Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_11.30.2009 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc MINUTES GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, November 30, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas. Keith Brainard called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. Review and approve minutes from previous meeting – Danella Elliott The minutes from the November 23, 2009 GGAF meeting were approved. 2. Presentation and possible recommendation to approve a contract with OSSI Sungard Systems for replacement of current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) for Public Safety. Leticia Zavala, Patrick Hurley, and Micki Rundell, Patrick Hurley gave a presentation on the OSSI Sungard system. The City of Georgetown established the current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 1997, and although the City has kept up with all system upgrades, the advances in technology and changes in industry standards over the last 12 years have rendered these systems archaic, and in some cases, obsolete. Evaluation for replacement of the system began by looking at existing 9-1-1 vendors to see if they offered a fully integrated CAD/RMS system. None of the vendors offered a fully integrated solution, therefore, focus groups were conducted and business case needs were addressed to determine our overall needs. The field was narrowed to two possible candidates in OSSI and New World. Site visits were conducted and evaluated. Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross Members Absent: None Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Terry Jones, Tom Benz, Elizabeth Cook, Patrick Hurley, Leticia Zavala L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc Overall project cost is $1M and includes CAD/RMS software replacement with OSSI Sungard Systems of $890,000; 3rd party software and hardware purchases of $60,000; and contingency funding of $50,000. OSSI is the current software provider for the City of Round Rock and is a finalist with Williamson County to replace their existing CAD. The potential to have all of the law enforcement agencies in the County using the same software would be beneficial to the citizens. We would be able to share data, transfer calls between each agency quicker and be more efficient of dispatching between agencies. Dale asked if he was comfortable with a 5% contingency and Patrick replied that he wouldn’t mind having more. Dale Ross asked if this was truly integrated and Patrick assured him that it was. He noted that the useful life is 10 years. Micki added that we can use previous years’ excess cash reserves to pay for it. Dale suggested that we start setting aside funds for replacement in future years. Funds for this project are included in the 2009/10 budget. 3. Discussion on proposed revisions to the City's Planning and Development related fees. Elizabeth Cook Elizabeth Cook explained the proposed revisions to the Planning and Development related fees. Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 15.04.045 of the Code of Ordinances to update the development fees. In an effort to simplify the fee schedule it has been modified to incorporate all associated fees into one flat fee for each specific application. As an example, the rezoning application fee would include the notification, publication, and mapping fees together. The amended schedule would also add fees for new applications or processes where presently there is not a fee. For example, Special Exceptions are a new process adopted with the recent UDC amendments and voluntary annexations have not historically had a fee. The proposal would allow an applicant to combine the applications for site plan and construction plan review (with a fee less than the individual applications) and reduce fees for amendments to existing approvals that do not require a full review. Currently, the City’s fee structure off-sets some of the City’s expenses related to application processing and review; however, the existing fees do not represent the full cost nor has it been the City’s policy that they should. With the proposed fee revisions, minimal additional cost recovery has been factored into the calculations with some fees still highly subsidized by the general fund. For example, the Engineering and Inspection Fees are collected prior to issuing each individual building permit. However, the engineering review takes place prior to construction plan approval and infrastructure inspections take place during construction of these improvements. This staff work may be completed years before a building permit is issued. Another example of a fee subsidy is the Certificate of Design Compliance fees that are nominal and do not reflect the actual costs to process the applications. See Exhibit A for the proposed changes to the fee schedule that reflect the existing and proposed fees. A clean version of the fee schedule is included as Exhibit B. The last development related fee revision took place in 2007 and included changes regarding how the Traffic Impact Analysis fee was calculated; established and increased some of the GIS fees; and increased the base fee for final plats. In 2005, there was a fee added for Certificates of Design Compliance applications. During 2003 and 2004 there were some minor fee increases and new fees were established for application types that were either new with the UDC adoption or where there had been no fee charged in the past. It does not appear that there has been a comprehensive fee L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc review for several years. Dale Ross said that it would be a good process to review and evaluate fees every 2-3 years. He also asked Elizabeth to provide a model showing what the increase/decrease in revenue would be if approved. The committee would like it to coincide with the water rate review every 3 years. UPDATE On September 28, 2009, staff presented the proposed fee increase to the GGAF Subcommittee. During the discussion staff was asked to come back with a description of the expenses associated with voluntary annexation applications, which currently do not have a fee. Following are the estimated fees associated with a voluntary annexation application: Voluntary Annexation – proposed fee $1,000 Estimated City costs: GIS $ 250 Planning $ 600 Advertising $ 575 Total estimated costs $1425 The Planning and Development Department revenue will be minimally impacted as the revised fees are collected. There should be a small increase related to collecting fees for those applications that do not have fees, although some applications have reduced fees for revisions where before revisions may have resulted in full fees being assessed. The committee also wanted Elizabeth to add that GGAF didn’t feel the need for a cap and doesn’t support the cap in the recommendations to Council. The committee thanked Elizabeth for the presentation and information. 4. Overview and discussion of the City’s selection process for certain professional services, including architects and engineers. Terry Jones and Tom Benz Terry Jones explained that the City Council requested that staff develop a process for the selection of Architectural/Engineering services that would include the utilization of a combination of staff, Councilmembers Board Members, and Georgetown citizens. Separate processes for the two types of services have been developed since both disciplines have unique differences in the number of projects initiated annually and the different types of engineering services required. Dale asked why not throw out the highest/lowest score to do away with a significant variance. Dale and Keith have concerns with Council members on the selection committee to award monetary contracts. Patty noted the process followed each time she had been on the selection committee has been the same except for adding a person from the Boards and Commissions, and has always worked well. She thinks that as long as Council agrees to accept the decision and not second-guess it, then it is done professionally and is okay with the process. Dale thinks that there should be full disclosure and transparency to know the names of individual scorers. Patty feels that it is a fair process and companies bid again and again, so they haven’t felt there has been inappropriate or unfair activity. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc Patty noted that adding a Boards and Commissions member is new, as well as putting the sentence about “projects greater than $2M will follow this procedure for architectural services selection” in writing. Keith said that the perception of a fair and open process is the goal. GGAF doesn’t feel that they need to see this again before going to Council. At the request of GGAF and Council members, the following is what Terry will take to Council on Tuesday with their suggestions/changes included. Architectural Services Selection Process  Identify architects to be solicited including local architects, those requesting the solicitation, and those who have had successful past projects with the City.  The RFQ’s will be evaluated by a selection committee of no less than five (5) people consisting of at least one (1) members from Facilities Construction Department; one (1) member from the using department; one (1) other staff member from a neutral department; and two (2) members at large (selected by the Council). The members at large would be chosen from an existing City Board or Commission and have relevant background or experience with the related project.  The evaluation process will consist of an evaluation completed by each team member for each RFQ submitted. These evaluations will use established criteria to determine the experience/qualification level of a firm in designing a specific type of facility. (See attached evaluation criteria)  The RFQ’s will be ranked by score. The top three to five firms will then be interviewed by the selection team.  The interviewed firms are then scored using pre-selected questions that will help determine the best firm for the project. The scores are tabulated with the highest and lowest interview scores being thrown out. The firm with the highest combined score is submitted to the GGAF Advisory Board and City Council for final approval. **Projects greater than $2 million of construction value will follow this procedure for architectural services selection. **Projects less than $2 million will follow the same process except that interviews may or may not be conducted. The selection committee will remain the same for both levels of projects and will be selected by City staff. Architectural Services Evaluation Sheet Experience of architect team12 pts. Possess professional license2 pts. Experience designing Court 20 pts. facilities Work completed locally15 pts. Project affiliations2 pts. Credentials of local consultant5 pts. personnel Local familiarity4 pts. Present workload5 pts. Cost/budget adherence on 10 pts. past projects Schedule adherence on past10 pts. projects Evidence of design excellence10 pts. Number of professionals and 5 pts other staff assigned to project L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc Tom Benz explained the procedure for the Georgetown Utility Systems Selection of Professional Engineering Services. Current Process 1. A request for Engineering Services by Customer department is provided to Systems Engineering. 2. Systems Engineering evaluates and develops the preliminary Scope of Work statement, coordinating with the Requestor and/or the Customer. The request can be for one of many different projects, a planned capital improvement, planned maintenance, regulatory compliance, meeting operational demands, or other separate reasons. 3. Based on the preliminary scope of work, we evaluate the qualifications of the Consultant Engineers that currently have Masters Services Agreements executed with the City. It is the initial intent to assign the project to a firm currently on this list of qualified engineers. The Consultant Engineer selection is performed by following city staff: the Systems Engineering Director, the representative project manager(s), and the representative engineer(s) of the Customer department. If it is determine that we have no firms qualified to perform the scope of work, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is prepared and advertised in accordance to city and state rules. Some of the critical projects require a much more specific qualification statement. We will require the potential firm to outline their approach to the project, the project team, and the schedule. Ultimately, the selection group will make every attempt to select the best qualified firm for the project through thorough evaluations of the qualification statements, provided by each firm. 4. Once the group makes a selection, that consultant engineer is notified and asked to develop scope of work and schedule specific to it project, in coordination with the city’s representative project manager and customer department. 5. The Systems Engineering Director and the project manager determine the appropriate contract terms and enter into negations with the consultant engineer. If both parties cannot come to agreement on costs negotiations seize with this firm and the next qualified firm is approached. 6. Contract is finalized by both parties and the contract moved forward to approval. 7. City actions are detailed below:  If the consultant services contract fee is less than $15,000 the agreement is signed and executed by authorized city staff and work begins.  If the consultant services contract fee is between $15,000 and $50,000 then the contract is presented to the city council for approval.  If the consultant services contract fee is greater than $50,000 the contract goes first to the appropriate advisory board for recommendation to take to council. The item is then presented to the city council for approval. 8. Upon completion of the scope and schedule the project costs are refined by the consultant and provided to the city’s representative project manager for review and approval. Proposed modification to the Engineering Selection Process Once a year have a general RFQ to create a lists of firms to be used on future planned capital improvement, maintenance, regulatory, operational, or others projects. General Engineering Services Selection Process  Identify engineers firms to be solicited using the purchasing lists.  The RFQ’s will be evaluated by a selection committee of no less than eight people consisting of at least two (2) members from Systems Engineering; one (1) member from the using departments (Transportation, Energy, Water, and Facilities), and one GUS Board member and one GTAB Board Member. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\11.30.09\Minutes11.30.09.doc  The evaluation process will consist of an evaluation completed by each team member for each RFQ submitted. These evaluations will have preselected questions that will determine the experience/qualification level of the firms for the general scope of work. The team will select firms for transportation, structural, drainage, telecommunications, SCADA, pipe lines (water, wastewater, drainage, etc.), water and wastewater treatment, streets maintenance, electric distribution, substation, surveying, construction material testing, geotechnical, environmental, and utility master planning.  In the process the references will be check for each firm.  The RFQ’s will be ranked by score. The committee will decide if interviews are needed.  Approximately 20 firms will then be selected by the team to be used on upcoming fiscal year Transportation, Drainage, Energy, and Water projects.  The firm with the highest scores will be submitted to the GTAB, GUS, and City Council for final approval.  The current process above will be used for project specific task orders The committee thanked Terry and Tom for their information. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.