Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-1/8/2004 citY Of Ie Texas PUBLIC NOTICE COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA JANUARY 8, 2004 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL 100 MAIN STREET EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM I. Call to Order II. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution R-04-2294- Approval of a contract for the purchase and installation of fixed seating in the Colleyville City Hall, in the amount of $45,023.04 III. Discussion of Capital Financing Options Jim Sabonis, Financial Advisor, First Southwest Company IV. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Ranking V. Summary and Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process VI. Adjournment I certify that the above notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall on Wednesday, December 31,2003, at 5:00 p.m. Cy thia Singleton, ~~ City Secretary 100 MAIN STREET COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 503-1000 CITY OF COLLEYVILLE CIP WORKSESSION JANUARY 8, 2004 Based on your input, this worksheet will rank the CIP projects in this category. Please rank each project in the group by placing numbers 1 through 11 next to the projects listed below. No number can be listed twice. (1 is the highest priority; 11 is the lowest priority) RANK PARKS & RECREATION McPherson Park (all phases) Senior Center Park Land Purchase Pleasant Run Park Phase 2 Recreation Center Sneed Park New Tennis Courts ADA improvements for Parks Bogart-Pleasant Run/GCISD Development Cottonbelt Trail Phase 3 Little Bear Creek Trail CITY OF COLLEYVILLE CIP WORKSESSION JANUARY 8,2004 PARKS & RECREATION McPherson Park (all phases) Senior Center Park Land Purchase Pleasant Run Park Phase 2 Recreation Center Sneed Park New Tennis Courts ADA improvements for Parks Bogart-Pleasant Run/GCISD Development Cottonbelt Trail Phase 3 Little Bear Creek Trail Average Rank 4.17 2.67 8.17 4.17 6.50 1.83 7.00 8.67 6.33 6.50 10.00 3 2 7 3 5 1 6 8 4 5 9 CITY COUNCIL ccem", AGENDA BRIEFING 'rCXi\$ MEETING DATE: I 01/08/04 ! ITEM # : i II RESOLUTION #: I R-04-2294 CITY MANAGER I ; DEPARTMENT HEAD! FINANCE REVIEW I I DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT : Approval of a contract for the purchase and installation of fixed seating in the Colleyville City Hall in the amount of $45,023.04 Previous Action: None Reading and Public Hearing Brinkley Sargent Architects and F&S Partners assisted the City by creating a request for bid for the City Hall and Library furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), which included fixed seating for the City Hall Council Chambers. The bid for the fixed seating was awarded to Intelligent Interiors. JG is the name of the company that was manufacturing the seats. On October 15, 2003, staff received notification from F&S Partners that stated that JG would not fulfill the order to provide fixed seating for the City Hall. The documentation stated that JG was in the process of being sold to another company and cancelled the City's order. On December 3, staff sent notification to Intelligent Interiors that the City would obtain fixed seating elsewhere. The State of Texas recently gave state agencies and local governments the opportunity to use some General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedules. Federal supply schedules are contracts that have been awarded by the federal government using competitive procurement procedures. Through the Texas Multiple Award Schedule (TXMAS) program, state agencies and certain local governments can use certain federal contracts. TXMAS contract #3-71111010 is with American Seating Company and covers fixed seating. Staff contacted representatives from American Seating to determine a seat style and fabric comparable to the one specified in the original bid document. The TXMAS contract has been approved by the Federal government and approved by the State government for use by state agencies and local governments. The contract has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Financiallmoact The cost for the purchase and installation of the fixed seating through the TXMAS contract is $45,023.04. The original contract amount approved with Intelligent Interiors was $38,385.45. Agenda Briefing Resolution R-04-2294 Page 2 The cost difference ($6,637.45) will be funded from the current City Hall and Library construction budget. The City Attorney will work towards recovering this cost from Intelligent Interiors. Recommendation Approval Attachments . Resolution R-04-2294 RESOLUTION R-04-2294 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF FIXED SEATING IN THE COLLEYVILLE CITY HALL IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,023.04 WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville wishes to contract for the purchase and installation of fixed seating for the City Hall City Council Chamber; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville wishes to utilize the Texas Multiple Award Schedule contract for fixed seating. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT a contract for the purchase and installation of fixed seating in the Colleyville City Hall in the amount of $45,023.04 with American Seating through the TXMAS contract, is hereby approved. AS IT IS SO RESOLVED. PASSED BY A VOTE OF AYES, THIS THE DAY OF NAYS AND 2004. ABSTENTIONS ON ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Cynthia Singleton, TRMC City Secretary Joe Hocutt Mayor ~ MEMORANDUM Office of City Manager TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Bill Lindley CIP Worksession December 29,2003 I am looking forward to your meeting on January 8, 2004 for you to begin selecting projects for the proposed CIP. I appreciate the long hours of input you have already provided for this important project. Reflecting back to the discussion during your summer goal setting worksession, I recall this receiving some of the most discussion as a goal for this year. During previous meetings, you have identified possible projects and related construction costs. Additionally, you have met and discussed with the Finance Advisor and Finance Director available funding sources for capital projects. The discussion and questions have been thorough and staff is excited about your commitment in moving forward to begin selecting projects. As we discussed at your last meeting, hopefully this will become an annual (or at least bi-annual process). That being the case, this will allow the CIP to become a "living" document that may be adjusted year to year. As such, just because a project does not make it in an initial five year period does not mean it cannot be added the next year. In preparation for next Thursday's meeting it may be helpful for me to offer some ideas on the format of the meeting. Beginning the meeting will be an update by Jim Sabonis in response to questions you raised at the last meeting related to projecting possible debt sales. Following this, it will be helpful for you to provide a "level of magnitude" of the total amount of debt you consider acceptable for the next five years. This will offer a benchmark later for your discussion in terms of qualifying which projects to initially proceed with over the next five years. During the last meeting you did a great job in ranking the various projects within each category. Park related projects though were only selected with no ranking. A listing of the project ranking results was provided to you later that week. To help in next week's overall selection process, I suggest that you take a few minutes to rank the park projects for later comparison to the other project categories. Attached to this memo is a spreadsheet that shows each CIP project and its ranking relative to other projects. You will notice that in the left most column (labeled "Rank") there are two number 1 rankings. The reason is because two projects tied for first place in the "Streets - Subdivisions" category and "Streets - Reconstruction" category, respectively. Below the first table is a table that shows Parks projects that were discussed at the last meeting, but were not ranked. For the next step, to ease your overall ranking process, I suggest that you initially start with the top two ran kings in each category. Depending on the "level of magnitude" though of your total bond package, this may be adjusted. We will want to make sure that the listed projects are the consensus with the group. An example would be if three of you decide to move a project up or down in its ranking in comparison to projects in other categories, we would then make that adjustment to the project listing. Following your initial project ranking, we will then take you through an exercise using a paired comparison process that provides the opportunity for you to "force rank" one project against another. The result will be that you will easily then compile a list of projects relative to each other, which will assist in determining in the year that each CIP project would be initiated. The ranking process to be utilized is the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) process developed by Battelle Laboratories about 20 years ago. Staff uses this in our budget building process each year to compare requested budget items, including personnel, equipment and new programs and services. Although this process may seem cumbersome and slow, it works well to assist in comparing and evaluating each project to meet the overall needs of the City. It is important to remember that any process in selecting CIP projects is not a process of designating a superiority of one project to another. All you are doing is stating that within limited financial constraints, certain projects should be started before other projects. Year to year, projects will be added that did not have previous funding available. Also at the follow-up meeting, staff will have an opportunity to arrange each project within the identified year - with corresponding funding (debt or cash). In doing this, we will break a project down into acquisition, design and construction cost components. This allows us to then "bridge" a project over a couple of years allowing greater flexibility in moving projects along. As an example, let's say you set a benchmark for a total CIP funding of $25,000,000 over five years (yielding approximately $5,000,000 of debt issued per year). Using an example of $1,000,000 project, you may have only $250,000 in design costs for year one and the remaining $750,000 spent equally over the next two years. This then allows you to push other projects up and still meet the annual funding commitment of $5,000,000. The last meeting will allow you to review the annual project placement and also suggested funding opportunities of each project. Some of the available cash for parks projects will require a recommendation by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Subsequent to all of this, I will arrange for your consideration of a Resolution approving the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The last item for discussion next Thursday will be input and direction on how to proceed. As an example, you may consider conducting a public hearing on the projects you selected to proceed with or meet back with your advisory boards for any input. Additionally, you will want to give direction when to schedule a bond election (previous indications are for a May date). Please give me a call prior to the meeting if you have any questions or an idea on how to make the meeting more productive. Again, staff looks forward to your beginning to select projects to consider over the next five years. Attachment . Capital Improvement Program Ranking Summary . City Manager Memorandum, dated December 4, 2003 ---- McPherson Park-Iall phases) $3 223,569 Senior Center $3,400 000 Park Land Purchase $5745,000 Pleasant Run Park Phase 2 $1,571 646 Recreation Center $13,500,000 Sneed Park $362 000 New Tennis Courts $70,000 ADA imnrovements for Parks $90,000 Boqart-Pleasant Run/GCISD Develonment TBD Cottonbelt Trail Phase 3 $926,488 Little Bear Creek Trail $1 443538 Unranked Parks & Recreation Projects Cost CITY OF COLLEYVILLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECTS TABLE 1: RANKED CIP PROJECTS Rank Streets - Subdivisions Cost 1 Saddlebrook Estates 1 Tara Plantation 2 Woodbriar West 3 Windview Estates 3 Woodland Hills TABLE 2: UNRANKED PARKS CIP PROJECTS Reconstruction $6.806,042 $5.312,874 $1,279,855 $1,293.341 $1.642,641 }2,911,341 Equipment Cos ~ MEMORANDUM Office of City Manager TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Bill Lindley CIP projects December 4, 2003 Congratulations on a very good meeting this week in addressing a number of capital needs for the City. You are well on your way in meeting one of the main work initiatives for this year. Judy is arranging for a follow-up meeting for you in the next few weeks to finalize a list. The initial portion of the worksession addressed a review of capital project financing. My impression from the Council is that your desire is to proceed with an election based on project selection from the City Council. A possible bond election was concluded to be most likely held in May. Staff will assemble a bond election calendar for future presentation for Council. Additionally, staff will discuss with both the City Attorney and the City Bond Counsel appropriate ballot language to address the seven percent cap affecting tax rate increases. There was general discussion regarding the last capital program and time required to implement it caused by limitations of the City Charter. If it is your desire, it will be important that appropriate bond language be provided allowing the voter to approve not only the project but recognition of approving the Council to exceed the seven percent cap provided in the Charter. This Charter provision has an impact both on long term debt financing and annual budget development. The Financial Advisor offered that the Council may consider utilizing cash balance of the utility fund for tax related debt financing. Under this approach, the Utility Fund would actually secure General Fund related debt. With M+ bond rating, the interest costs paid by tax supported funds would yield additional interest earnings to the Utility Fund. While seeing this as an innovative financing option, I suggested that the Council take a "long look" at this from a conservative financing philosophy. While there was some Council directed modification, the overall approach used to select projects was to first look at projects within specific project categories. Once these projects were ranked, the Council agreed to then begin comparing projects against other categories of projects. This approach will lead to a "forced ranked" process. The following is a summary of the projects as you ranked them during your CIP discussion. Facilities Following general discussion, you opted to consider a Senior Center as part of parks considerations. Any interim modifications for the former City Hall were considered minor enough to be funded from Fund Balance. Additionally you concluded that a new Service Center discussion could be put off for a year or more. As a result, a new Central Fire Station was concluded to be an important project for continued consideration. Parks There was varied discussion on projects and sources of funding. The conclusion was to not focus initially on funding options but at this stage identify projects. There was consensus to proceed with the following projects (in no particular order) for further consideration: . Cotton belt Trail Phase 3 . Little Bear Creek Trail . McPherson Park (all phases) . Park Land acquisition . Pleasant Run Park Phase 2 . Sneed Park . Tennis Courts . ADA improvements for parks . Recreation Center · Bogart-Pleasant Run/GCISD development (new project) Streets The Council opted to rank each of the projects with a ranking sheet provided by staff. Staff is arranging a meeting with the SH26 Advisory Committee to further discuss their input on related funding for SH26. The following is result of the ranking of all projects. Council will need to consider a break point for the top projects for further consideration. Project Score Ranking Subdivisions Saddlebrook Estates 1.80 1 Tara Plantation 1.80 1 Woodbriar West 3.00 2 Windview Estates 4.60 3 Woodland Hills 4.60 3 Oak Knoll Addition 5.20 6 Reconstruction Overlay (Option A) 3.60 1 Glade Road 3.80 2 John McCain 4.00 3 Overlay (Option B) 4.60 4 Cheek Sparger 4.80 5 McDonwell 5.40 6 Westcoat 5.40 6 West Glade 6.60 7 L. D. Lockett 6.80 8 Equipment The following is result of the ranking of the equipment that was included in the CIP notebook. Project Score Ranking Mobile AED Units 1.60 1 19 Fire Handheld 2.60 2 Radios Outdoor Warning 3.20 3 System Police Handheld Radios 3.60 4 Police MDT Update 4.00 5 Sidewalks/Miscellaneous The following is result of the ranking of the sidewalk projects and the Saddlebrook Retaining Wall. Pro'ect Score Rankin Thompson Terrace - 2.00 1 Bransford Elementa Thompson Terrace- 2.20 2 Colle ille Elementa Pleasant Run 2.60 3 Thompson Terrace - All 4.00 4 remainin sidewalks Saddlebrook Retaining 4.20 5 Wall Utilities Staff discussed that it appeared that the City could initiate each of the utility projects over a five year period without any further planned rate adjustments. This would be achieved by utilizing existing cash balances and restructuring existing debt. Council directed staff to proceed with further evaluation of all projects. Drainaqe Staff advised that any drainage related funding would require tax debt since the drainage fund is at its debt capacity. The Council opted to defer project selection of drainage projects to a future date.