E E x O ti o O N N O) Q _ O N O N N co C ' O N D r EA 6 a Y > O f6 N N• O Lo V) EPr O) y am' ' N 0 O a a 7 C 0 O ' C > 7 N .0 f6 C 0) LO ik '= 7 0 EA 04 N U Y C 0) 0) C ->O oiS f6 L v a)= ,v — _ O N E O a) C O Q C � 0 E 0 w � 3 m � m '� T w m OS c0i v O 'N N � N :2 rn (6 a E cm00000 CL me o� 2--5 c o 6M Q.cO.� �ii7 LM G ' 0) m V> a� v C6 v w m -he m N U a O E O LL 0 U U c' — x W 3 U- U- .. O y c C m Co O� C C OS y Q C y 0 ,� �� c y Y �- 0) 'd CL O y« a CL Y a U N O C C C C t CL C tq OS N d 0) O 0 '�" to C v C Z m U) J d Q m 2 00 J F- 0 C7 U d O 1E c U- LL U- m C i C 'O 0 f6 y �C Q a0+ C f6 E -2 O d o V Z: f6�_ N M O E00 ED ENO co cc E00 co E~O E00 EO ti 11 ti � r- ti ti ti ti ti 000 00 ONO OMO 00,00100 0 7-3 En X c6 rn v U ti cn U IZ i (D U C EO C w J 2 a. 0) N M O CD (L a N d kv E C O N N O tT av O m ao N N E o a >, ,a � co N M W O 41 O d Y O l4 � } 7 LL O U) C •aU) O ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N C N � p. Q H na 0 Cl) _ o m U U c O U D 61, 69 61, 69 69 611) 69 69 61, 661 61, 661 611, 69 69 661 6f! fA 61� fR fR fA lfi to 69 60, to ER 6H to <i? .. t7 N N r= ' CO N O co p 0)a0 r i d f- Il- C r O� M W O O Cl 7 7 o0ccn �Opo co CD t` rn W C 7 V V y F0 Q M d ti N Q C N 0 N O w a a Ol 69 6f} 69 6R 6A 69 611, 6fi 611, 61", 69 69 69 69 11, 69 to EA fiT 61, 61, 11% 69 611, 69 69 6 , 64 b4 60- t6 coO N � O W O Cl c CO O F M ` O C\l O N 00 O V CL 0 O W U N a Q } CD N U LL Q Vi 69 E14 69 d') 69 69- EA to 69 69 69 61).6fi 6C. 69 6-i E9 64 60 E9 6H 61 6R 61 E9 4 to 6 6 6 , ' Go m' M Ir. ' 0 0 to 0 0 0 to 0 tt) CD O to O 0 O 0 O 0 tt) M O 0 O O O to O to O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O' 0 O' O O to C) f` f• C) m1` CDN N O N m O O 1- N O N N O O CDO O W)I.- 00 'O CD to 00 00 t") C) C) t0 Cf 06 m 00 00 C) CC C) C) N 4 a N to It M t0 � O CD a+ 0) ww M r 1- N V N M C) C) 00 N tC W) W e- O r W W t'o 0 C) CL I Ir 00 c Q 7 m LLL. ppj to wus6r�utwvlwI'll rn u�www6nurus 6r�wwurv�vsurwwuj uft *6rs0) 0 M Z Q o LO N ' m to N O 0 � O U Q tT N Q C N U O W Q a E cc c Q L y tT =_ N U iT in co L iN m cc O LL m a)) @ z L C o Z MC) p O \�a- to � C =. .. �. rn :r LU ++ 3� t0 co V) O 0) 'C N ,� rn t7 C D .. +- (D OS W 'p M 0).0 T 0) L O -p to 7 v p J iZ (7 C cc O� 'C L O O S � ,� 0 7 .` L N a) "0 U � s tsi y o 0 3 m— °' 0� -0 0 -a 0 2 O 3� 1 rn o0 m 3 3 0 ° 0 a) m 3 0 ° 3� •0 C) c m � a) U _ C1 to 0) N O N 7 _ m C7 0) a) tO u- LO (j C7 F- 0) 0) � 0) U C O to 00 v N O V N d Y � � O to H 0) N '6 � .0 ttf Y to c 4? U' > W W m La m p U E.aa C 8. U N CO - OS vo U 1'i N O N " _ 3aU` es N'a F- p 0 a m O � m L �+ tT o tT m f a m a)) 2oa c E m D w rn C o rna -�O m of ' ` C .0 ate) O y .D C C 0) U c�i'c O U o T _ - � _ c T U M C rn C U L m cL C �) •- w O 0 (/) t0 .0 c N N O Y a L N CO U .0.. 7 N 0) Y M d U t6 d L T L N >, ct) L1 E C I71 t p� 00 C t6 C O d Z W W N0 C W d' J U m IL N LL M t0 r LL a a U d 2 ,� O N 01 to LL LL Q U J J U O X W D J m C tests Q U W Q . Cn�� m wM N M O III- 00 00 00 Cf 0o O C) C) N" m C) vto C) mm to 1` C) tb O 01 O .0 O O cm O v) O 'e O M CDO t0 1` O 00 O cD CD O N M r � tp tC 1` 00 r C) r a rn N M 00 M N `m a N a t c. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE HISTORICAL SALES TAX REVENUES 1997-98 collected budget balance budget to date balance percen $2,715,000 $1,405,497 $1,309,503 48.23% MONTH FISCAL YEAR 93/94 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 94/95 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 95/96 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 96-97 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 97-98 % Inc -Dec October $99,408 95.1% $89,951 -9.5% $128,689 43.1% $161,892 25.8% $237,164 46.5% November 50,623 20.2% 52,099 2.9% 111,917 114.8% 135,367 21.0% 193,664 43.1% December 70,155 107.3% 67,243 4.2% 103,975 54.6% 115,084 10.7% 163,871 42.4% January 106,541 57.3% 95,687 -10.2% 140,362 46.7% 198,873 41.7% 266,437 34.0% February 57,839 47.0% 68,015 17.6% 95,269 40.1% 125,671 31.9% 168,914 34.4% March 59,378 34.4% 56,600 4.7% 103,163 82.3% 104,733 1.5% 160,147 52.9% April 87,438 27.3% 88,212 0.9% 137,030 55.3% 182,384 33.1% 215,299 18.0% May 58,291 6.7% 81,109 39.1% 109,371 34.8% 152,577 39.5% 0 -100.0% *first month of 1/2 cent sales tax June 59,577 14.5% 83,253 39.7% 112,317 34.9% 171,813 53.0% 0 -100.0% July 94,157 16.9% 135,187 43.6% 179,803 33.0% 223,854 24.5% 0 -100.0% August 58,980 22.1% 109,584 85.8% 132,367 20.8% 184,851 39.7% 0 -100.0% September 75,228 38.3% 106,563 41.7% 122,445 14.9% 173,917 42.0% 0 -100.0% -AL $877 615 37.8% $1 033 502 17.8% $1 476 708 42.9% $1 931 017 30.8% $1 405 497 37.3% 1997-98 ubdoet $1,357,500 SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION collected budget balance to date balance percent 702 748 $654,752 48.23% MONTH FISCAL YEAR 93/94 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 94/95 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 95/96 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 96-97 % Inc -Dec FISCAL YEAR 97-98 % Inc -Dec October $0 n/a $44,975 n/a $64,344 43.1% $80,946 25.8% $118,582 46.5% November 0 n/a 26,049 n/a 55,958 114.8% 67,684 21.0% 96,832 43.1% December 0 n/a 33,622 n/a 51,987 54.6% 57,542 10.7% 81,935 42.4% January 0 n/a 47,843 n/a 70,181 46.7% 99,437 41.7% 133,219 34.0% February 0 n/a 34,007 n/a 47,635 40.1% 62,836 31.9% 84,457 34.4% March 0 n/a 28,300 n/a 51,581 82.3% 52,366 1.5% 80,074 52.9% April 0 n/a 44,106 n/a 68,515 55.3% 91,192 33.1% 107,650 18.0% May 29,145 n/a 40,554 39.1% 54,686 34.8% 76,289 39.5% 0 -100.0% June 29,788 n/a 41,627 39.7% 56,159 34.9% 85,906 53.0% 0 -100.0% July 47,079 n/a 67,593 43.6% 89,901 33.0% 111,927 24.5% 0 -100.0% ISt 29,490 n/a 54,792 85.8% 66,184 20.8% 92,426 39.7% 0 -100.0% September 37,614 n/a 53,282 41.7% 61,223 14.9% 86,958 42.0% 0 -100.0% TOTAL $173 116 n/a $516 751 198.5% $738 354 42.9% $965 508 30.8% $702 748 37.3% 5/12198 SLSTX98.XLS 7-15- CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Sales Tax Analysis FY1997-98 Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) % Month 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 Difference Chance October 161,892 211,176 237,164 237,164 25,988 12.31% November 135,367 180,672 193,664 193,664 12,992 7.19% December 115,084 157,347 163,871 163,871 6,524 4.15% January 198,873 253,704 266,437 266,437 12,733 5.02% February 125,671 169,522 168,914 168,914 (608) -0.36% March 104,733 145,443 160,147 160,147 14,704 10.11 % April 182,384 234,742 215,299 215,299 (19,443) -8.28% May 152,577 200,464 0 200,464 0 0.00% June 171,813 222,585 0 222,585 0 0.00% July 223,854 282,432 0 282,432 0 0.00% August 184,851 333,186 0 333,186 0 0.00% September 173,917 323,729 0 323,729 0 0.00% 1,931,016 2,715,000 1,405,497 2,767,891 52,891 1.95% 40.60% 43.34% Southlake Parks Development Corporation 1 /2 cent sales tax Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) % 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 Difference Change October 80,946 105,588 118,582 118,582 12,994 12.31 % November 67,684 90,336 96,832 96,832 6,496 7.19% December 57,542 78,673 81,935 81,935 3,262 4.15% January 99,437 126,852 133,219 133,219 6,367 5.02% February 62,836 84,761 84,457 84,457 (304) -0.36% 'ch 52,367 72,721 80,074 80,074 7,352 10.11% �01 91,192 117,371 107,650 107,650 (9,721) -8.28% May 76,289 100,232 0 100,232 0 0.00% June 85,907 111,292 0 111,292 0 0.00% July 111,927 141,216 0 141,216 0 0,00% August 92,426 166,593 0 166,593 0 0.00% September 86,959 161,864 0 161,864 0 0.00% 965,508 1,357,500 702,748 1,383,946 26,446 1.95% 40.60% 43.34% 5/12/98 SLSTX98.XLS 0 t E�W SOUTHLAKE PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Capital Projects Status Report May 13, 1998 Status: A budget amendment will be requested meeting for an additional $312,142. Phase II construction'r $11910,235 (Budget) Design - Phase II Contract Began: June 17, 1997 Estimated Completion of Design: September 1997 Consultant: MESA Design Group Status: SPDC awarded bid package #1 to Pittman Construction for $590, 646 with the understanding that staff would pursue additional cost savings through a more efficient drainage plan. A contract with Pittman Construction will be brought to SPDC in June. MESA reworking bid package #2. Status: Fence to be installed after completion of grading. Estimated construction date is June 1998. Status: Grass to be installed during the month of June 1998. EntranceRoad-Repair -$5000 (Budget) Status: Pending. Status: Completed by American National Fence for ,$15,481.50. Status: Bid opening was March 6, 1998. Staff -is coordinating a master electrical plan in association with Phase H improvements. Page 1 Lim Status: Progressing well through the City Manager's Uffice. An updated map of status can be made available. Design - Phase I Contract Began: March 18, 1997 Consultant: Cheatham and Associates Completed: June 1997 Contractor: James Arnold Construction Began: August 29,1997 Completion of Construction (Phase I): Status: James Arnold Construction has substantially completed the Phase I contract. A change order was approved by SPDC to address the perimeter slope of the pond and practice ballfield improvements. J.L. Bertram Construction has completed stabilization of parking lot. Concrete curb and gutter will progress through the week. Ratliff Iron Works has installed 90% of the east/west fence section. Further installation .r is being held until completion of the parking lot curb and gutter. SPDC approved schematic plans presented in April. Construction documents are being prepared to include: pavilion, boardwalk, picnic tables and grills, soccer field irrigation, hike and bike trail, playground (50%). The design contract was approved by SPDC and Council with Cheatham and Associates. Park staff submitted a 3 month continuance request for signing the grant contract. The cultural resource survey onsite investigation was completed on Dec. 11, 1997. Clearance has been granted by the Texas Historical Commission. Status: A committee has formed to define the scope of the Nature Center for Uob Jones Park. Park staff will provided program information to assist in the design and development through the Audubon Society. The Nature Center Committee toured the site Sept. 8, 1997 with Mrs. Tucker. Status: To begin May 1999. Page 2 Hike and Bike Trail Construction - $48Q00 (20% of project costs) (Budget) Status: MESA Design Group has been selected as consultants by the three cities. The contract is being revised by TxDOT, Southlake, Colleyville and North Richland Hills. The cities entered into an interlocal agreement with each other to design and construct the trail under one contract with a more cost effective and efficient approach. A contract will be provided to SPDC following TxDOT review. Status: Construction has been completed. Status: Plans are being prepared. Status: Bid opening was March 6, 1998. Staff is coordinating a master electrical plan in association with Phase II improvements. Joint -Use Equipment - $5,000 (Budget)' Status: Available as needed. Status: Available as needed. Master plan signage was installed on three (3) neighborhood parks (Royal and Annie Smith, Koalaty and Noble Oaks). Page 3 9-3 1-1 kw Status: Design has been held pending coordination of adjacent improvements with CISD. Status: A public hearing was held February 5, 1998 with Park Board. The layout of the Master Plan was approved with the inclusion of relocating the restroom facility, creating a berm south of the school, providing a natural barrier to Country Walk Estates, and providing 25 additional parking spaces. Primary elements include four unlighted ballfields and two practice soccer fields, both sized for elementary -age use; one larger practice soccer field and adult practice ballfield. A trail loop is planned which would tie in with the anticipated Continental Blvd. trail. Status: A public hearing was held February 5, 1998 with Park Board. Approval 4"' was tabled pending definition of a community park versus a neighborhood park. KISD received approved plans through City Council to construct a library and parking lot this summer. KISD's approved plan has necessitated some redesign of park plan. Park staff will continue to make seasonal site improvements throughout the planning process. Building Inspection has reviewed the house. Design - Phase I Contract Completed: November 25, 1997 Consultant: Dunaway Associates, Inc. Status: Upon acquiring all necessary right-of-way, construction to improve Continental Blvd. will begin. Current funding is not available for the estimated $318,800 needed for trail construction. Design fees paid total $892, approximately 10% of the estimated fee to complete construction documents. Consider Approval by SPDC: TBA Approved by Park Board: February 3, 1997 Status: Leadership Southlake is continuing to raise money and evaluate design options. Goal is to bid and construct the pavilion by the Spring of 1998. Approved by SPDC: May 19, 1997 (added $7,000 December 15,1997) Approved by Park Board: May 12,1997 (added $7,000 December 8,1997) Status: The $25, 000 project is completed pending staff and KSB inspection. Contractor: American Tennis Court Contractors Status: Reimbursement check received by SBA for $3,980.50 on Dec. 9, 1997. Approved by SPDC: January 16, 1998 Approved by Park Board: December 8,1997 Status: All trees have been planted. The drip irrigation is 100% complete. Status: Projected completion in April 1998. Status: Funds remains in reserve. Page 5