Loading...
2002-05-08City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 3, 2002 TO: Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District Board of Directors FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Annual Program Evaluation Action Requested: Board approval of the annual program evaluation (Annual Update). Background Information: Section 363.152(b) of the Local Government Code requires that Crime Control and Prevention Districts "shall fund an annual evaluation program to study the impact, efficiency, and effectiveness of new or expanded crime control and crime prevention programs." The Annual Update has been developed by staff to meet this requirement. The Annual Update discusses the progress of the district in achieving the articulated strategies, and provides financial information for the Board's review. Financial Considerations: N/A Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Annual Update will be presented to the City Council upon approval by the Board. Legal Review: N/A Alternatives: The Board could hire an independent, third -party consultant to prepare the evaluation. Supporting Documents: Annual Update, May 2002 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Board review of Draft #1 of the Annual Update. CID COD O 1 GD CD am 06 cc O 0 ca CD c7 GD iii■ cc 0 COD dome i CD cm CD �i cc Q N co O O N p ""If 'f/l , ,ao p ""If 'f/l , SOUTHLAKE CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION DISTRICT ANNUAL PROGRAM EVALUATION The Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District was created by Southlake voters in November 1997 and a half -cent sales tax to fund the District was authorized. Voters dictated that the City Council appoint an independent Board of Directors to oversee the District. The Board of Directors was subsequently appointed by the City Council for the District and began its work in December with the identification of specific strategies for addressing public safety within the city and the development and adoption of a budget to accomplish the strategies. During the course of the initial five- year authorization of the District, the Board and staff worked diligently to address the strategies, as shown below. In February 2002, Southlake voters approved a 15 -year extension of the District. Continuation of the District will provide the funding necessary to pursue the full accomplishment of each of the strategies. State law requires the District to fund an annual evaluation program to study the impact, efficiency, and effectiveness of new or expanded crime control and prevention programs. This report examines each identified strategy for the Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District. Annual Prograin Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 Strategy One: Enhancing Community Safety Through Modern, Efficient Facilities This strategy promotes a safer environment for the community through an increased police presence, particularly in neighborhoods, to deter crime and to reduce the response time for calls for service. Although the geographical size of the city is large at 23 square miles, until recently Department of Public Safety personnel operated out of one facility. The District's initial plan identified the purchase of three sites and the development of two district facilities as its highest priority for the use of crime control funds. Evaluating the District's efficiency and effectiveness in achieving this strategy involves analysis of five major tasks for the District's first four years, including: 1) site evaluation and budgeting, 2) site selection, 3) land acquisition, 4) concept planning, and 5) facility construction. An examination of the District's efforts on these tasks reveals that the District is operating effectively and efficiently, although quantitative measures (i.e., reduction in Part I crimes or response times) cannot yet be analyzed. This evaluation will review the District's initial efforts for acquiring land for the new facilities, planning for their development, and construction. Annual Program Evaluation AhProved - May 8, 2002 -2- Site Evaluation Process. Work began with staff identifying a step-by-step process to determine response times and corresponding target areas, and continued to the selection of twenty-five sites. Upon identification of sites and mapping of response times, all suitable and available tracts were identified for evaluation. Each potential site was evaluated using the following criteria: ■ Access - arterial street capacity, direct site access, proximity to parking, visibility to public/sight lines, proximity to response location, access to two streets; ■ Physical Characteristics - configuration, zoning restrictions, easements, topography, physical constraints, site evaluation, drive-through bays; ■ Environmental - noise, tree loss, contamination potential, risk factors (e.g., flooding), lighting; ■ Site Development - compatibility with adjacent uses, complex planning issues, expansion potential, site assemblage, time constraints, utility availability; ■ Functional - shared services potential, building footprint flexibility; ■ Financial - property values, demolition costs, energy criteria. An evaluation matrix assigning points for each criterion was prepared for each potential site, which helped determine the appropriate sites for serious consideration. Site Selection Process. The District Board and staff reviewed the sites, evaluating each with the identified criteria. Staff then initiated conversation with property owners to determine their willingness to sell, to ascertain purchase terms, and to identify other issues which might affect the ultimate purchase and development of the site. Specific Annual Program Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 -3- sites for each of the target areas were identified, and staff was instructed to negotiate purchase contracts for each. Land Acquisition. The Board has been able to successfully purchase tracts of land for two of the three needed sites. Approximately 4.8 acres were purchased for the west site and a 32 -acre tract was purchased for the north site. Acquisition of a three -acre site on the east side of the city has been delayed for the present time, although continued funding through District continuation will provide the needed funds to acquire the site in the near future. This will be accomplished upon completion of an updated risk assessment, currently being conducted by Department of Public Safety personnel. Please see Exhibit A for a location map of sites. Concept Planning_ To determine the utility of the smaller sites, an architectural consultant was hired to assist with site evaluations, as well as to develop conceptual drawings showing the layout of the facility on the sites. These drawings were particularly needed for the smaller southern sites to ensure their viability. Additionally, the Board approved funding necessary to enter into an agreement with an architectural firm to design a facility in compliance with city regulations at the west site. Initial design concepts were presented to the Board in April 2000, and were formally submitted to the City for zoning and concept plan approval. The City Council approved the zoning and site plan for the west site facility on July 18, 2000. Additionally, zoning and concept plan approval was achieved for a 35,813 square -foot residual lot to be sold as a commercial tract. Please see Exhibit B, approved site plan (DPS site), and approved concept plan for the residual lot. Annual Program Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 M During FY2001-02, space planning for the North facility began in earnest. Initial concepts were presented to the board during the February 2001 meeting. This process should be finalized by the end of the fiscal year. Facility Construction. Once approval of the site plan for the West facility was achieved (showing a proposed one-story 21,573 square foot DPS building), city staff, the District Board of Directors, City Council, and Phillip Swager and Associates (architect) went to work to finalize construction plans for the west building. A construction budget of $3,863,681 was approved for the project. Exhibit C shows the final plans developed for the facility. A total of $4.2 million (including architectural fees) was allocated for facility construction. On October 10, 2000, the City opened sealed bids for construction of the project. Eleven bids were received. The low bidder, CMPA, Inc., submitted a base bid of $3,194,000. The District Board approved funding for the project in an amount not to exceed $3.4 million (base bid plus alternatives and contingencies) and City Council entered in to a contract on November 7, 2000 with CMPA, Inc. The City took possession of the building in April 2002, celebrating its grand opening on April 13. Total estimated cost for the building including land, architecture fees, furniture and equipment was $5,100,00. Note that funding to staff the facility was requested through the City of Southlake's general fund and, upon approval, provided for staff acquisition and training in advance of the opening of the new facility. As noted previously, a quantitative analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board's program to meet this strategy cannot be performed at this time. However, the first important steps toward realizing the benefits to be derived from the district facilities Annual Program Evaluation P . roved - May 8. 2002 -5- have been taken. The first goal set for accomplishing strategy one (evaluating and acquiring sites for optimum delivery of public safety services) is moving toward completion. The opening of DPS West is the first completed project of the district, clearly meeting the objectives of strategy one. Strategy Two: Enhancing Community Safety Through the Use of Modern Technology & Equipment The District Board allocated funding in Year One for the purchase of two fully equipped police patrol vehicles, as well as portable radios and other related equipment needed by the School Resource Officers. The vehicles were purchased through a cooperative purchasing agreement between the Houston -Galveston Area Council of Governments (HGAC). Working through HGAC allowed the City to take advantage of "bulk" buying opportunities. As such, the vehicles were purchased and equipped well within the budget parameters established by the Board. The District has also funded the purchase of portable radios for police use, and recently commissioned a study for the development of a radio master plan for DPS. This plan will guide the development of the city's ultimate radio infrastructure to ensure reliable communication for officers in the field. With renewed attention to homeland security following the terror attacks of September 11, the District has contemplated future funding of equipment to address these types of threats. The continuation of District funding will allow the Department to address these equipment needs as well. Annual Program Evaluation Approved - Mai, 8, 2002 I Me Strategy Three: Enhanced Community Safety Through Professional Development Limited funds and the District's commitment to land acquisition and facility development have prevented a direct allocation of funds for professional development initiatives. However, continual and advanced training of public safety personnel must be a priority to maintain in-service training requirements in such a manner that the skills, knowledge and abilities of each individual remain at peak levels for both present and future job assignments. In order to meet the objectives of this strategy, the District incorporated training needs into its evaluation of potential sites and in construction plans for the West district facility. Targeted sites were of at least three acres in size to ensure adequate space for training activities. Having training facilities available in the district stations will ensure that most training programs can be coordinated without requiring officers to leave their assigned posts. This maximizes the time available for training. The design of the west facility has fully incorporated training needs, and use of the indoor training facility has already begun. Special attention will be given to developing both of the future facilities in a manner conducive to meeting the training needs of the entire Department. Strategy Four: Enhance Community Safety through Special Police Initiatives The establishment of a crime control and prevention district in Southlake provides an opportunity to establish police initiatives that enhance the community's quality of life. Such programs might otherwise be set aside for lack of funding. Ann2sal Program Evaluatiofi Approved - M«v 8, 2002 -7- While the City of Southlake previously offered a School Resource Officer (SRO) to Carroll High School, no such officers were assigned to any middle school campus. To address issues of campus safety, student education, and deterrence for drug and gang - related activity, the Department has attempted to expand the program, but limited funding resulted in limited implementation of this vital program. The District's first special initiative involved hiring two additional School Resource Officers. Recruitment efforts began as soon as the Board approved the budget, but advertising was repeated when the initial process did not result in a successful hire. The two positions were successfully filled in December 1998, with one officer assigned to Carroll Junior High School and the other to Carroll Intermediate School. The School Resource Officer's presence in the aforementioned schools has resulted in: ■ Reduction in prank fire alarms, minimizing disruptions and danger to the public and DPS personnel when responding; ■ Deterrence of violence; and ■ Collection of valuable intelligence resulting in numerous arrests on and off campus for possession and use of alcohol and drugs as well as collection of information regarding "copy cat" threats mirroring recent shooting events around the nation. Financial Considerations Collection of the Crime Control District sales tax began in April 1998, and the first allocation of sales tax from the Comptroller was received in June 1998. Through the Annual Program Evaluation Approved - MaY, 8, 2002 fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, the District had collected $ 2,232,252 in sales tax, and $293,020 in interest. Expenditures for the same period total $4,379,562 with $126,846 for two School Resource Officers and related benefits for the year; $2,153,006 for construction costs related to the West facility $127,811 for leased radio equipment; and $1,971,899 for the debt service payment. Construction costs associated with the West facility were funded through bond proceeds from previous years. The City's annual audit for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001 was completed during March 2002. The Crime Control and Prevention District accounting records was part of that audit, and the report will be presented to the City Council in late May. Funds received by the District are invested according to the City's investment policy. The District's funds are pooled for investment purposes. For the quarter ending September 30, 2001, the District's yield to maturity on pooled investments was 3.47°/x. For the fiscal year that began October 1, 2001, an estimated $2,214,268 in sales tax is expected. $132,116 is budgeted for two School Resource Officers and related benefits, $127,811 for leased radio equipment and $2,253,715 is budgeted for debt service payments. Conclusion The Board of Directors of the Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District has, during the first four years of the life of the District, successfully implemented the actions necessary to meet the strategies identified in its plan and budget. The Board's primary activity has been the acquisition of suitable public safety sites in targeted areas and construction of the West facility. Other initiatives are progressing as planned. Aniival Progrann Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 During its first four years, the Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District has successfully accomplished its goals and with the successful outcome of the continuation election, the future implementation of District strategies is ensured. Annual Prograni Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 - 10- Exhibit A Crime Control and Prevention District Department of Public Safety Facility Locations VV@Si SR$ tt No Scale Annual Program Evaluation Approved - Ma), 8, 2002 Geographic Information Systems Exhibit B Annual Program Evaluation Approved - MaY 8, 2002 6a s Annual Program Evaluation Approved - May 8, 2002 Exhibit C City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 3, 2002 TO: Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District Board of Directors FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager, Ext. 1429 SUBJECT: New Methods of Awarding Construction Contracts for Municipal Facilities Action Requested: Board discussion of contracting alternatives for the construction of municipal facilities.. Background Information: The Seventy Seventh Texas Legislature made a number of changes to purchasing laws applicable to municipalities, broadening options in a number of ways. One of the bills, S.B. 510, provided alternative processes for the construction of municipal facilities (buildings, not infrastructure). The attached memo from City Attorney Betsy Elam provides a detailed review of the options now available. As the Board considers the construction of the North side facility, an understanding of the options will be important. This item has been placed on the agenda to ensure that the various options are reviewed by the staff and board. Financial Considerations: None at this time. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Crime Control and Prevention District Board of Directors will ultimately determine the funding that will be approved for use in constructing future DPS facilities, and will provide input to the City Council regarding the preferred construction contracting method. Legal Review: The attached memo was prepared by City Attorney Betsy Elam to apprise municipal officials of the alternatives now available as a result of recent action by the Texas Legislature. Obviously, the attorneys would be intimately involved in the preparation of request for proposal documents as well as contracts, regardless of the method selected. Alternatives: N/A -discussion item only. Supporting Documents: "New Methods for Awarding Construction Contracts for Municipal Facilities," February 13, 2002, Betsy Elam r7 Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District Board of Directors May 3, 2002 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Board review of alternative methods of construction contracting for municipal facilities. ,r 1'7 FORT WORTH OFFICE: 6000 WESTERN PLACE, SUITE 200 I-30 AT BRYANT-IRvw ROAD FORT WORTH,TExAS 76107-4654 VOICE: (817) 332-2580 TOLL FREE: (800) 318-3400 :AX: (817) 332-4740 EMAEL: TOASE@-rOASE.COM WEBSITE: WWW.TOASE.COM ELIZABETH ELAM EXT. 211 betsvela m(a)toase. com Billy Campbell City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Suite 460 Southlake, Texas 76092 Ta for Iso .4ns' la m L. I 1W Attorneys Counselors February 13, 2002 DENTON OFFICE: 620 WEST HICKORY DENTON,TEXAs 76201 VOICE: (940) 383-2674 METRO: (972) 434-3834 FAX: (940) 898-0118 FEB2g� � �J Re: New Methods for Awarding bids for Construction of Municipal Facilities Dear Billy: VT Senate Bill 510, codified in Chapters 252 and 271 of the Local Government Code' became effective on September 1st, 2001 and provides for significant changes in. procedures and methods permitted for awarding construction contracts for municipal r facilities. A copy of Subchapter H of Chapter 271 is enclosed. Instead of being limited to (.... awarding the bid to the "lowest responsible bidder', a city can choose between one of several methods when awarding a construction contract for a municipal facility. The methods for awarding construction bids include: (1) competitive bidding; (2) competitive sealed proposals for construction services; (3) design build contract; (4) a contract that involves using a construction manager -agent; (5) a contract that utilizes a construction manager -at -risk; or (6) a job order contract for the minor repair, rehabilitation, or alteration of a facility. These methods apply to the construction, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of municipal facilities as defined by Section 271.111(7). A facility means buildings, the design and construction of which are governed by accepted building codes. The term does not include highways, roads, streets, bridges, utilities, water supply projects, water plants, wastewater plants, water and wastewater distribution or conveyance facilities, wharfs, docks, airport runways and taxiways, drainage projects, or related types of projects associated with civil engineering construction; or buildings or structures that are incidental to projects that are primarily civil engineering construction projects. PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR ALL METHODS OF AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Each method requires specific procedures, but the following rules and procedures Unless otherwise noted, all codes references in this letter are references to the Local Government Code. W:\Southiake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd 7/4-3 February 13, 2002 Page 2 apply to all methods in Chapter 271 unless otherwise specifically noted: Determination of best value. For all methods except competitive bidding, the City Council (or its designated representative) must before advertising, determine which method provides the best value for the governmental entity. For example, before advertising begins, a city council could by resolution make a finding that the design- build method will provide the best value. If the City Council delegates its authority, the designated representative should make a determination in writing stating which method provides the best value. (Section 271.114). Criteria for selection of contractor. Unless otherwise specified below, for all methods, the City Council must base its selection among offerers on the following criteria (referred to below as the "selection criteria 1. the purchase price; 2. the reputation of the vendor and of the vendors goods or services; 3. the quality of the vendor's goods or services; 4. the extent to which the goods or services meet the City's needs; 5. the vendor's past relationship with the City; 6. the impact on the ability of the City to comply with rules relating to historically underutilized businesses; 7. the long-term cost to the City to acquire vendor's goods and services; and 8. any other relevant factors specifically listed in the request for bids or proposals. (Sections 271.113 and 271.114) Required publication of notice. A City must publish notice of the time and place the bids or proposals, or the responses to a request for qualifications will be received and opened. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in a county in which the municipality's central administrative offices are located, once a week for at least two weeks before the deadline for receiving the responses. (Section 271.112(d)) Criteria must be published. The City is required to publish in its request for bids, proposals or qualifications all of the selection criteria that will be used to evaluate the offerers and the relative weights given to the criteria. (Section 271.114(b)) Basis of selection must be documented. The City is required to document the basis of its selection and make all of the evaluations public not later than the seventh day after the date that the contract is awarded. (Section 271.114(c)) Recycled Materials. The City must comply with the requirements found in Section Some methods require other specific criteria in addition to the listed selection criteria. W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd �] / r V February 13, 2002 Page 3 361.426 of the Health and Safety Code to give preference to recycled materials. (Section 271.112(b)) A copy of Section 361.426 is enclosed. Engineer and Architect. Whenever an engineer or architect is required to be selected or utilized, the engineer or architect must be in-house or selected by demonstrated competence and qualifications in accordance with the Professional Services Procurement Act, found in 2254.004 of the Government Code. A copy of the Act is enclosed. Independent Testing. Whenever the City is required to provide independent testing, inspection or verification services necessary for acceptance of the facility, those services must be selected in accordance with the Professional Services Procurement Act. Charter Controls. A charter provision that requires the use of competitive bidding or competitive sealed proposals or that prescribes procurement procedures, controls over these methods, unless the City Council elects to have these procedures supercede the charter. (Section 271.112(a)) DESCRIPTION OF EACH METHOD Following is a description of each of the methods available to municipalities for awarding contracts for the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, or repair of a facility: 1. Competitive Bidding. (Section 271.115) • Key points: a. Similar to traditional competitive bidding b. The City may use the procedures in Chapter 252 or 271 of the Local Government Code. C. The City may not negotiate with the bidders. • The City need not make a determination on which method provides the best value. • If the procedures in Chapter 252 are followed, the contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The procedures in Chapter 271 allow more flexibility, and the contract may be awarded on the basis of best value. The procedures outlined here are those required by Chapter 271. • The City must publish notice seeking bids with selection criteria listed. • The City must award a competitively bid contract at the bid amount to the bidder offering the best value to the governmental entity according to the selection criteria that were established by the City and published in the notice. (Section 271.115(c)) • The bids may be opened only by the City Council at a public meeting or by an officer or employee of the municipality at or in an office of the City. (271.026) W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd February 13, 2002 Page 4 • A bid that has been opened may not be changed for the purpose of correcting an error in the bid price. (271.026) • A bidder has the right to withdraw a bid due to material mistake in the bid. (271.026(b)) • The City may not negotiate with bidders. • The City council may reject any or all bids. (271.027(a)) 2. Competitive Sealed Proposals. (Section 271.116) • Key points: a. The contractor is selected based on best value. b. Negotiations are permitted with the offerers in ranked order. C. Engineer and architects contracted separately. • The City Council or its designee must make a determination that this method provides the best value. • The City must publish notice seeking proposals. • The City must select or designate an engineer or architect to prepare construction documents for the project. (Section 271.116(b)) • The City is required to contract for the inspection services, the testing of construction materials engineering, and the verification testing services necessary for acceptance of the facility by the City. The entity or person providing these services must be identified in the request for proposals. (Section 271.116(c)) • The request for competitive sealed proposals must include the construction documents, selection criteria, estimated budget, project scope, schedule and other information that contractors may require to respond to the request. The proposals must contain the selection criteria that will be used in selecting the successful offerer as outlined above. (Section 271.116(d)) • The City is required to receive, publically open and read aloud the names of the offerers and if any are required to be stated, all prices stated in each proposal. (Section 271.116(e)) • Not later than the 45" day after the date of opening the proposals, the City must evaluate and rank each proposal submitted in relation to the published selection criteria. (Section 271.116(e)) • The City then selects the offerer that offers the best value to the City based on the published selection criteria. In determining best value, the City may consider any of the factors stated in the selection criteria, and is not limited to price alone. • After selecting the offerer that provides best value, the City must then negotiate a contract with the selected offerer. In negotiating the contract, the City and its engineer or architect may discuss options for a scope or time modification and any price change associated with the modification. If the City is unable to negotiate a contract with the first selected offerer, then the City must formally and in writing end negotiations and proceed to the next W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd r7ZJ_/-Y February 13, 2002 Page 5 offerer in order of the selection ranking until a contract is reached or all proposals are rejected. 3. Construction Manager -Agent Method. (Section 271.117) • Key points: a. Manager -agent manages the project for the City in a fiduciary capacity. b. The City retains control over procuring general, sub, and trade contractors. C. Engineer or architect are contracted separately. • The City must make a determination that this method provides the best value. • A construction manager -agent is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that provides consultation to the City regarding the construction, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of a facility. (Section 271.117(a)) • The City, by contract, may require the construction manager -agent to provide administrative personnel, equipment necessary to perform the duties under this method, and on-site management and other services specified underthe contract. (Section 271.117(a)) • A construction manager -agent represents the City in a fiduciary capacity. (Section 217.117(b)) This imposes a special legal duty on the construction manager -agent to act primarily for the City's benefit in matters connected with the construction of the facility. • Before, or concurrently with, selecting a construction manager -agent, the City must select or designate an engineer or architect to prepare the construction documents. The City's engineeror architect may not act as the construction manager -agent, unless the engineer or architect is selected in accordance with the procedures for selecting a construction manager -agent outlined herein. (Section 271.117(c)) • The City selects a construction manager -agent on the basis on demonstrated competence and qualifications in the same manner as provided for the selection of engineers or architects under the Professional Services Procurement Act, except that the notice must be published in the same manner as other methods, as outlined above. (Section 271.117(d)) • If the City uses this method, it must procure, "in accordance with applicable law" (which means competitively bid or competitive sealed proposals if required by law) a general contractor, trade contractor or subcontractors who will serve as the prime contractor for their specific portion of the work and, be supervised by the construction manager -agent. (Section 271.117(e)) • In accordance with the Professional Services Procurement Act, the City is required to procure all of the testing and inspection services necessary for acceptance of the facility by the City. (Section 271.117(f)) W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd February 13, 2002 Page 6 4. Construction Manager -at -Risk Method. (Section 271.118) • Key points: a. Manager assumes risk and controls more aspects of the project. b. The City and the manager -at -risk participate in competitive bidding contracts with subs. C. Engineer or architect contracted separately. d. The City may negotiate with ranked offerers. • The City must make a determination that this method provides the best value. • A construction manager -at -risk is a sole proprietorship, partnership, or other legal entity that assumes the risk for construction, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of a facility at the contracted price as a general contractor and provides consultation to the governmental entity regarding construction during and after the design of the facility. (Section 271.118(b)) • The City must designate an engineer or architect to prepare the construction documents. (Section 271.118(c)) • The City's engineer, architect or construction manager -agent for a project may not serve alone or in combination with another as the construction manager -at -risk unless that person or entity is hired to serve as the construction manager -at -risk under procedures in accordance with this section. • In accordance with the Professional Services Procurement Act, the City must provide for independent testing, and inspection services necessary for acceptance of the facility. • The City must select the construction manager -at -risk in either a one step or two step process: a. One step process. L The City must prepare a request for proposals that includes general information of the project site, project scope, schedule, selection criteria, estimated budget, and the time and place for receipt of proposals, and other information that may assist the City in its selection of a construction manager -at -risk. ii. Selection criteria is different from the general criteria for other methods and includes the offerer's experience, past performance, safety records, proposed personnel, and methodology and other appropriate factors that demonstrate the capability of the construction manager -at -risk. iii. The City may request as part of the offerer's proposal, proposed fees and prices for fulfilling the general conditions. b. Two step process. L The City prepares a request for qualifications including the same information required in the request for proposal in a one step process. ii. The City may not request fees or prices. W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd /� February 13, 2002 Page 7 iii. The City may request that five or fewer offerers selected solely on the basis of qualifications, provide additional information including the construction manager -at -risk proposed fee and its price for fulfilling the general conditions. iv. The time and place the second step bids or proposals will be received may be published at the same time the request for qualifications are published. • At each step, the City must receive and publically open and read aloud the names of the offerers and any fees and prices stated in the proposal. • Not later than the 45`h date after opening the proposals (or the fees and costs in a two step process), the City must evaluate and rank each proposal submitted in relation to the criteria as set forth in the request for proposals. • The City selects the offerer that submits the proposal that offers the best value based on the published criteria, then attempts to negotiate with the selected offerer. If a contract cannot be successfully negotiated, the City negotiates with the next ranked offerer. • The construction manager -at -risk must competitively bid and receive proposals from trade contractors or subcontractors. The construction manager -at -risk may perform portions of the work only if it participates in the competitive bidding process and is determined by the City to provide the best value for the City. • The manager -at -risk and the City review all trade contractor and subcontractor bids and the manager -at -risk may recommend to the City to accept a bid or proposal. The City makes the final determination as to which trade or subcontractor to pick based on the best value. However, if the City accepts a different bid or proposal from the one recommended by the manager -at -risk, the City may be required to compensate the manager -at - risk for changes in price, time or guaranteed maximum cost incurred because of the selection. • If a selected trade or subcontractor defaults in the performance, the manager -at -risk may, without advertising, fulfill the contract requirements itself or with a replacement contractor. • Must execute bonds. 5. Design -Build Method. (Section 271.119) Key points: a. One contractor designs and constructs the facility. b. The City may negotiate with ranked offerers. Determination of Best Value. The City must make a determination that the design -build method provides the best value to the City. Design -Build Contract. A design -build contract means a single contract with a design -build firm for the design and construction of a facility. (Section 271.111(3)) W:\Southiake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd 1-2 //7 9 February 13, 2002 Page 8 • Design -Build Firm. A design -build firm means a partnership, corporation or other legal entity that includes an engineer or architect and builder qualified to engage in building in Texas. (Section 271.111(4)) • Independent Architect or Engineer. The City must designate an engineer or architect independent of the design -build firm to act as its representative for the duration of the work on the facility. (Section 271.119(b)) • Request for Qualifications. The City must prepare a request for qualifications that includes general information on the project site, project scope, budget, special systems, selection criteria, and other information that may assist potential design -build firms in submitting proposals forthe project. (Section 271.119(c)) • Design -Criteria Package. The City must also prepare a design criteria package that includes more detailed information on the project. A design criteria package means a set of documents that provides sufficient information to permit a design -build firm to prepare a response to the request for qualifications and any additional information requested, including criteria for selection. It must specify criteria the City considers necessary to describe the project and may include, as appropriate, a legal description of the site, survey information concerning the site, interior space requirements, special material requirements, material quality standards, conceptual criteria for the project, special equipment requirements, cost or budget estimates, time schedules, etc. (Section 271.111(5)) • Publish Notice. The City must publish notice of the time and place the response to a request for qualifications will be received and opened as outlined above. • Phase I of Evaluation and Selection Process. (Section 271.119(d)(1)) a. The City must evaluate each offerer's experience, technical competence and capability to perform, past performance of the offerer's team and members of the team, and other appropriate factors submitted by the team or firm in response to the request for qualifications. b. Cost related or price related evaluation factors are not permitted and may not be considered. C. Each offerer must certify that each engineer and architect was selected in accordance with the Professional Services Procurement Act. d. The City may qualify a maximum of five offerers to submit additional information and, if the City chooses, to interview for final selection. • Phase 11 of Evaluation and Selection Process. (Section 271.119(d)(2)) a. The City evaluates the information submitted by the offerers on the basis of the selection criteria stated in the request for qualifications and the results of an interview. b. The City may request additional information regarding demonstrated competence, qualifications, considerations of the safety and long term durability of the project, the feasibility of implementing the project as W:\Southiake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd �� /" February 13, 2002 Page 9 proposed, the ability of the offerer to meet schedules, costing methodologies or other factors as appropriate. C. The City may not require the offerers to submit detailed engineering or architectural designs as part of the proposal. d. The City must rank the offerers and select the design -build firm that submits the proposal offering the best value to the City on the basis of the published selection criteria and its ranking evaluations. e. The City must negotiate with the offerers in the order they are ranked. If the City and offerer cannot successfully negotiate a contract, the City must end the negotiations in writing and proceed to the next ranked offerer until a contract is reached or all ranked offerers are rejected. Submission of Design Elements. The engineers or architects of the selected design -build firm will complete the design and submit all design elements to the City for review. Independent Testing. As in other methods, the City must provide for independent testing and verification services prior to acceptance of the facility. Completed Plans. The design build firm is required to supply a signed and sealed set of construction documents after completion of the project 6. Job Order Contracts for Facility Construction or Repair. (Section 271.120) • The City must make a determination that this method provides the best value. • Applies to contracts for minor construction, repair or alteration of a facility if the work is of a recurring nature, and delivery times are indefinite. • The City may establish contractual unit prices for a job order. • Awarded based on a sealed proposal method. • The contract may be for a fixed lump sum payment based on estimated quantities, or be a unit price order. • The contract may be renewable without advertising if the original publication states the term and any renewal options. I hope this has been helpful, please do not hesitate to call with any questions. EBE/tc/ke Very truly vours, W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd ! 1�— // February 13, 2002 Page 10 cc: Shana Yelverton City of Southlake 1400 Main Street Suite 460 Southlake, Texas 76092 W:\Southlake\LETTERS\Campbell.EBE.002.wpd 0 �, /;2— City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM TO: Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District Board of Directors FROM: Sharen Elam, Director of Finance SUBJECT: FY 2002-03 Budget Calendar The Local Government Code Section 363.204 permits the board of the District to develop and adopt procedures for adopting a budget different from the procedures outlined in the statute. During 1997, CD Resolution No. 97-3 was adopted to establish the rules for the adoption of the annual budget for the District. The rules are as follows: • The Board shall hold a public hearing on the proposed budget annual budget. Any resident of the district is entitled to be present and participate at the hearing. • The Board shall publish notice of the public hearing in a newspaper with general circulation in the district not later than the 10' day before the date of the hearing. • The draft of the proposed budget shall be made available for public inspection at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. • After the public hearing, the board may make any changes in the proposed budget. The board may adopt the budget immediately following the public hearing or at any time within 10 days following the public hearing. • The board must submit the budget to the City Council for consideration. The City Council may approve or reject the budget, but may not amend it. If the City Council rejects the budget, the City Council and the board shall meet and together amend and approve the budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. The FY 2002-03 budget calendar is attached for your review. B-1 Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District FY 2002-03 Budget Calendar Due Date Item Comments 7/7/02 Packet Day—CCD Board 7/10/02 CCD Board Meeting Discussion Item 7/17/02 Staff Budget Team Review 41 7/24/02 Staff Budget Team Review #2 7/26/02 Budget Available for Public 10 days prior to public Notice Appears in FWST hearing 8/2/02 Packet Day—CCD Board 8/7/02 CCD Board Meeting Public Hearing Consider Item 8/15/02 CM Budget Filed w/City Secretary 8/16/02 Deadline for Board Adoption within 10 days of Of FY 2002-03 CCD Budget public hearing 8/25/02 Budget Notice for CC Mtg. 10 days prior to Appears in FWST CC public hearing 8/30/02 Packet Day --City Council 9/3/02 City Council Meeting Public hearing Consider Item 9/13/02 Packet Day—City Council If needed 9/17/02 City Council Meeting If needed SOUTHLAKE CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION DISTRICT 1/2% SALES TAX REPORT 2001-02 Collected Budget Balance Budget to Date Balance Percent $ 2,214,268 $ 1,181,047 1,033,221 46.66% MONTH Fiscal Year 1999-00 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease Fiscal Year 2000-01 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease Fiscal Year 2001-02 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease October $137,412 9.75% $169,140 23.09% $199,217 17.78% November 134,564 45.68% 157,886 17.33% 192,022 21.62% December 123,346 20.54% 162,373 31.64% 190,845 17.53% January 160,790 18.56% 237,687 47.82% 281,020 18.23% February 133,181 34.89% 157,640 18.37% 159,364 1.09% March 122,112 27.40% 147,534 20.82% 158,580 7.49% April 167,030 21.31% 206,912 23.88% 12,235 -100.00% May 149,947 18.45% 185,555 23.75% - -100.00% June 149,028 23.05% 213,711 43.40% - -100.00% July 170,640 8.05% 223,490 30.97% - -100.00% August 153,942 27.19% 190,151 23.52% - -100.00% September 145,397 18.70% 180,172 23.92% - -100.00% September 180,172 178,720 TOTAL $1,747,389 - $2,232,251 $1,181,047 $2,232,251 $ 2,214,268 $ 1,181,047 $ 2,371,371 $ 157,103 6.23% Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget -est.) % 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Difference Change October $ 169,140 167,777 199,217 199,217 $ 31,440 18.59% November 157,886 156,614 192,022 192,022 35,407 22.43% December 162,373 161,065 190,845 190,845 29,780 18.34% January 237,687 235,772 281,020 281,020 45,248 19.04% February 157,640 156,370 159,364 159,364 2,994 1.90% March 147,534 146,345 158,580 158,580 12,235 8.29% April 206,912 205,245 - 205,245 - 0.00% May 185,555 184,060 - 184,060 - 0.00% June 213,711 211,990 - 211,990 - 0.00% July 223,490 221,690 - 221,690 - 0.00% August 190,151 188,619 - 188,619 - 0.00% September 180,172 178,720 - 178,720 - 0.00% $2,232,251 $ 2,214,268 $ 1,181,047 $ 2,371,371 $ 157,103 6.23% SOUTHLAKE CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION DISTRICT 1/2% SALES TAX REPORT 2001-02 Collected Budget Balance Budget to Date Balance Percent $ 2,214,268 $ 582,083 1,632,185 73.71% MONTH Fiscal Year 1999-00 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease Fiscal Year 2000-01 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease Fiscal Year 2001-02 Actual Percent Increase/ Decrease October $137,412 9.75% $169,140 23.09% $199,217 17.78% November 134,564 45.68% 157,886 17.33% 192,022 21.62% December 123,346 20.54% 162,373 31.64% 190,845 17.53% January 160,790 18.56% 237,687 47.82% 29,780 -100.00% February 133,181 34.89% 157,640 18.37% - -100.00% March 122,112 27.40% 147,534 20.82% - -100.00% April 167,030 21.31% 206,912 23.88% - -100.00% May 149,947 18.45% 185,555 23.75% - -100.00% June 149,028 23.05% 213,711 43.40% - -100.00% July 170,640 8.05% 223,490 30.97% - -100.00% August 153,942 27.19% 190,151 23.52% - -100.00% September 145,397 18.70% 180,172 23.92% - -100.00% September 180,172 178,720 TOTAL $1,747,389 - $2,232,251 $582,083 $2,232,251 $ 3.52% c� Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget -est.) % 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Difference Change October $ 169,140 167,777 199,217 199,217 $ 31,440 18.59% November 157,886 156,614 192,022 192,022 35,407 22.43% December 162,373 161,065 190,845 190,845 29,780 18.34% January 237,687 235,772 - 235,772 - 0.00% February 157,640 156,370 - 156,370 - 0.00% March 147,534 146,345 - 146,345 - 0.00% April 206,912 205,245 - 205,245 - 0.00% May 185,555 184,060 - 184,060 - 0.00% June 213,711 211,990 - 211,990 - 0.00% July 223,490 221,690 - 221,690 - 0.00% August 190,151 188,619 - 188,619 - 0.00% September 180,172 178,720 - 178,720 - 0.00% $2,232,251 $ 2,214,268 $ 582,083 $ 2,310,895 $ 96,627 3.52% c�