1 briefing agenda december 19, 2000 ... · 1 dallas county commissioners court briefing agenda...

1

DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURTBRIEFING AGENDA

DECEMBER 19, 2000

REPORTSIRECOMMENDATIONSIREQUESTS PAGE NOS.

1) FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Relocation of SeT Computer Storage 3.iid Staging fromSixth Floor Records Building to basement George L.Allen Sr., Courts Building 4-8

2) ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT

a) Air-conditioning Upgrade at Bill Decker Facility - Cabana Area ..... 9-10

b) Credit Union Request to Close Old Criminal Courts Locationand Replace with Space at George Allen Courts Building 11-17

Insert

3) MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Outsourcing Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19

4) OPERATIONS

a) Grant Application for Old Red Courthouse Architectural Work ..... 20-48

b) Downtown Signage and Way-Finding Plan 49-68

5) PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

a) Contract Extension - Annual Contract for the Purchase of ScientificLaboratory Supplies and Products, Bid No. 99-245-183 69

2

b) Contract Extension - Request for Proposals to Provide Counselingand Treatment Services for the District Attorney Family ViolenceDivision, RFP No. 2000-016-210 70

c) Contract Extension -Annual Contract for the Purchase andInstallation of Office Furniture, Bid No. 2000-017-211 71

d) Contract Extension - Annual Contract for AmbulanceServices, Bid No. 2000-022-222 72

e) Contract Extension - Contract for Purchase and Printing ofOptical Scan Paper Ballots; Bid No. 98-323 73

f) Dallas County Auction Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-75

g) Request for Proposal for an Fully Integrated Personal ComputerNetwork Based Document Imaging System for the Dallas CountySheriff's Department, RFP No. 99-218-133 76-90

h) Purchase of Passenger Vehicles, Bid No. 2001-026-708 91

6) DATA SERVICES/SCT

FY2001 Replacement Requests 92-96

7) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

a) Work Order No.3 - Clark Road, Project No. CP04-30,31, 32IDQ Contract - Surveying/Preliminary Design Investigation 97-104

b) Resale of Tax Foreclosed Properties via Sealed BidRequest for Bid No. 2001-029-716 (Sale No. 12) 105-107

8) PERSONNEL/CIVIL SERVICE

a) Renewal of Health Benefit Contracts 108-116

b) Amendment to Extend LifeRe Insurance CompanyService Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117-120

c) Extension Addendum to Agreement with North TexasHealthcare Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121-123

3

d) Cooperative Use Agreement between the Dallas Federal EmployeeChild Care Corporation, Dallas County, and the GeneralServices Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-126

e) CountyChoice Silver Retiree Medical Program 127

f) Extension of Contract with Hay Consulting Group 128

g) Election of Exemption for Self-Funded Health InsurancePrograms 129-131

(COURT ORDER ON FORMAL AGENDA)

9) Finance Phase III (Payroll) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

10) Dallas County & Dallas County Hospital DistrictFY2001 Budget Issues and Hearings N/A

11) Contract with TDJC to Hold State Inmates N/A

12) Jail Health N/A

13) Miscellaneous, Travel Requests, Miscellaneous Equipment,and Telecommunications Requests 132-135

14) Performance Forum at 2:00 p.m•.............................. Handout

FIVE SIGNATURE DOCUMENT's) FOR CONSIDERATION

Minister's Letter of Appreciation

DATE,s) TO REMEMBER

**Next Legislative Briefing - December 22,2000 @ 9:00 a.m. - Commissioners Courtroom

Thursday, December 21It - 11 a.m. until 1 p.m.Commissioner Jim JacksonRoad & Bridge, District 1 - Seventeenth Annual Christmas Fish Fry2311 Joe Field Road

R.S.V.P. (972) 247-1735 Christmas HolidaysMonday and TuesdayDecember 25th and 26th

NO COURT THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 25th- 29th

4

December 18,2000

DALLAS COUNTYFacilities Management

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Commissioners Court

Space Utilization Committee ~Ed Bailey, Facility/Space Planner~ &W

Relocation of SCT Computer Storage and StagingFrom Sixth Floor Records BuildingTo Basement George Allen Courts Building

'::::::::> "

aaf"'I1n

w--. ,-.,

-0 --.- r-:::x.~ r) ~_-:

~ (;--1

c.n ~-<......,-1

BACKGROUND:SCT is currently utilizing space on the sixth floor of the Records Building to receive, stor~ and prepcomputer equipment. Now that the Supply Department has been outsourced, space has becomeavailable in the basement of the George Allen Courts Building that is more suitable for storage.

The purpose of this correspondence is to present this issue to the Commissioners Court whichincludes a recommendation by the Space Utilization Committee.

IMPACT/OPERATIONIFINANCIAL:As indicated, SCT receives, stores and performs some prep work for computers on the sixth floor

of the Records Building in approximately 1,624 square feet of space. Now that the SupplyDepartment has been outsourced, there is approximately 3,600 square feet of space (where supplieswere stored) that can be used for other storage purposes. In order to free up valuable office spacein the Records Building it is proposed that the SCT computer receiving, storing and prep operationbe relocated to the basement of the George Allen Courts Building.

This will free up the space on the sixth floor which can be used for other County purposes such asspace for the Civil Courts Computer System Project, T~ainingiConference space or Departmentalexpansions.

SCT has agreed to this arrangement and has requested minor modifications which will be performed·by Facilities Management. C Furnishings for two offices can be supplied from surplus. There will becost of approximately $900 for the move of the stored computer equipment and $500 for theinstallation oftelephone and data cabling. A total of $1,400.

600 Commerce, 9th FloorGeorge L. Allen Sr., Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202

(214) 653-7175Fax (214) 653-6822

5

RECOMMENDATION:The Space Utilization Committee recommends that the vacant space in the basement of the GeorgeAllen Courts be assigned to SCT for their computer receiving, storing and prep operation

Attached please find floor plans.

~- (~Approved by: L ~',- :=t -=''--'' c:1

Dan Savage, Assislint Administrator for Operations

EB/eb/JBY7

xc: John Nero, SCT Account ExecutiveChris Cox, Service Delivery ManagerJohn Hennesy, MIS Director

, .

!

-0

o

o

II

o I

6

GEORGE ALLEN BUILDING BASEMENT 7,

x

T

x

E

xE

E

T xxAustin'sOffice

xE

r-··I•i..------------!

Staging!Areal

(TableS)1r

I

Remgyewire sections

ENTRANCEDOOR

xTEE Angi'sOffice E

Remoye

wire sectionsBookcase Bookcase

Door to besecured

Rack I Rack T Rack I Rack I Rack I Rack I RackI I I I I I

-----4-----~-----~ ~ L J _Rack I

•-----.Rack "

I------Door to besecured--RaCk-l Bookcase

~---- .....Rack I

•~ ..J

Items To B. Dgn.Entrance Door needs to have a double lock entry (card access & deadbolt).Carpet installed In the offices.Network drops installed where x is marked.Telephone cables Installed where T is marked.Electrical outlets Installed where E is marke~S.

Offices need a dead bolt lock on the doors.Othe'r doors needs to be secured so that there is no entrance. Dead bolt from inside.Remove wire sections.Keep racks that are In the room for us to use.Relocate equipment from 6th floor Records Building to the George Allen Basemenl A moving company would

be preferred for Insurance purposes. If an Item Is damaged during the relocation, the company is responsible.

-10-

- "! f'l. I •

" '! I ~ 14

... ' ,.; l ~' i \

9

DALLAS COUNTYENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGO:~1J 2 PM 2: 30

December 19, 2000

To:

From:

Through:

Subject:

Commissioners Court

Abbas A. Kaka P.E., Project Engineer(\ ..

Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations LJ ::::s--

Air-conditioning Upgrade at Bill Decker Facility - Cabana Area

BACKGROUND: The Dupont Plaza hotd facility was purchased by Dallas County in 1986 andconverted to jail facility. The air-conditioning renovation in the tower floors were completed in1996. The two story Cabana area has approximately 40 rooms and is operated by 'WaybackHouse'. The existing AlC system has no outside air and has inadequate cooling capacity for therooms with 6-8 people per room occupancy. The fan-coil units in the rooms are incapable ofproviding adequate coolinglheating and ventilation per code.

In accordance with the recently awarded contract for an 'Indefinite Delivery Contract' to VidaudAssociates, we have requested that they provide a proposal for HVAC upgrade for the Cabanaarea including bathroom ventilation. They have provided an acceptable proposal dated Dec. 11,2000.

IMPACT/OPERATIONS: This project will correct the deficiencies in Heating Ventilation andAir Conditioning system in the Cabana area.

LEGAL: This contract will be awarded in accordance with all legal requirements.

MlWBE INFORMATION: Vidaud Associates is a minority ftml.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed fee for the consulting services is $33,574.00 for thiswork. Total funds for this project were appropriated in the amount of $250,000.00 in the FY2001 Pennanent Improvements (126.2001).

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commissioners Court approve Work OrderNo.3 to be issued to Vidaud + Associates, Inc. for the fees in the amount of $33,574.00 and theCounty Judge be authorized to execute the appropriate contract documents.

AWltUlru·strator for Operations

George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building600 Commerce St., 9th Floor, Suite 900

I~J}V

:/

Dallas, Texas 75202-6633e-mail: [email protected]

Tel: 214-653-6242Fax: 214-653-6729

10II

INDEFINITE QUANTITY ARCHITECTUALIENGINEERING CONTRACT \VIDAUD + ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED

WORK ORDER NO. 2 (VAl Project No. 200017.003)

Bill Decker Building - Cabana Area HVAC Upgrade

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED:

DATE: January 2, 2001

The firm shall prepare a design development for review after investigation at the site. The project will include theupgrade of the existing HVAC system. This will include an air conditioning system for the cabana area including fresh airrequirements per code. Plans and specifications are to be prepared to allow the County to advertise for competitive bids.

WORK ORDER $ 33,574.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTIOrr BUDGET: $ 216,426.00

FUNDING INFORMATION: 00126.0.0.2001

January 5, 2001January 26, 2001February 14,2001February 28, 2001

AlE DESIGN SCHEDULEBEGIN WORKDesign Development Review70% Construction Documents100% Construction Documents

FEE BASIS:...x. LUMP SUM AS DETAILED

NOT-TO-EXCEED HOURLY CONTRACTHOURLY CONTRACT

DETAIL:Design DevelopmentConstruction Documents 700/0Construction Documents 100%Construction AdministrationReimbursable Allowance

TOTAL

$ 9,280$ 7,628$ 8,636$ 6,640$ 1,390$33,574

GENERAL PROVISIONS:Terms and conditions of contract between Dallas County and Vidaud + Associates Incorporated, approved by Court Order No. 20001157, June 6, 2000, remain in effect, but are modified by the addition of this Work Order. This Work Order incorporates, byreference, Vidaud + Associates Incorporated proposal for Work Order No.3, dated December 11,2000.

Lee F. Jackson, County JudgeDALLAS COUNTY

Russell E. Himes, CFOVIDAUD + ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED

11

Dallas CountyEngineering & Project Management

December 19, 2000

w

-0::Ii:

'>?c.n c':-<-.J

Commissioners Court

Space Utilization CommitteeEd Bailey, Facility/SpacePlanne~

SUBJECT: Credit Union Request to Close Old Criminal Courts Location andReplace With Space at George Allen Courts Building

FROM:

TO:

BACKGROUND:The Dallas County Employees Credit Union currently leases space from Dallas County in three (3)locations. These locations are the Old Criminal Courts Building (626 s",.tl.), Frank Crowley CourtsBuilding (470 sq.ft.) and Health and Human Services (3,543 sq.ft.). The leases are due to expire onApril 22, 2001. Before renewal of the leases, the Credit Union has requested that a reallocation ofspace at the downtown location be considered.

The purpose ofthis correspondence is to present to the Commissioners Court the Space UtilizationsCommittee recommendation regarding this request.

IMPACT/OPERATION:The Dallas County Employees Credit Union has submitted correspondence indicating that at this timeit is their intent to maintain staffed locations at the Frank: Crowley Courts and the Health and HumanServices Buildings. However, they intend to close the office currently located in the Old CriminalCourts Building and request to replace it with an electronic remote banking center. The Credit Unionwould like to locate this remote banking center in the lobby of the George Allen Courts Building(approximately 200 sq.ft). Specifically, the area that was once used by the Passport Photographoperator.

The remote banking center kiosk will include a touch screen computer allowing members to conducttransactions on their account as well as apply for a loan and open new accounts. It will also containa check cashing ATM machine which will allow members to deposit funds, withdraw cash and cashchecks to the penny.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:The Credit Union currently pays $4.15 per square foot for the space in the Old Criminal CourtsBuilding, ($2,597 annually). Should this same rate be applied to the requested space in the GeorgeAllen Courts Building, the annual rental will be $830. A difference of$I,747.

Any renovation or modification cost ( telephone lines ,additional electrical, signage) will be paid bythe Credit Union.

George L Allen Sr. Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202 214/653-6728 Fax 214/653-6729

12

RECOMMENDATION:The Space Utilization Committee recommends the approval of the Credit Union's request for theassignment of space in the George Allen Courts Building and the return of space in the Old CriminalCourts Building as briefed. New leases will be negotiated and briefed to Commissioners Court beforethe expiration date of April 22, 2001.

Attached, please find correspondence and floor plans.

/ I

Approved by: tl""'-. ~L'"--~Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations

EB/eb/JBfci

xc: John Dahill, Assistant District Attorney, Civil SectionJennifer Naughton, President/CEO Dallas County Employees Credit Union

13

Prop:>sed Banking +Center

:///~CEI I8J [8]

I I .- I IdI I i I~ lEI I8J [8]

I •

-2-

14

~~-;.~DALLAS COUNTYEMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION

November 21, 2000

Dan SavageAssistant County Administrator411 Elm Street, 3rd FloorDallas, TX 75202

Dear Dan:

Dallas County Employees Credit Union's lease on its three office locations expiresApril 22, 2001. At this time, our intent is to maintain our locations in the Crowley Courtsbuilding and the Health and Human Services building. We intend to close the officecurrently located in the Records BUilding and replace it with an electronic remotebanking center. We would like to locate this remote banking center in the space formerlyused by the Passport Photographs people in the lobby of the George Allen bUilding.

This remote banking center kiosk will include a touch screen computer allowingmembers to conduct transactions on their account as well. as apply for a loan·and opennew accounts. It will also contain a state-of-the-art check cashing ATM machineallowing members to deposit funds, withdraw cash and cash checks to the penny.

The Banking Center will require a space not to exceed 20 feet long and ten feetdeep. We will also need two dedicated telephone lines and two electrical outlets. I'veattached more detailed $pecifications for the ATM machine with this letter. ocecu willalso need to attach approptiatesignage to the wall, which we will purchase and install.

Switching to a remote banking center helps us conduct cash transactions withconsiderably more cost·sfficiency. We hope our plans meet with your approval.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (214) 638-3228 ext. 207.

;3-

.!j-- Stemmons Freew:ay. Suite 800 • D:all:as. TX ~;l07·ZilO • (Z14) ;,*8·1;10 • Fa\ (21i) 6.10·066-4

15 2 is SECURE INTERIOR TERMINALWITH ix SAFE (FRONT LOAD )

CALL 1-800-999-3600DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES(DIMENSlONS IN INCHES )

THIRD ANGLE ~ C"PROJECTION ~'-'c.... I

PERSPECTIVE

FASCIA FRONTVERTICAL EDGE

---- COIN POCKET

(8)

•/ SUT@T PR'NT'

.f....~ CONSUMER PRINTE.:

~-""""71 \Jiii~:~ ®CARD READER

,<8PRESENTER

®

.................",.TOP FUNCTION KEy ............

© /KEYBOARD TOP ROW../

OEP~T SLOT7

®

681 (Z61¥. .) 910 ('5%') 1095 (4'Y.') 1189 (46"¥.·) 1079 (4ZVI') 1000 ('9~')

i HEIGHT FROM BOTTOM OF SAFE (WITHOUTI L.EVEt..INGL.EGS OAOPTlONAL. SKIRT)

~. DEPTH FAOMFAONT VERTICAL. EDGE OF: FASCIA

DEPOSITSL.OT

®

51IZ')

CONSUMERKEYBOARDTOP ROW

CID

III (4¥.·)

TOPFUNCTION

KEY

©

146 (5% ')

STATEMENTOR

PASSBOOKPAINTER

@CONSUMER

PRINTER

®

19 ("¥. .)

CARDREADER

(t)

16 (%'J

PRESENTER

®711 (28')

a (0)

COINPOCKET

®708 (27%')

78 (3V,,')

l

w-4-

~ I

U

,...crtIt)

I

II

I~~

~II

• 845 (331/ ..,)-----,

1(76 (3') ~~ t 768 (301/ ...)

!n3211'M10"'\ I' 737 (29')

--"-~r-.\,

II

It)...crt1II

II•I . _llL_r..r (2- I

AOJUSTABLE --I ." ~ ,~NOTE: 0 TO 76 (0 TO 3'» 70 IZY..'J) .(38 tI Va') ,OPTIONAl. L.EVEL.ING L.EG KIT 00-lOl795·000A'S .lVAlt..ABl.E FOR 76,."., TO 152mm (3' TO 6') SIDE ELEVATIONLEVEL.ING

=~It)

! crtcrt

I !:

1787131')1

!II -nIII

FRONT ELEVATION

N

~~I,..t:

i

SPECIr"ICATIONS

NOTE:JUNCTION 60XES ,",UST 6E LOCAT~ WITHIN 2184mm (86') OF CONNECTINGPLATE. (LENCTH OF ELECTRICAL POWER CABLE PROIIIDEO WITH UNIT 1,LaC ATE IN AN EASILY ACCESSiBLE ARO.

BOXES CAN 6E FLUSH hAOUNTEO WITH CONCEALED CONDUIT FORNEif CONSTRUCTION OR BOXES CAN BE SURFACE loIOUNTEONITH £XPOSEr::CNOUlT FOR EX,"TiNC CONSTRUCTION.

l:lHYSICAL SECURITY:HESECURITY SAFE MEETS THE B.tJ'Jl PROTECTION ACT 8Z STAT 295.2 USC 882. AND lolEETS THE ATTAcx, TEST PER UL 491-15. THE SAFE DOOR""SA POSITIVE. REI.OCKING .FEATUAE. THE SAFtt DOOR IS CONTROLI.ED BY A;AQlJP 2 COMBINATION LOCK WITH OR Wll'HOUT KE'tI.OCKINC OIAL CAPABILITYjR OPTIONAL EI.ECTRONIC LOCK.

AI-ARM. PROTECTION~HEIA.'\..ISTED SAFE IS EOUIPPED WITH A BASIC AlARM SENSOR PACK"'GE. 1l4E:3ASICPACKAGtINCLUOESASAFE OOOR OPEN SWITCH. ALARMSHUHTlNG SWITCH.JoNO RATE-OF"RtSE HUT SENSOR.

25mm (,') ",e: 7AI. ::::....OUIT F=<CIol ALARM CONTROL CASINET JUNCT;ON BOX TO02 .'NTH4') SO, X 54mm (2'1,') CF' ••l.NCTlCN BOX (ALL BY £..C.) OIEBOI.O TO

PROvlOE FLA l' COvER WITH l' AIoIPE:Fl StnTCH.

) WMEN 'SECUROlolA T,.. ' AFTER HOuR OEPOSITORY IS TO BE CONNECTEDTO ATlooI UNIT, £..C, TO RUN 19 mm (f'.') W£TAL CONDUIT FROlol I021!1l'11 W) So. X54mmI2'/.'1 OP, JUNCTION BOX TO AFTER HOUR OEPOSITORY,

) £..C. TO RUN ~ mm <f'.., LIOUIQ TI~T FLEX "'iTAL CONOUlT OR 1'/MI<f'.·) RIClOCONDUIT FReM JUNCTION BOX TO C"'BLE CONlolECTlNG PL...TE.

) l'3mm<f'''1 '-IETAL CONDUIT ANO UNSWITCJolED aECTRIC"'L SUPPLY TO IOZmmW) SO.X 54mm (Z'/.') OP. JUNCTION BOX 'lInt RECEPTAClE WITHIN ZIa4mm <a6') OFSlOE OR FRONT CONNECTlNC P\..AT£.. eOTTOM CONNECTION WST ee: CQIoIPENSATEOACCOROINCl,Y <ALL By £..C.) <SEE POWER REQUIREM£HTS ),

) E,C. TO SUPPLY CeMPA TIBLE RECEPTAClE FOR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLUG-INCONNECTOR SUPP\"IED wlnt UNIT, POWER CORD LENGTH ZIa4mm (86')FRO'" SIDE OF UNIT.

FOR OESK TOP '-IOOEMS- NO CONOUlT REOUIREO FOR 0'"TA LINE CABLE. ",ooEM'-lUST 6E INSTALL£O WITHIN IZ80Zmm 142'-0'1 CABLE RUN OF THE UNIT.

OA fA CABLE WSi 6E AT LEAST 51/M1 IZ') FROM ANY A.C. POWER CABLE.

OESK TOP ",OOEMS "'UST BE WITHIN ISZ8mm (6'-0') OF A STAHaARO.SiNGLE PHASE. THREE-WIRE OUTLET.

I,

f)OWER REaUIRe:~£.NTS

THE 4TJ.l o:tECUIFlES A SiNCl.E-PMASE TiotFlEE-"lflE UNSWlTQ;£D PQWER OUTlET. lfIFllNGTO n"E HJ.l loIUST USE A THlRO-"1RE EART~ CROUNO (CONCUT ~OUNO is NOTACCErrASLEI. THE POwER SUPPl..IE..Q IAJST 8E AS SPE.CiFIED BaOw:100-127 'lAC (+6%.-107.) 50HZ (+/-17.) SINGLE F'HASE100-121 VAC (+6%,-\0i'.> 60HZ (+/-\7..) SINGLE PMASe:200-240 'lAC (+/-i07.) 50HZ (+/-17..) SINGLE !'HAS[200-2"0 'lAC (+/-t07'> 60HZ (+/-\7..) SlNCLE !'HASE

PO""e:.~ TO THE ATl.l loIAY BE A BRANCH OR OE:DICA TEO SERIIlct ANO loIUS T BEPROTECTE:D BY A SAFETY CUICX-OISCONNECT OEII1CE TO 8ROK LINE 1101.TACE(SUCH AS A CIRCUIT BREAKER AT THE El.ECTRICAl. SERVICE PANEL). THE CUICKOISCONNECT OEII'CE (OR. CIRCUIT BREAKER) MUST TURN OFF THE LINE 1101.TACEAT THE AMPERAGt SPECIFtE:O BEI.OW.

100-127 IIAC SERIIICE. DISCONNECT AT 20 AIoIPERES200-240 'lAC SERVICE. DISCONNECT AT 10 AMPERES

INSTALLATIONS OUTSIOE THE U.s.A. MUST INClUO£ ORTH FAULT PROTECTlON.OTHER ELECTRONIC OEIIICES SHARING POWER ON A COMMQNBRANCH CIRCUIT'-lUST CONFORM TO THE SAME: CONOUCTED INTERFERENCE: STANQAROS ASTHE ATM.

POWER USACE FOR SECURED INTERIOR TERMINAL

WEICHT OF UNIT680 Ioto (1.500 1.8SJ

loIACH/H£ STATUS 0g~¢~RO 0~~~ROR CD ~~:::~

IDLE (NO TRANSACTlOHl '135 WATTS Z40 WATTS 295 \fA TTS

11R~~~~~~~; (01$P£HSE:l Z6S WATTS 370 WATTS 405 lUTTS

<D CTP OR HTP. "'ONOCHROME MONlTOR•. MCTORIZED· C...RO ROOEfl. JOURNAl PRINTER.CONSUMER PRINTERSTANDARO OEPOSITER, AHa FOUR-HIGH DISPENSER.

® SAlol£ AS (I) ABOVE WITH 381 liS') COlOR MONITOR· REPUClNG 229 (9')'-IONOCHRO"'E loIONlTOR.

CD SAloIE AS (Z) ABOVE WITH PASSBOOK PRINTER. OPERATOR OISPLAY"'OOUL£ (OOM ).

THE POWER USE O£?ENOS ON THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF OEVJC£S PRESENT INTH£ ATM, ANO THE. TYPe: OF TRANSACTION TH£ ATM IS PERFOAMING.

HEAT OUTPUT1.382 BTU/HR lUX,

OPERATING ENVIRONMENTSAFE LOCATION 10· C TO 38" C (50" F TO 100" f')

RELAnVE HUt.lIOIT!. (NQH~ONOEHSIHG )

~g +8 :~r:f il·g :~})

16CONDUIT AND JUNCTION BOXREQUIREMENTS

,...a'IIII

II

... I

~ !'J' !;t~§ ~

~

'------...- .........---...- .....IIiIiiii-__-----if:_- II . II"

j I ',- OPTIONAL SKIRT"'--749 (29Yz') - 00-101919-.( 19) 1.' ( 19) Y.')I! 787 ( 31') -----..,

BACK ELEVA TION-5-

1635 (64~') -----__

\.... !\Ji~~

III ,..,.oJ Noe(

5 ,...i: a'Ia.. 1110 !a: t--0 i"'-0 IloW I\Ji~::::l

0loW Na: ,..,~ I.l:l::I N.. i:D

,.., II

I.l:l I,...\...-r--

SIDE ELEVATION( SEE !lACK OF "ACE I

SERV 17 JIREMENTS

~SHOWN IS THE ~~/RECOMMENDED AREA REQ~ FOR INSTA~LAnoN ANDSERVICE. THESE DIhtENSIONS SHOWN NAY BE INCREASED WHEREVER POSSl8LE TOINPROVE INSTALLATION ANO SERVICE ACCESS. USE OF ANY AREA LESS THAN THERECONNENOEO AREA NAY RESUl..T IN AN INCREASE IN INSTALLATION AND SERVICETINE. CONSUL.T WITH DIEBOLD INSTALLATION/SERVICE BRANCH FOR SP€ClALeUILOINC CONOITIONS.

0~

N,.,0NII

III Q,I ~

I 0N

1 ~II

IIII

II

PLAN VIEW( SINGLE UNIT )

(RECOMMENDED SEVICE AREA

~ RECO......ENOEO SERVICE AREA

LS:J MINIMUM SERVICE AREA

,.,o!!

~

III

; 'as. , <1'1," I1 (,152 (6') 152 (6'),I i 749 ( Z9Vt') --r1

PLAN VIEW(SINGLE UNIT )

(MINIMUM SEVICE AREA

Date:

18DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURT

December 12, 2000

-I_ l J i

-, ~.:~ T__ - '-'I \. I

00 DEC I 3 Pr1 2: 36

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court

//}4!'J'IJohn Hennessey, MIS Directo,,---?,'

Outsourcing Contract

BackgroundCom.nissioners Court, in Court Order 92-1865, dated November 3, 1992,entered into a Master Onsite Service Agreement with SCT. Dallas County'sMaster Agreement with SeT was originally scheduled to expire on October31, 1999. Section 5 of the Master Agreement provided for only 1 additional3 year term. Dallas County Commissioners Court in Court Order 95-1553,dated September 12, 1995, authorized a single three extension whichextended the contract through October 31, 2002. No further extensions arepermitted under the contract.

To assist the County with the outsourcing contract process, a two-phasedapproach is recommended. Phase 1 consists of selecting a vendor to assistthe County with the development of its outsourcing RFP. Phase 2 consistsof publishing, evaluating and selecting the County's outsourcing vendor. Thefirm selected in Phase 1 would also participate in the Phase 2 activities.

In recognition of the time required to develop an outsourcing RFP withadequate service level agreements, publish it, evaluate it, select a vendor andpotentially transition to a new vendor, a proposed timeline has beendeveloped. The following activities have been identified:

Acti1. Brief Court on Phase 1 vendor RFQ2. Select Pha.. 1 firm and award contract3. Develop outsourcing RFP4. Brief RFP5. Vendor respon... due back6. Evaluate RFP responses7. Select vendor8. Negotiate contract9. Award contract10. Transition

Com letion DateJanuary 2001April 2001August 2001August 2001December 2001March 2002April 2002June 2002June 2002October 2002

411 Elm Street Dallal, TElxal 75202 214..653-7327

19

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Commissioners Court authorize the MIS Director,in concert with the District Attorney's office Civil Section and the CourtAdministrator to develop a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select a firmto assist the County. The RFQ will be briefed for Court approval prior topublication.

411 Elm Street Dallas, TElxas 75202 214-653-7327

20

DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATIONDan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations w

December 13, 2000

To:

From:

Subject:

commissi~rt

Dan savage: ;oI.ssistant Administrator for Operations

Grant Application for Old Red Courthouse Architectural Work

~oN " .

BackgroundDallas County is one of 28 counties that have been awarded Phase II grants through the Texas HistoricalCommission's Courthouse Preservation Program. This grant is in the amount of $462,500., and it will fundthe Phase I architectural planning work. Phase I includes five tasks: (1) replacement ofdeteriorated exteriorstonework, (2) installation of\,~it)od windows (3) abatement of hazardous materials including asbestos andlead base paint (4) reinforcement of structural elements including the central tower and (5) selectivedemolition of non-historic interior finish out. The architectural firm of James Pratt Architecture and UrbanDesign has been selected to do this work, Staff has been negotiating a fee with this firm and will presenta proposal contract in January for this work. The grant funds can only be used for architectural planning,which means the development of plans ready for construction. The grant funds cannot be used forconstruction administration or for construction work. Copies of the Funding Agreement and Grant ofEasement are attached.

Impact .on OperationsThis grantwillfund the plans preparation process for the Phase I stabilization and restoration of the Old RedCourthouse. It will enable the County to move forward with the ultimate restoration ofOld Red in partnershipwith the Old Red Foundation.

LegalAs part of the process for receiving this grant, Dallas County must execute the 50 year historic preservationeasement with the State ofTexas. This easement will give the State through the Texas Historic Commissionthe right to approve all changes to the structure and will require Dallas County to maintain the historicintegrity of the building and to preserve it in good condition. This is a standard form easement used by theTexas Historical Commission. The grant application included a commitment on the parlOf the County toprovide this easement as a condition of receiving the grant funds. The Civil District Attomey's office isreviewing these documents.

Financial ImptdThis grant will enable Dallas County to move forward with the architectural planning for the Phase Istabilization and restoration of Old Red. Dallas County will have to provide a 7.5% grant match which willamount to $37,500. Funds for this matCh are available in the FY2001 Capital Improvement Program.

RecommendationStaff recommends that the Commissioners Court approve the acceptance of this grant and the granting ofthe historic preservation easernenttothe State of Texas and that the Commissioners Court authorize theCounty Judge to execute thenec:essary legal documents on behalf of Dallas County.

q:~;Dan Savage ~Assistant Administrator for Operations

Dallas County Administration Buikling411 Elm Street. 3M Floor Dallas Texas 75202-3317

e-mail: dsavageGdallascounty.org

Telephone (214) 653-7650Telephone (214) 653-6517

21

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

FUNDING AGREE.MENT

This Funding Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the State ofTexas, acting by and through the Texas Historical Commission ("Commission") and DallasCounty, a political subdivision of the State of Texas ('~County").

For good and valuable consideration, the "~ceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, theparties do hereby contract, covenant, and agree as follows:

ARTICLE IPURPOSE

1.01 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the administration of the grant of fundsto~ County for the rehabilitation and restoration of the .Q.Wlu County Courthouse("Property").

ARTICLEDAUTHORITY

2.01 This Agreement is authorized under the Historic Courthouse Preservation Program, TexasGovernment Code §§442.008, et seq. ("Program"), and the rules promulgated thereunderat 13 Texas Administrative Code §§12.1, et seq., and the Interlocal Cooperation Act,Government Code Chapter 791.

2.02 This Agreement is subject to the Uniform Grant and Contract Management Act,Government Code Chapter 783, and the conditions and assurances promulgatedthereunder by the Office of the Governor.

ARTICLEmPERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT

3.01 This Agreement becomes effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes theAgreement fully executed. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the completion ofthe rehabilitation and restoration work on the Property, as provided in Article V hereof,and the Commission's final approval of such work, or until earlier terminated as providedin Article VIII hereof.

Funding AgreementPage 1 ..

22

ARTICLE IVGRANT OF FUNDS

4.01 The amount of the grant under the Program which is the subject of this Agreement shallbe $462,500. The grant of funds shall be paid to the County in accordance with theprocedure described in Article VII hereof.

4.02 A statement of the source of funds is attached as Attachment '"A" and incorporatedherein for all purposes ('"Source of Funds Statement and Verification"). The Source ofFunds Statement and Verification itemizes the absolute dollar amounts and associatedpercentage to be contributed by state and local sources and identifies total available fundsin an amount equivalent to the Project Cost Estimate. The Commission's fundingparticipation shall not exceed th~ amount of the grant award specified herein.

4.03 The County shall be responsible for contributing all local funds at an amount not less thanthat specified in the Source of Funds Statement and Verification, unless the final projectcost is less than that specified in the Project Cost Estimate. If the final cost is less thanthat specified in the Project Cost Estimate, there will be a commensurate reduction toeach party's contribution, Le. state and local contributions will be reduced by an amountthat maintains same percentage contribution as the Source of Funds Statement.

4.04 The County shall be responsible for funding any non-Program eligible costs associatedwith the Project including any cost overruns in excess of the Project Cost Estimate,operating and maintenance expenses, interest on borrowed funds or relocation expensesassociated with this Project.

ARTICLE VSCOPE OF WORK

5.01 The parties hereby agree that the scope of work the County shall perfonn under thisAgreement to restore and rehabilitate the Property ("Project") is attached as Attachment"B" and incorporated herein for all purposes ('"Scope of Work").

5.02 As detennined by the Commission, the Scope of Work for this Project may include onlyplanning work or may include both planning and construction work.

Funding AgreementPage 2

23

ARTICLE VICOUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES

6.01 The County shall provide for the procurement of all necessary architecture, engineering,and consultant services related to the Project. The County's contract(s) for professionalservices shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Commission.

6.02 The County shall ensure that plans and specifications for the Project shall be inaccordance with the treatment for restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction orpreservation, as applicable, described the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards forthe Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995 (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 68) asdetennfiied by the COlnmission.

6.03 The County shall submit architectural plans, specifications and other planning productsfor the Project to the Commission for review and approval. The County shall make allnecessary revisions to the Project as determined by the Commission.

6.04 The County shall ensure that the Project's Planning and Construction Schedule ("ProjectSchedule"), attached as Attachment "C", is met unless an extension is approved inadvance by the Commission. Extension requests shall be made in writing by the Countyat least 14 days prior to the scheduled deadline.

6.05 The County shall administer all contracts related to the construction of the Project andshall not commence construction on any particular phase of the Project until the plansand specifications related to that phase of the Project have received Commission approvalin writing.

6.06 Any field changes, supplemental agreements, or revisions to the plans and specificationsrelated to a particular phase of the Project that occur after the construction contract isawarded must be mutually agreed to by the Commission and the County prior to thecommencement of the work related to that phase of the Project

6.07 The County shall submit a draft "Project Completion Report" to the Commission forreview upon substantial completion of construction for the Project. Upon approval, two(2) final copies shall be provided to the Commission and one (1) shall be retained by theCounty for its records. For Projects involving planning only, fmaI copies of thedocuments shall be provided to the Commission.

6.08 The County shall maintain and repair the Property to ensure that the historic architecturalintegrity of the Property is not permitted to deteriorate in any material way. Unlesssuperceded by a Grant of Easement associated with this Project, this provision shall be in


e.

24

effect from the date of the last signature included herein and shall remain in effect for aperiod of ten (l0) years.

6.09 The County shall be responsible for resolving any environmental matters that areidentified during the course of the Project, and shall provide the Commission with writtencertification from appropriate regulatory agencies that any such identified environmentalmatters have been remediated, if so required.

ARTICLEVllREIl\1BURSEMENT

7.01 The County shall be reimbursed for costs and expenses incurred to perform the workrelated to the Project by submitting to the Cc>mmission documentation showing that suchcosts and expenses have been paid. Reasonable, allowable, and allocable costs incurred bythe County, after the County has obtained written authorization from the Commission toincur such costs, shall be eligible for reimbursement at an amount not to exceed the statedmaximum of the eligible authorized costs. The Commission shall reimburse the Countyfor such expenses and costs in accordance with the State Prompt Payment Law after theCounty submits the documentation required hereunder.

7.02 The total estimated development cost of the Project ("Project Cost Estimate") is attachedas Attachment "c" and incorporated herein for all purposes. The Project Cost Estimateincludes the itemized cost of architectural and engineering activities, construction, and anyother substantial items of cost. Non-Program eligible costs and expenses shall be includedin the estimate but itemized separately. Only costs and expenses identified as eligible andincluded as such in the Project Cost Estimate shall be eligible for reimbursement inaccordance with Article VII hereof. Notwithstanding, the parties agree that costs may beshifted between categories with written approval from the Commission.

7.03 Documentation necessary for reimbursement of Project costs and expenses shall include acertified statement ofwork performed, materials supplied and/or services rendered with acopy of the payment check. Requests for reimbursement may be made monthly and eachrequest shall include all required documentation for the period.

7.04 For each period, reimbursement of all eligible Project costs and expenses shall be made bythe Commission in an amount equivalent to their percentage share of the Project CostEstimate.

7.05 The last 100/0 of the Commission's award shall be held until the Project described in theScope of Work and the approved plans and specifications is complete. Notification ofCompletion and fmal approval by the Commission is necessary prior to submission offinal reimbursement request by the County.


25

7.06 Project costs and expenses incurred prior to October 27, 2000, the date the Project wasselected by the Commission for a grant award under the Program, are not eligible forreimbursement except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing.

ARTICLE VIIITERMINATION

8.01 This Agreement may be terminated prior to completion of the Project by mutual consentand agreement in \\'Titing signed by all parties. In addition, this Agreement may beterminated by either party upon the failure of the other party to fulfill the obligations setforth in this Agreement, in the manner provided in Article 8.02 hereof.

8.02 If an event ofterm;nation is based on the failurc' of a party to fulfill its obligations underthis Agreement, then the party seeking termination shall notify the party of such breachand provide such party a reasonable period of time, which shall not be less than thirty(30) days, to cure such breach. If the breach is cured within the time permitted, notermination shall occur. Otherwise, this Agreement shall tenninate after the period tocure the breach has expired. Any cost incurred due to such a breach of contract shall bepaid by the breaching party.

8.03 If the County withdraws from the Project after this Agreement is executed, but prior tocompletion of the Project, it shall be responsible for all direct and indirect Project costs asidentified by the Commission's cost accounting system. All previously reimbursedProject costs shall be repaid to the Commission by the County within sixty (60) days oftermination.

8.04 The tennination of this Agreement shall extinguish all rights, duties, obligations, andliabilities of either party under this Agreement except the repayment provision underArticle 8.03 and the inspection provisions under Article XIX.

ARTICLE IXAMENDMENTS

9.01 This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties. Any changes, deletions,extensions, or amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by all partieshereto prior to the ending date hereof. Any other attempted changes, including oralmodifications, written notices that have not been signed by both parties, or othermodifications of any type, shall be invalid.

Funding AgreementP.age 5

26

ARTICLE XNOTICES

10.01 All notices to either party by the other required under this Agreement shall be deliveredpersonally or sent by certified or U. S. Mail, postage prepaid or sent by electronic mail,(electronic notice being permitted to the extent permitted by law but only after a separatewritten consent of the parties), addressed to such parties at the following addresses:

Commission:

County :

Texas Historical CommissionPost Office Box 12276Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Lee F. JacksoL.Judge of Dallas County411 ElmDallas, TX 75202

ARTICLE XISEVERABILITY

11.01 In case one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason beheld invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any resPeCt, such invalidity, illegality, orunenforceability shall not affect any other provisions and this Agreement shall beconstrued as if it did not contain the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision.

ARTICLE XIIRESPONSIBILITIES OFPARTIES

12.01 The Commission and the County agree that neither party is an agent, servant, oremployee of the other party and each party agrees it is responsible for its individual actsand deeds as well as the acts and deeds of its contractors, employees, representatives, andagents.

ARTICLE XIIIOWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

13.01 Upon completion or termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by eitherparty shall remain the property of such party. All documents and data prepared underthis Agreement shall be made available to the Commission without restriction or limit ontheir further use.


27

ARTICLE XIVCO~LUNCE~THLAWS

14.01 The parties hereof shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws,statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts oradministrative bodies or tribunals in any matter affecting the performance of thisAgreement. When required, either party shall furnish satisfactory proof of theircompliance with such requirements stated above.

ARTICLE XVLIMITATION OF LIABILITY

15.01 The Commission shall not be lhhle for any direct or consequential damages to County orany third party for any act or omission of the County in the performance of thisAgreement. The Commission shall neither indemnify nor guarantee any obligation of theCounty.

ARTICLE XVIAITACHMENTS

16.01 The following documents are included in and shall be a part of this Agreement for allpurposes:

Attachment "A"

Attachment "B"

Attachment "c"

Attachment "0"

Source of Funds Statement and Verification

Scope of Work

Project Schedule

Project Cost Estimate

ARTICLEXVllDISPUTE RESOLUTION

17.01 The dispute resolution process provided for in Government Code Chapter 2260 shall beused, as further described herein, by the parties to attempt to resolve any claim for breachof this Agreement made by either party.


28

17.02 A claim by the County for breach of this Agreement that cannot be resolved between theparties in the ordinary course of business shall be submitted to the negotiation processprovided in Government Code Chapter 2260, Subchapter B. Compliance by County withGovernment Code Chapter 2260, Subchapter B is a condition precedent to the filing of acontested case proceeding under Government Code Chapter 2260, Subchapter C.

17.03 The contested case process provided in Government Code Chapter 2260, Subchapter C isCounty's sole and exclusive process for seeking a remedy for any and all alleged breachesof contract by Commission if the parties are unable to resolve their disputes under thisArticle XVII.

17.04 Compliance with the contested case process as provided in Article 17.02 hereof is a'"' condition precedent to seeking consent to sue fr0m the Texas Legl:51ature under Civil

Practices and Remedies Code Chapter 107. Neither the execution of this Agreement bythe Commission nor any other conduct of any representative of Commission relating tothe Agreement shall be considered a waiver ofsovereign immanity to suit.

17.05 The submission, processing, and resolution of any claim by County hereunder is governedby 1 Texas Administrative Code §§68.1, et seq., now and as hereafter amended.

17.06 Neither the occurrence of an event alleged to constitute breach of this Agreement nor thependency of a claim constitute grounds for the suspension of performance by t~e

County, in whole or in part.

ARTICLEXVDISOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT

18.01 This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties andsupersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements with respect to theProject or the grant of award funds under the Program.

ARTICLE XIXINSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND WORK

19.01 The parties to this Agreement shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accountingrecords and other documentation relating to costs incurred under this Agreement and shallmake such materials available to the Commission, the County, and the Comptroller, ortheir duly authorized representatives for review and inspection at its office during thecontract period and for four (4) years from the date of completion of the work definedunder this Agreement or until any impending litigation, or claims are resolved.Additionally, the Commission, the County, and the Comptroller and their dulyauthorized representatives shall have access to all the governmental records that are

Funding AgreementPageS

29

directly applicable to the Agreement for the purpose of making audits, examinations,excerpts, and transcriptions. The Commission may, during normal business hours,inspect the work on the Property undertaken through this Agreement.

ARTICLE XXSIGNATORY WARRANTY

20.01 The signatories to this Agreement warrant that each has the authority to enter into thisAgreement on behalf of the party represented. A statement of the County's resolve toaccept this award and enter into this Agreement is attached as Attachment "A"(Resolution) unless authority is conferred to another party on behalf of the County as aalternate attachment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is evecuted in duplicate originals as of the dateshereinbelow.

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION

By: _

Title:----------Date:----------


DALLAS COUNTY

By: _

Title: _

Date: _

30

Attachment A

Source of Funds Statement and VerificatioDRestoration of the Old Dallas County Courthouse(Old Red)

I,

Grant award by Texas Historical Commission(state share) =Grant match by Dallas County*(local share) =

Project cost =

$462,500

$37,500

$500,000

92.5%

7.5%

100%

If a grant match dollar amount is listed above, a signature is required below:

As a legal representative of this county, I do verify that the required matching fundsin an amount equivalent that stated above are available, either in ready cash, loansor other grant awards.

Signature

Title

Date

*The grant matchfigure was determined by the Program Rules which require that theapplicant must provide a minimum of15% ofthe total project cost, ofwhich not more thanone halfofthe match must be derivedfrom prior capital expenditures, prior in-kind match,and current in-kind match, and not less than one halfmay be derived from current cashmatch and/or planning match.

31

Attachment BPhase 1

Scope of Work-Phase 1Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

The Scope of Work for this grant-funded project is to provide comprehensiveplanning services resulting in 95% complete Construction Documents for Phase 1Restoration of the Dallas County 1893 Courthouse.

Project Philosophy and Description

The project involves a two-phase stabilization and restoration of the Dallas CountyCourthouse as defined by the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment ofHistoric Properties, 1995. The period of 1893-1918 is the target date for therestoration. Origin~ 1 interior wall and ceiling surfaces sun; te under overlays of laterfinishes. The Dallas County master plan identified work in Phase 1 to includestructural investigation and reinforcement of the structure, installation of new woodwindows, replacement ofdeteriorated exterior sandstone and granite units, hazardousmaterials abatement, selective demolition., and interior improvements preparatory forPhase 2 work.

The structural investigation includes a structural review of interior masonry walls,foundations, lintels, and steel roof trusses. Steel tnlsses below fourth floor courtroomareas will be examined for rust and possible removal ofcross bracing for futureductwork installation. Load tests will be performed on floors, including third floorareas being considered for future mechanical equipment Design for removal ofcertain load-bearing masonry walls will be done. Reinforcement ofwalls for futurerestoration ofclock tower and grand staircase will be designed. Floor penetrations forwest fire stair relocation and a new attic access stair will be designed. Investigationof rising damp in basement walls and development of remedial measures to correctsame will be done.

Exterior restoration work includes replacement ofdeteriorated sandstone and graniteunits identified in Dallas County's 1998 program ofanalysis. Existing aluminumwindows will be removed and replaced with wood windows. Roof drainage systemwill be examined and repaired, and a scaffold-support system installed for roofmaintenance. Granite units will be installed to fill three non-historic windows and forreplacement ofarchitectural features (pinnacles and acorns).

Interior work includes taking paint samples from historic surfaces prior to lead paintabatement Scrapings will be sent for laboratory analysis for a record ofhistoriccolors for reference in the restoration process. Demolition will remove all walls,finishes and features post-dating the target period. The west fire stair will bereconfigured from 2nd to 4th floor, and a new access stair installed to the attic.Provision will be made for installation of future new elevator in the existing southshaft. Non-historic floor and wall openings will be closed. Programming for historicrestoration ofpublic areas, for installation of toilet rooms and catering facilities, andfor MEP systems in Phase 2 will be accomplished in this phase.

32Attachment B


Scope of Services

Architectural/Engineering services: The AlE will provide comprehensive services associatedwith the Schematic, Design Development and Construction Documents phases.

Deliverables by Phase1) Schematic Design phase documents

a) as-built floor plans keynoted for demolition, keynoted for abatementb) preliminary investigation report of hazardous materials abatement consultantc) window survey forms, schedulesd) report on wood window fabricators and costs for replacemente) stone replacement assessment formsf) report on quarry source(s) for sandstone and graniteg) preliminary documents for Phase I-A demolitionh) budget

2) Design Development phase drawings will include the following deliverablesa) plans, elevations noted for specific work requiredb) completed window survey, draft recommendationsc) completed masomy condition survey, draft recommendationsd) paint analysis and hazardous materials reportse) load test reportsf) rising damp investigation reportg) foundation wall investigation reporth) pinnacle replacement reporti) structural review report and recommendationsj) structural reinforcement preliminary detailsk) report on roof drainage system condition1) outline specifications identifying all relevant subdivisionsm) construction documents for Phase I-A demolitionn) updated cost estimate

3) Construction Documents (60% complete, preliminary submittal) including:a) plans, elevations with notes, references, and symbolsb) draft project specificationsc) stone replacement elevations and detailsd) abatement drawings and specificationse) Phase I-B demolition drawings and specificationsf) structural reinforcement drawings, detailsg) window drawings, detailsh) rising damp alleviation detailsi) uPdated cost estimate

4) Construction Documents (95% complete submittal) including:a) plans, elevations with notes, references, and symbolsb) stone replacement elevations and detailsc) abatement and demolition drawings and specificationsd) Phase I-B demolition drawings and specificationse) structural reinforcement drawings, detailsf) window drawings, detailsg) rising damp alleviation detailsh) complete project specifications and general requirementsi) final opinion ofprobable cost with 7% contingency assuming July 2001 bid date

33Attachment B


Work products of the architect's consultants1) Engineering consultants will provide:

a) structural engineer to conduct structural review of historic structure, load test floors,design structural reinforcing to allow addition of clock tower in later phase, assess risingdamp condition, design bracing of walls for future restoration of grand stair, consult onstone replacement

b) mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineers to assess work for future HVAC installation,requirements for future museum and courtroom uses

2) Other consultants will provide:a) historic paint analysis of interior painted finishesb) abatement consultant to define lead paint to be abated, prepare abatement plans and

specifications, and supervise abatement procedurec) testing of stone strengths, existing brick masonry load capacity, soil bearing

Items outside the architect's scope to be contracted and perfonned by Dallas County:1) Hazardous materials survey (asbestos) and removal

34

Project Ss;hedgle--Pbase 1For the Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

Overall timeline:

Schematic Design phase: January 4--February 1,2001Design Development phase: February 2--March 8, 2001Construction Documents phase: March 9--May 17,2001Preparation of Final Documents: June 8--June 21, 2001

Attachment CPhase 1

James Pratt Architecture I Urban Design, Inc.

Project Schedule

Date Action Notes

Provide proposed Scope of Work (B), ProjectDecember 8, 2000 Schedule (C), Cost Estimate (D) to Dallas County

andTHCSubmit proposed contract and qualifications

December 13, 2000 statements to Dallas County and THC. Submit 2 weeks to completefinal attachments to Dallas County.

January 3, 2001 Revise or execute contract as directed by County.January 4,2001 Initiate work on Schematic Design Phase and 4 weeks to complete

Phase I-A demolition packageFebruary 1,2001 Complete SD package and Phase I-A demolition 5 weeks to complete

package, submit to Dallas County and THC forreview and comment. Proceed to initiate work onDesign Development

March 8, 2001 Submit Design Development package 6 week durationPrepare 60% complete Construction DocumentsLet contract for Phase I-A demolition

Apri119,2001 Submif60% complete CD package to me 4 week durationPrepare 95% complete CDs

May 17,2001 Submit 95% complete documents to mc for finalreview and comment period 3 week duration

June 7, 2001 Revise documents upon receipt of comments and 2 week duration

prepare final plans, specifications and projectmanual

June 21, 2001 Provide copies of final documents to Dallas Countyand mc

..

35

Project Cost Estimate--Phase 1Design and Planning Services

for the Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

Architectural Services $182,800

Structural Engineer $117,800

MEP Engineers $13,500

Historic Paint Analysis $17,100

Lead Abatement Consultant $45,300

Elevator Consultant $1,100

Estimating Consultant $4,000

Reimbursable expenses--printing, travel, $40,000testing laboratories (soils, masonry,load tests), soils engineer, etc.

Total ofAlE design services forJames Pratt Architecture I Urban Design, Inc.

Billing Schedule:

Schematic Design Phase 20% $84,400

Design Development Phase 27% $113,800

Construction Documents Phase 53% $223,400

100% 5421,600

Other planning costs not included in architect's fee proposal:

Asbestos abatement survey (Dallas County)

Evaluation oftoilet room and catering facilities for Phase 2

Evaluation ofHVAC systems for Phase 2 improvements

Documentation, administration, coordination for THC grant

Total Cost for Plannmg Work

Attachment DPhase 1

$421,600

$7,500

$10,500

$15,000

$7,500

5462,100

I.

36

Attachment BPhase 2


The Scope of Work for this project is to provide comprehensive planning services resultingin 950/0 complete Construction Documents for Phase 2 Restoration of the Dallas County1893 Courthouse.

Project Philosophy and Description

The project involves a Phase II of stabilization and restoration of the Dallas CountyCourthouse as defined by the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment ofHistoricProperties, 1995. The period of 1893-1918 has been selected as the target period for therestnration because original exterior surfaces and cont:' :JUrations were Intact, and interiormajor spaces had yet to be modified up until 1918.

Exterior work: Phase II will include the restoration of stained gla.ss lunettes in the tops ofmajor windows, the clock tower (removed in 1919 because of structural instability) andopening of a second original door in the south porch. Exterior lighting of the building willbe addressed, and a nighttime circuit illuminating the stained glass windows added.

Interior work: Contemporary standards for temperature comfort, museum humidity control,sunlight admittance, artificial illumination, communications and sound control will beemployed while preserving and recreating original character-defining features.

In Phase II, data from previous research will provide a framework for selection ofappropriate finishes. Configurations of tile, marble, plaster, wood and metal elementsrecreated on the ground floor will be continued in the upper floors. The existing originalwalk-in wall safe will be restored as part ofan exhibition space.

The Old Red Master Plan identifies work in Phase II to include historic restoration of publiccorridor spaces on the 2nd, 3d and 4th floors, and ofall major use spaces on the 4th floor.The restoration of the grand staircase in its 4-story stairwell, and installation ofa countyhistory museum on the 2nd floor and portions of the 1st floor will be accomplished,partially with private funding. A reception room with catering backup will be created on theground floor. All major twenty-foot-high courtroom and library/meeting spaces will bemaintained. Glazed airlocks will be added to three ground floor entrances.

A new air conditioning system will serve three quadrants of the ground level fromunderfloor. To preserve major spaces on the second floor free ofair conditioningequipment, mechanical units will be placed in the east and west third floor corridors toserve the second floor. The fourth floor will be served from the attic.

37

Scope of Work-Phase 2 (continued)Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

New toilets for the upper floors, supplementing the present ground floor ones, will beinstalled to meet current building code requirements in the center bay of the third floor,north side, where risers can be straight, and most easily concealed. Plumbing for acatering kitchen will be added in the first floor.

Elevators will be maintained for user convenience in their present locations, upgraded forspeed in tandem controls. New electric equipment, with center-opening cab doors willreplace the hydraulic elevator. This will allow restoration ofarched openings at southelevator entrances on all floors.

New electrical, emergency lighting, voice/data cabling, security, fire alann and smokedetection systems will be installed.

2

38Attachment B

Scope of 'V-t'ork-Phase 2Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

Scope of Services

ArchitecturaVEngineering services: The NE will provide comprehensive services associatedwith the Schematic, Design Development and Construction Documents phases.

Deliverables by PhaseI) Schematic Design phase documents

a) floor plans and roof plan (schematic)b) site plan noting existing features and identifying new workc) narrative description of MEP systems/equipment, proposed type and locationd) clock tower replacement schematicse) Grand Stair restoration schematicsf) roof slate replacement, drainage corrections assessmentg) budget

2) Design Development phase drawings will include the following deliverablesa) plans, elevations, and section drawings noted for specific work requiredb) site plan including all site work and landscape featuresc) roof plan designating specific areas of work (slate and drainage)d) schematic mechanicaVelectrical and plumbing proposalse) clock tower development drawingsf) Grand Stair restoration development drawingsg) reflected ceiling plansh) accessible designs for rest rooms and courtroomsi) millwork elevations and basic detailsj) report on roof drainage system conditionk) outline specifications identifying all relevant subdivisions1) updated cost estimate

3) Construction Documents (60% complete, preliminary submittal) including:a) plans for all disciplines with notes, references, and symbolsb) site plan indicating all sitework with details of any new constructionc) clock tower drawingsd) Grand Stair restoration drawingse) draft project specifications, selected light fixture cut sheetsf) security and communications proposalsg) proposed interior elevations and caseworkh) proposed finishes and color schedulei) proposed door and hardware schedulej) structural framing drawings, detailsk) door and window trim details1) updated cost estimate

4) Construction Documents (95% complete submittal) including:a) plans for all disciplines with notes, references, and symbolsb) site plan indicating all site work with details ofnew constructionc) clock tower drawings and detailsd) Grand Stair restoration drawings and detailse) finishes and color schedulef) door and hardware scheduleg) enlarged floor plans and construction detailsh) structural framing drawings, detailsi) complete project specifications and general requirementsj) final opinion of probable cost with 7% contingency assuming January 2002 bid date

39Attachment B


Work products of the architect's consultants

1) Engineering consultants will provide:a) structural engineer for clock tower restoration, Grand Stair restorationb) mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineers for systems design

2) Other consultants will provide:a) Acoustic consultation for courtrooms and museumb) Exhibit consultation for museum displaysc) Lighting consultation for courtroom and museum lightingd) Cost estimatione) Communications consultationf) Security consultation

I ,

40

PrQject Scbedule--Pbase 2For the Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

Overall timeline:

Schematic Design phase: May 29--June 25,2001

Design Development phase: June 26--August 1, 2001

Construction Documents phase: August 2--0ctober 22, 2001

Preparation of Final Documents: November 13--December 4,2001

Attachment CPhase 2

James Pratt Architecture / Urban Design, Inc.Project Schedule

Date Action Notes

Provide proposed Scope of Work (B), ProjectMay 3,2001 Schedule (C), Cost Estimate (D) to Dallas County

and THCSubmit proposed contract and qualifications

May 11,2001 statements to Dallas County and THC. Submit 2 weeks to completefinal attachments to Dallas County.

May 25, 2001 Revise or execute contract as directed by County.May 29, 2001 Initiate work on Schematic Design Phase 4 weeks to complete

June 26, 2001 Complete SD packageSubmit to Dallas County and THC for 6 weeks to completereview and comment. Proceed to initiate work onDesign Development

August 2, 2001 Submit Design Development package 7 weeks duration

Prepare 60% complete Construction Documents

September 18,2001 Submit 60% complete CD package to THC 5 week duration

Prepare 95% complete CDs

October 23,2001 Submit 95% complete documents to THC for fmal 3 week duration

review and comment period

November 13,2001 Revise documents upon receipt of comments and 3 week duration

prepare final plans, specifications and project

manualDecember 4, 2001 Provide copies of fmal documents to Dallas County

andTHC

41Attachment D

Phase 2

Project Cost Estimate--Phase 2Design and Planning Services

for the Dallas County 1893 Courthouse

Architectural Services $710,000

Structural Engineer $130,000

MEP Engineers $325,000

Lighting consultant $20,000

Communications Consultant $15,000

Elevator Consultant $20,000

Estimating Consultant $10,000

Acoustics Consultant $25,000

Landscape Consultant 515,000

Reimbursable expenses 530,000

Total of AlE design services forJames Pratt Architecture / Urban Design, Inc. 51,300,000

Billing Schedule:

,.

Schematic Design Phase

Design Development Phase

Construction Documents Phase

Bidding, contract

Construction Administration

Total Cost for Planning Work

15% 5195,000

20% 5260,000

40% 5520,000

5% 565,000

20% 5260,000

100% 51,300,000

• $1,300,000

42

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

GRANT OF EASEMENT

The County of Dallas, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, ("Grantor") owner ofproperty described as the Dallas County Courthouse and Grounds ('"Property"), as more fullydescribed in the attachment to this document, which is incorporated herein for all purposes as ifit were set forth fully herein, in consideration of $10.00 and other valuable consideration, receiptof which is acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey to the Texas HistoricalCommission, an agency of the State of Texas, ("Grantee") the following easement ("Easement").

Grantor has legal and equitable" fee simple title to the Property, and has the right an\- power to

grant this easement. Grantee has the legal authority to accept this easement. Grantee considersthe Property and the improvements thereon to represent a significant example of a historic,architectural, or cultural structure important to the State of Texas. Grantor desires to grant toGrantee, and Grantee desires to accept, the easement on the terms and conditions set forth below.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. GRANT

In consideration of the grant award to Grantor under the Texas Historic Courthouse PreservationProgram ("Program"), Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee an interest and easement inthe Property, for the preservation of historic, architectural, scenic and open space values, of thenature and character and to the extent set forth in this Easement, to constitute a servitude uponthe Property running with the land, for the benefit of and enforceable by the Grantee, to have andto hold the said interest and easement subject to and limited by the provisions of this Easement,to and for Grantee's proper uses for a fifty year term.

2. SCOPE OF GRANTEE'S INTEREST AND EASEMENT

The easement herein granted conveys to the Grantee an interest in the Property consisting of thebenefits of the following covenants and undertakings by Grantor.

a. Without the prior written consent of Grantee, which shall not unreasonably bewithheld, Grantor shall not cause or permit any construction, alteration, remodeling,dismantling, destruction, or other activity which would affect or alter in any material waythe historic architectural integrity of the Property, except for routine maintenance.

b. Grantor shall maintain and repair the Property as required to ensure that the historicarchitectural integrity of the Property is not permitted to deteriorate in any material way.

Grant of EasementPage 1

43

3. INITIAL LEVEL OF PRESERVATION

The level of preservation addressed in this Easement will be considered the state of preservationfor the Property as outlined in the Scope of Work statement attached as "Attachment B" andincluding any modifications to the Scope of Work as may be approved in writing by theCommission during the course of planning and/or construction.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTOR IF PROPERTY IS DAMAGED ORDESTROYED

In the event that the building located on the Property is damaged or destroyed, by reason of fire,flood, earthquake, or other disaster or casualty of any kind whatsoever, Grantor's responsibilitiesshall be as follows:

a. Partially damaged. If the Property is partially damaged (Le., damaged to such an extentor of such nature that the historic architectural integrity of the Property can reasonably berestored to its prior condition), then Grantor shall restore the historic architecturalintegrity of the Property to the condition that existed just prior to the damage, to theextent possible consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatmentof Historic Properties, 1995.

b. Totally destroyed. If the property is totally destroyed (i.e., destroyed to such anextent that it is not possible to reasonably repair or restore the historic architecturalintegrity of the Property), Grantee and Grantor shall work together to determine whetherit is economically and otherwise feasible to reconstruct the Property in a substantiallysimilar manner. If the Property is reconstructed in a substantially similar design, thiseasement shall continue in force and apply to the reconstructed Property. If the Propertyis not reconstructed in a substantially similar design, this easement shall terminate uponagreement by the Grantee that reconstruction in a substantially similar design will nottake place.

5. REMEDIES OF GRANTEE

Grantee shall have all remedies available to it at law or equity and Grantor agrees that moneydamages shall be insufficient compensation to Grantee for any breach by Grantor. It is furtherunderstood and agreed that in the event Grantor is found to have materially violated any of itsobligations, Grantor shall reimburse Grantee for any costs or expenses incurred in connectionwith enforcing this Easement, including Court costs and reasonable architect's and attorney'sfees. It is understood and agreed that one of Grantee's remedies is the right to require the Grantorto restore the Property to the condition required by this Easement. The exercise by Grantee ofone remedy and the failure to exercise any remedy shall not have the effect of waiving or limitingthe use of any other remedy or the use of such remedy at any other time.


44

6. ASSIGNMENT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

a. This Easement shall extend to and be binding upon Grantor and all persons hereafterclaiming by, under or through Grantor, and the word "Grantor" when used herein shallinclude all such entities or persons whether or not such entities or persons have signedthis instrument or had any interest in the Property at the time it was signed. Anythingcontained herein notwithstanding, a person shall have no obligation, pursuant to thisEasement, if and when such person shall cease to have any (present, partial, contingent,collateral or future) interest in the Property or any portion thereof by reason of a bonafide transfer for value.

b. Grantor acknowledges that in the event of the contemplation of a transfer of all or aportion of the Propert,), Grantor shall notify Grantee not less than thirty (30) days priorto the contemplated transfer, in writing, by certified mail with postage prepaid and returnreceipt requested, addressed to the Grantee as follows:

Texas Historical CommissionPost Office Box 12276Austin, Texas 78711

Or to such other address as Grantee may from time to time designate in writing to theGrantor. A copy shall also be sent to the chainnan of the Dallas County HistoricalCommission. Upon receipt of notice of the contemplated transfer, the Grantee shallconsider the purpose and effect of the proposed transfer and may approve or disapprovethe transfer, if it is determined that the transfer would be inconsistent with the purposesof this Easement. This provision shall expire when this Easement expires or fifty yearsfrom the date this easement takes effect (whichever occurs first).

c. Grantee agrees that it will hold this Easement exclusively for conservation purposes:that is, it will not transfer this Easement for money, other proPerty or services.

7. RESERVATION

a. Grantor reserves the free right and privilege to the use of the Property for all purposesnot inconsistent with the grant made herein.

b. Nothing contained in this Easement shall be interpreted to authorize, require or permitGrantor to violate any ordinance relating to building materials, construction methods oruse. In the event of any conflict ~tween any such ordinance and the terms hereof,Grantor shall promptly notify Grantee of such conflict and Grantor and Grantee shallagree upon such modifications consistent with sound preservation practices, the Secretary

Grant of EasementPage 3 '.

45

of the Interior" s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995 and consistentwith the requirements of such ordinance.

8. ACCEPTANCE

Grantee hereby accepts the right and interest granted to it in this Easement.

9. GRANTOR'S INSURANCE

a Grantor shall maintain, at its own cost, insurance against loss from the perilscommonly insured under standard fire and extended coverage policies and comprehensivegeneral liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death and property damage insuch amounts as would normally be carried on a property such as that subject to thisEasement, it being agreed that as of the date of ~ltis Easement, Grantor"s present coveragein the amount of the estimated replacement cost of the building located on the Property(fire and extended coverage insurance). Such insurance shall include Grantee's interest andname Grantee as an additional insured and shall provide for at least thirty (30) days noticeto Grantee before cancellation and that the act or omission of one insured will notinvalidate the policy as to any other insured. Furthermore, Grantor shall deliver toGrantee certificates or other such documents evidencing the aforesaid insurance coverageat the commencement of this grant and a new certificate at least ten (10) days prior to theexpiration of each such policy.

b. For counties that are self-insured, there must be evidence of fmancial ability to repairor reconstruct the courthouse in the event of any potential loss.

10. RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION

To the extent allowed by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, Grantor shall beresponsible for and does hereby release and relieve Grantee, its officers, directors, agents andemployees, and will defend and hold Grantee, its officers, directors, agents and employees,hannless of, from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, damages, penalties, claims, costs,charges and expenses which may be imposed upon or incurred by Grantee by reason of loss oflife, Personal injury andlor damages to property occurring in or around the Property occasionedin whole or in part by the negligence of Grantor, its agents or employees.

11. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ADDITIONAL COSTS

Whenever the consent or approval of Grantee is required, it shall not be unreasonably withheld ordelayed. In any event, Grantee shall respond to any request for consent within thirty (30) days(except under extraordinary circumstances) or such consent shall be deemed to have been given.The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to any request of Grantor for consent to and


46

approval of plans and specifications by Grantee in the event of proposed restorations oralteration pursuant to the terms of this Easement.

12. NO TmRD PARTY BENEFICIARY

Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in this Agreement, all rights, privileges and benefits arefor the exclusive use of the parties hereto, and there shall be no third party beneficiary hereof.

13. WORK DONE AS A CONDITION OF ACCEPTING THE GRANT

Grantee acknowledges that substantial corrective and restoration work has been done or will bedone by the Grantor to preserve the historic architectural integrity of the Property. Thecorrective and restoration work shall be completed by Grantor in accordance with the grant, theFunding Agreement, and this Easement.

14. TERM OF AGREEMENT

This Easement shall become valid on the date of the last signature included herein and remain ineffect until September 1, 2050, unless terminated earlier by agreement of the parties.Notwithstanding, this Easement shall terminate if either the Funding Agreement, or Grantee'sparticipation in the Program, are terminated prior to the receipt of any amount of the grantaward.,

IS. SEVERANCE CLAUSE

In the event any provision of this Easement is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions ofthe Easement shall remain in force and effect as if such invalid provision had not been a part ofthe Easement.

Grant of EasementPageS

47

This Easement is for the benefit of and appurtenant to the land, or any portion of the land, in theCounty of Dallas, State of Texas, described as follows:

In witness, this GRANT is executed on the day of , in the year

Grantor: Dallas County

By: _

Lee F. JacksonDallas County Judge

STATE OF TEXAS:On this the _ day of , in the year , before me, a Notary Public in and forthe State of Texas, , known to me (or satisfactorily proven)to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the Grant of Easement acknowledged that theyexecuted the same for the purposes therein contained.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

Notary Public

Grantee: Texas Historical Commission

By:F. Lawerence OaksExecutive Director

STATE OF TEXAS:

On this the __ day of , in the year , before me, a Notary Public in andfor the State of Texas, the undersigned officer, personally appeared F. Lawerence Oaks, whoacknowledged himself to be Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission, a stateagency organized under the laws of the State of Texas, and that he as such Executive Director,being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein containedby signing the name of the Texas Historical Commission by himself as Executive Director.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

Notary Public


48

Texas Historic Courthouse Preservation ProgramTexas Historical Commission

EASEMENT ATTACHMENT "An

Legal description of the Dallas County Courthouse Square:

All that land, being City Block 221/2 of the City of Dallas, Texas as

49DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATIONDan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations

December 13, 2000

To:

From:

Subject:

commission.ers~..( ,

IDan Savage, ~ssistant Administrator for Operations

Downtown Signage and Way-Finding Plan

BackgroundFor sometime the Downtown Improvement District (DID) has been working on a project to improve wayfinding signage for vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the downtown area which includes the area around theDallas County government center complex. The DID has sought to partn!~r with a variety of governmentalagencies and interest groups on this project. Larry Fonts, President of the DID, has discussed with me theidea of Dallas County joining this partnership, initially at the $50,000 level. At this point the DID hascommitments of support from the Dallas City Center Tax Investment Financing District, The City of Dallas,the DaUas Convention and Visitors Bureau, and DART. DID has also made a financial commitmentto the project. As a result of our discussions, Mr. Fonts has reduced his request to $25,000 spread out overtwo years. Attached are excerpts from the Dallas Center City Transportation Management Study whichfocuses on the need for Downtown way-finding signage and the RFP document which describes the scopeof work for this project. If Dallas County does participate in this project emphasis will be given to theCounty's particular signage needs around the County's downtown buildings.

Impact on Operation.This stUdy will help identify way-finding signage needs and develop a coordinated means of presenting wayfinding information for both pedestrians and vehicles around Downtown Dallas, including the specific areaaround the Dallas County government center complex.

FundingNo specific General Fund monies have been appropriated for this purpose. Funds could be taken from the$100,000 in planning monies that have been included in the FY2001 Capital Improvement Plan.

LegalIf the Commissioners Court is interested in pursuing this request, an agreement will have to be preparedto enable Dallas County to participate in the project.

RecommendationBecause of the Commissioners Court interest in the redevelopment of the plaza area and the restorationof Old Red as well as the expansion of the Sixth Floor Museum to the seventh floor of the AdministrationBuilding, I recommend that the Commissioners Court authorize staff to develop an agreement toparticipate with the DID and its other partners in developing this way-finding signage plan.

Recommended by

/~I

Dan SavageAssistant Administ

Dallas County Administration Building411 Elm Street, 3ld Floor Dallas Texas 75202·3317

e-mail: dsavageGdallascounty.org ..

Telephone (214) 653-7650Telephone (214) 653-6517

DOWNTOWNIMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT

Officers:

Martin Cox

Chairman

E. I.orry Fonts

President

John De La Garza, Jr.Treasurer

Board ofDirectors:

Michael H. Anderson

Diona Boyea

R. Gregg Chilton

Larry B. Cooper

Matthew R. Craft

Benilda A. Dizon

Joe D Dobbs

Grayson D. Gill, Jr.

Richard G. Guerra

Sharon Haines

L. A. Hiller, Jr.

Kenneth D. Hollingsworth

Lyria F Howland

Sylvester J. Johnson

Thomas P. Ligon

Veletta Forsythe Lill

Gary Lindenberger

John P. Loza

Alice Murray

Mary Poss

Joel J. Pustmueller

John Rader

Richard E. Show, Jr.

Robert L. Sims

Paul Upchurch

Steve Vissotzky

Otto K. Wetzel

Dee Anne S. Willis

Don S. Yates

50

November 14, 2000

Mr. Dan SavageDallas County411 Elm Street, 3rd FloorDallas, TX 75202

Dear Dan,

Thank you for meeting with us to discuss the Downtown Signage andWayfinding Plan. The p~oposedplan is the result ofseveral {(;cent urbanplanning projects including the City Center Transportation SystemManagement Plan, the Downtown Pedestrian Connections Plan and theDowntown Gateways Plan wpich all identified a need for acomprehensive program that includes directional andwayfinding signagefor vehicular and pedestrian users. In addition, the DowntownImprovement District is committed to design and print a map thatcorresponds graphically with the implemented program.

We believe Dallas County will receive the following benefits throughparticipation:

1. Assist over 3,000 citizens who report each week for jury service inthe County Court system, along with other individuals involved ineach criminal or civil proceeding.

2. Identification ofCounty property as a distinct area of Downtown.3. Directional guidance for vehicles from freeway exits to your area

of Downtown, and to area parking facilities.4. Identification of the Civil Court facilities, Old Red, Courthouse

Plaza, Dealey Plaza and The 8ixth Floor Museum as destinationswithin your area.

5. Directional guidance from your area to the West End, ConventionCenter and City Center areas and from those areas to your areaand your facilities and attractions.

6. Directional guidance to and from DART light rail and TrinityRailway Express stations.

7. Representation on the committee which will oversee developmentof the Plan.

1201 Elm Street • Suite 5310 • Dallas, Texas 75270214·744-6655 • Fox 214·744.1986 • www.downtowndollos.org

Managed by Dallas CaD Enterprises and Central Dallas Association

,.

51

Obviously, in historic districts, we will be sensitive to any requirementsnecessary to maintain the integrity of the district or of facilities withinthe district. As well, standard international graphic designations will beutilized to accommodate international visitors.

We appreciate your support. This plan and its implementation willenhance the experience of thousands who visit your courts and historicdestinations each week.

Sincerely,

cc: The Honorable Lee JacksonThe Honorable John Wylie PriceMartin Cox, Chairman, DID

.,

DOWNTOWNIMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT

Officers:

Martin CoxChairman

E. Larry Fonts

President

John De La Garza, Jr

Treasurer

Board ofDirectors:

Michael H. Anderson

Diana Boyea

R. Gregg Chilton

Larry B. Cooper

Matthew R. Craft

Benilda A. Dizon

Joe D. Dobbs

Grayson D. Gill, Jr.

~ichard G. Guerra

Sharon Haines

L. A. Hiller, Jr.

Kenneth D. Hollingsworth

Lyria F. Howland

Sylvester J. Johnson

Thomas P. Ligon

Veletta Forsythe lill

Gory Lindenberger

John P. Loza

Alice Murray

Mary Poss

Joel J. Pustmueller

John Rader

Richard E. Shaw, Jr.

Robert L. Sims

Paul Upchurch

Steve Vissotzky

Otto K. Wetzel

Dee Anne S. willis

Don S Yates

52

October 16, 2000

Dan SavageDallas County411 Elm Street, 3rd FloorDallas, TX 75202

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your suggestion to approach the Dallas Convention andVisitors Bureau for participatiol: in the Downtown Signage andWayfinding Plan. Dave Whitney made a commitment during our meetinglast Thursday. This program has wide support and we'd certainly like tolist Dallas County as a participant.

As we have discussed, the County's participationwould benefit over 3,000citizens who report for jury service each week in the County court systemas well as many other individuals involved in each criminal or civilproceeding. Their ability to identify parking areas and easily finddowntown destinations would greatly enhance this experience.

We invite you to join us in this important project. Along with the $50,000committed by DID, we will be joined by the Dallas City Center TIF, Cityof Dallas, DART and the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau. Acontribution of $25,000 from Dallas County would help us make ourbudget. We would be happy to invoice half on January 1, 2001 and halfon January 1, 2002.

I will call you this week to finalize your contribution.

1201 Elm Street • Suite 5310 • Dallas, Texas 75270214-7.44-6655 • Fax 214-744-1986 • www.downtowndallas.org

Managed by Dallas CSD Enterprises and Central Dallas Association

I .

DOWNTOWNIMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT

Officers:

53

August 20, 2000

Dan SavageDallas County411 Elm Street, 3rd FloorDallas, TX 75202

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your interest in the Downtown Signage and WayfindingPlan. Please allow me to address the issues you raised in your letter:

Martin CoxChairman

E. Larry FontsPresident

John De La Garza, Jr.Treasurer

Boord ofDirectors:

Michael H. AndersonDiana BoyeaR. Gregg ChiltonLarry B. CooperMatthew R. CroftBenilda A. DizonJoe D. DobbsGrayson D. Gill, Jr.Richard G. GuerraSharon HainesL. A. Hiller, Jr.Kenneth D. Hollingsworthlyria F. HowlandThomas P. ligonVeletto Forsythe liltJohn P. lozaAlice MurrayDavid NadelmanMary PossJoel J. PustmuellerJohn RaderSergio H. SalinasRichard E. Shaw, Jr.Robert L. SimsPaul UpchurchOtto K. WetzelDee Anne S. WillisDon S. YatesJames E. yoder

1.

2.

I realize that Dallas County is concemed about cost benefit. Ibelieve you underestimate the scope of Dallas County's visitordraw to Downtown Dallas. Over 3,000 citizens each week reportfor jury service in the County court system, many ofwhom rarelyvisit Downtown and would benefit greatly from a wayfindingsystem. Additionally, parties, witnesses and other interestedindividuals to each criminal or civil proceeding "visit" Downtown.While these people are here for business reasons, they are, in fact,visitors.

Many who come to Downtown have special interest in Dallas'historic aspects, the historic plaza and Old Red Courthouse becomekey points ofinterest. As well, over 460,000 visit The Sixth FloorMuseum on an annual basis, many ofwhom utilize the audio touror purchase items in the Museum Store which result in income tothe County.

I agree that many groups and organizations will benefit fromsignage and wayfinding and there may be additional sources tofinance the plan. Your suggestion to include the DallasConvention and Visitors Bureau is one to follow up on. As aspecial assessment district, DID has been funded by assessmentspaid by owners in the West End since 1993. In 1997, DallasCounty Community College District began contributing on anannual basis. I hesitate to go back to those who are currentlyfunding our program on an annual basis and are, in effect,contributing through DID.

1201 Elm Street • Swe 5310 • Dallas, Texas 75270214-744-6655 • Fax 214-744-1986 • www.downtowndallas.org

Managed by Dallas CBD Enterprises and Central Dallas Association

54

3. While we were very interested in including the areas representedby the North Texas Turnpike Authority and Texas Department ofTransportation, without their participation, it was necessary tonarrow the scope of the plan to bring the overall cost withinreason.

In 1997 DID approached Dallas County, as a major Downtown propertyowner, to join the City ofDallas, DART, DCCCD the federal governmentand private owners by participating in the District. At that time therewas an interest in contributing on a project-specific basis rather thanannual participation. The Downtown Signage and Wayfinding Plan is anprime candidate for such participation.

Currently, DID, DART, the Center City TIF, and City of Dallas havemade commitmen..s. We are willing to be flexible and to work with youto design a program that meets our combined. needs. I appreciate yourconsideration and will call next week to discuss how to proceed.

Sincerely,

55

DALLAS CENTER CITYTRAN"SPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for

Central Dallas AssociationThe Dallas Plap

Prepared by

Parsons TransportatioD Groupin association with

Corgan Associates, Ine.LKC Consulting Services, Ine.Wendy Lopez & Associates, Ine.Texas Transportation Institute

April 1998

56

private sources (Le.: as in Pioneer Plaza). The cost of these will obviously vary, dependingon the extent and complexity of the improvements, but an order of magnitude estimate would

. be from $500,000 to $2 million. The implementation time for these improvements isestimated to be approximately two to four years and therefore is IlQ1 be classified as a TSMproject.

Additional improvements to be made in the DeC pedestrian environment include internalsignage in the DeC to the DART Light Rail station on the ground level. Way finding needsto be enhanced to aid Conventioneers and Events Activities. The cost of this signage, whichis considered nominal ($2,000 to $5,000), could be provided by the DCC and DART.

Re):ommeoaatioo;

Implement landscaping, street furniture, banners, lights, public artwork, wayimding~!~nd pedestrian signage impr~vements along access routes to the Convention Center.

e. Improve Downtown wayfinding signage (from the toll road to center city and surroundingdistricts)

Problcm Dcfinition:

The following have been identified as deficiencies in the wayfinding system in the CenterCity:

• Currently, there is no unified wayfinding system for pedestrians or vehicularmovement to and around downtown.

• The current '6menu" signage system is not user friendly or graphically desirable.

• The Pegasus Signage system is somewhat confusing to the average public.

• The freeway way-finding signage docsn't reduce confusion or add to the clarity ofDowntown "mental mapping". (mental mapping could be described as themethodology of people's memory or thought process of finding their way from pointA to point B). Wayfinding can be done through imaging significant structures orplaces., creating significant streets or memorable·experiences,·or simply by creatingeasily understandable signage systems.

• All existing signage from the toll road into Downtown consists of street nameidentification only. Downtown is made up of numerous districts (ie: The West End.,Arts District., and Dallas City Center, etc.) Any visitor arriving from the northtollway to downtown has little information to direct them into district locations.Additionally, changes in the street grid downtown, (ie: the tollway to Harry Hinesto Akard., etc.) are extremely confusing for the average traveler. Traditionally, also,there has been no acknowledgment of Districts surrounding Downtown (ie: Uptown,State Thomas, Deep EIlum, etc.)

Dallas Center City TSM Non-Motorized Transponation System Options Pag.· 10

57

Analysis·

Freeways - The first order of signage should be the freeway way-finding system. This couldbe easily enhanced by placing District infonnation adjacent to the street name exits (ie: "ArtsDistrict" under Pearl Street and St. Paul exits). This system could tremendously enhanceway-finding and assist motorists in finding downtown districts, clarifying City "mentalmapping" and route finding (see Figure 5-3). Signing which directs motorists to Center Cityparking and other important public facilities, using international traveler symbols could alsobe incorporated into this system.

This signage could also be supplemented and used to divert and redirect traffic, controllingflow by the following:

• "Real time" changeable message freeway traffic infonnation for downtown ex.italternatives

• Publicly circulated publications illustrating specific route access by Districts

• Radio infonnation channels, indicating traffic alternatives.

It is recommended that Tx.DOT, supplemented by City of Dallas funds, finance the freewaysignage for Downtown Districts identification. It may also be possible to receive funds fromvarious District organizations (such as the West End Association) for this freewayidentification signage.

Districts - The next level of wayfinding signage recommended is District signage, similar tothe West End and Arts District systems. The attractive characteristics of these two systems(streets and menu boards) are: graphically appealing, distinctively district associated, andclear in their infonnation and visual content to the public. Recently, the Fanners ~larket hasalso added signage that is more District compatible to the character of this historic area.More District signage is recommended for Dallas City Center, the GovemmentDistrict, DeepEllum, Uptown, theCeciars and perhaps the Reunion Arena area. All of these districts couldbe uniquely identified with signage, adding to the variety of downtown character anddistinguishing downtown district as unique places to be. The recent "murals" have addedgreatly to wayfinding and could be expanded to be District specific. (ie: the Arts Districtinspired mural). District identification signage could be located on overhead street signsindicating the Districts, similar to the freeway signage mentioned previously. In addition,logos and district graphics could be incorporated into this signage, providing interesting,more user-friendly wayfinding identification, especially for out-of-town visitors.

Similar graphic theme concepts have been used at shopping malls surrounding the city( i.e.The Galleria). Costs for these systems could be on a "case by case" basis whenimprovements are made to individual private sector structures or public improvements are

DaliasC.nter City TSM Non-Motorized Trlnsportation System Options Page· 11

IlARTDN·.. _~ ...allCX:lA

"\ ,,>\-l / \~ ~T\lia. INC-, ",' ..\, \./ '. .~,\ . .'. '.. . f" J ~ " .\\ \ ~ '\ \ "- ~ .' . 1~ II' ' ~, .,,' I' • /.\ ,. ' • -I>. / •.1 II I - Jt-- ~.;;.~ ~"~~: ' • t.: ~If t • t ~ " 1 "-....:'1 .: ~ k '\. ,.., . --- B<;// ' ~, .. , ," " .

• . , ~ •• t \ .' \\'1'" ,,' ,l" ,/ '\., '-:.. '.;_\""" '\ \ )Jr, It . /",i' . " '.' ,,"" ..... \.' "-..' •..•.~~~' '\\ "ll/~'. -,\\"f-I/' ~., '~J\~\" >"'>i,' I·. '\ . \",'. .."" "', , .,,' '." ." , ~ , \ ,I I . '- . ,,# ", <~ " ~ . • .,'

.', " ' , . ' \ ,. ,@I/ ." ' ,," . '\ .t .. . ..'.., •• ' ," " '.' , / \ • . III ~ B' ." , " . ,,'- '-,.....:" ",... '. . ' \ :' "I' .j>' " ". .. A"""" .. ' ".' ".'/,/' .~ /'. ... \ \' . \' b ~4'l ..' '" {V~. 1 ,,' ,: " "" , •• ~;~,. ,'" .:, .... ',' , ~ . • \ ~I,; ,. .tt.' .' /01"'" .' !. I" " - ' ....:.:,;: ,.' " i\ '\... :,. '\ / '.: A ,,':', , """",:' ,?Ln~" ,.' cf""" , J/" -..., /'.,1" ., ,'.' , '. J' I, '" " ," ... "" ,j. .", . >' / '.L • • ,j" ' " ,. ",'" / j' . " , "\ " ,~., ,v ,-<' " .. .. -'> .'" " " ~.~. " . ' ., " ,.. ,/••• ,-t, ' '. \' -," ,,',' A , ' ,.. ..' ' " ,. ' , ,\' ..' . " , " . ,.,", '... ..... 'f \ '. "'~ >/. < ", "... ,,,,,.,-" '" " 'c '. ,.'... . \ .' \ " }" / '. ~ ,..., ", ..... , \. . ' '. '. ,', : , ' / \

• .,' " ~ ,..:.:..-=- _:' '" '" (. ,. ' .. ' , ,y'..' " '.. " . ' / ", "..... ' ....A" 'I', ", 'J"J" ' ..' , ' ~-' '\. ..,'t\,..J,"" \ ,.( " " ~ I' • ... • " •,- c '\.... , "('l'~J' .''' >, ~\~ {) ',.. ' .' C" ,,~ ".\1 ,,~"·"·\r·""·······'\" . ' 7' \ • \ ' ". / ,. . ' .." ' ". I' '" \i ,... ' " •" " " " '1 .. '\I" ·\. .;, · ''fl' , "• \ '. :/': ., __ ' • ( "/ ," f" • .",." • .." ..--- .... ." I" \. \.,_...;,~.. D -' v,\\/' ~.:. i,essCO 'l~,. (L'Jl\ ( \\~t,\':'~l0 ..J?\C::-;(J,,>:~·'·,k~'. \\ ,L .j,,' ,\ ~ ,L? .y~-=-..c\\ ., \ )\ \\. ,.,....<.. \L - ,)=-r::f

l:\.'L..'· 71,~ , \. \\' ((~\'\1\f~\-~\\,~~~t~f'\\' \\ \\C~:;;©\_\\·~\~P'~III{LS'\\) ~

'. • ' ~ ,y-'_ \ ..... \ \ _ .._" ' \ I ..' '/ . "} • \ ..~.... 1\1 . - . .. . II ~, ","" \\ \ \\ ~-1 I ~('''f' '(,)q/~ "\ \,f.'~ <' /",-" '" i ......'"\\ ~ , . ,I. ;~~'~\""f\tr(\\ . \.\\ L. '1. ,\\, ),('.~ '.'\J;( ..,,::......~(=_. -' /. 's,J

I \I~ r \\\\ \\J II ..~ \\ . ,., \\ \ ,;..)~Fa ~t, \:-J ~\p-" . . \~ " .. ,'.-lh-/ !f',," ", J\\' . /', " .., "'l:: ", '\ . > ':, "./' './ '" . A , ..I ..' .. · ' ~;<' at·, '\ ..,~.' (" ,-~ \\\\ A (~\\ \\ \ \ \~P ~, ' ··\)S·~,,, ::~.f> ':" .~\\ ~/y/

.,\ ( \' E'~~ .&~ //.(1 1 "",. _\;.~. ~t \ , \. '\\.. \ " ,

\

,." -.-...-'::::lo"''''''-' . /. /'"..... ... \, ... 1:'" ,., '-~ ... . ' · '. ) II.. \'~ II ..... \ _~,.. " "'... - II; ..,.. • /'> ' .' / ' /..-. ___ __ _ ~_ . _ . _\\ --:~" "t) I ...', ','. ., y . - ....... • ~ .' . , ." . 'C' ..' •. ",-..,' "'-... • ..' " '. • ~ .' " .,'• , .' " )\.. . . .. .-""'.. ~7 ,..', '\ Ii '••,. ",' • . .' " ..' i' ...

\

'\ 'fi~,'~' 'i.'\.. :/ ~/l{ · -~"" ...... . ' .. , " \ \ \\ ' \,,,\, " .. '. /'<o~ $''.~;.' ' ':. "" - '.,' . " ~ .\' ... ," ,\. ',' · . ...{" . .. . .,.. .. ,!/ /. ~ 4,""=d E ..' ! . ". · ." ,f \ / -"","

" !:",./ ._..•-"" "." • I '1'~' .. ". . ."~ .. ' \"," ; \ ..;.'&itst~.'- . )~, -,:!(., ' :.~ .,.' .}. ., t.· '... ,t,. . ," \' \\*: ,/ ".p' \.A ~lIilrids. -~ - I·'.~:l/ 1r". \.; '\' ' ". \ >< ' ".~\: \~/X;,t /B =-End_.~_~ , .:.... ~, ">( AI •••••. '\ "" .. ). ,\, ,\' \:; / \

C

~~ ,8' .' ..' /'0 ('\\~' ' /"-Doop~- '. ••• ' ' :~" .'.... ' " ,.:' ,( '/ .....

D F.....-.. - • , .. / .. ....," '~ /E~~- ,..... ' ~. '\ ,,( /) '\\~.,.. , \" \('\,/~"\. / ~ /''0 \\('

__ ~ '\\/ ~ / I /----- --f.-Wayfinding: Di . Figure 5 - 3

WahF=IdentificationQdIai 0aIat YExit Signage

~1SMSludv

59

con.templated. The cost of the most recent mural painted on the parking garage wall at SanJacmto and Leonard was approximately 5150,000.

The next level of signage downtown is the downtown menu boards. Because of theexcessive number of choices sometimes presented on these menu boards, they are oftenconfusing and of limited aid to vehicular traffic or pedestrians. Menu signage boards andarrows are common throughout the world; however, typically the graphics are simpler, moreunified and more interesting. Placement of the menu signs is crucial to wayfinding, since itis their continuity that actually leads the user to his end destination. For example, the FairPark signage is located conveniently and noticeably along Central Expressway, rn 30 andHaskell Blvd. This signage seems to work well in guiding visitors to the Park. Its successcould be attributed to the unique logo of the Ferris Wheel, the blue color and its strategicplacement along the freeway system. The continuity, consistency and interesting graphicsare lacking in the current systems.

Therefore, it is recommended that logos be ado1Jted for each of the districts. (many of thesealready exist ie. The Arts District), and specific colors be adopted, associated with eachdistrict. By using consistency of logo, color and strategic placement of these signswayfinding will be tremendously enhanced, especially for out-of-town visitors.

It is recommend these signs be placed at the first arterial loop, inside the freeway boundaries,along Ross, Griffin, Field, Young, and Pearl as shown in Figure 5-3. Wayfinding menu signsare critical at the intersections of these arteries. In linking the freeway signage and theindividual district signage, travelers can move easily from district to district', thus minimizingconfusion and frustration. Signing which directs motorists to Center City parking and otherimportant public facilities, using international traveler symbols could also be incorporatedinto this system.

This menu signage system can be utilized for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles, since allcan utilize similar routes. Most of these signage systems can be added to city bond programsand perhaps some monies can be raised from traffic funds, (parking violation, meters, etc.)in specific districts to supplement menu signage budgets.

Pegasus Parking - The Pegasus signage, while attractive, is currently somewhat confusing.For instance, the Pegasus symbol has been used in Dallas for freeway exiting, parking,district identification, and even buildings. Pegasus has a long been associated with Dallasas a symbol and this is positive. Enhancement of Pegasus' image by adding specific wordsfor usage such as "parking", under the Pegasus symbol or "exit" under the number on thefreeway could strengthen public familiarity with this unique signage system.. A similarsystem has recently been implemented in Austin; however, the standard, circled "P", with adirectional arrow, was utilized to direct motorists to parking locations.

District and Area Identification - District and area identification should also be located toindicate Uptown, The Arts District, Convention Center, Dallas City Center and the FarmersMarket. Gateway identification could be tied into this signage, indicating specific gatewayentrances into downtown and assisting in landmark district wayfinding (see Figure 5-4). The

Dallas Center City TSM Non-Motorized Transportation System Options Page· 13

61

cost of these systems could be shared with public and private as new construction occurs.Gateway implementations are accomplished and signage is generally replaced over time.

The total cost for design. fabrication. and installation of these several categories ofwayfinding signs is estimated to be approximately $350,000. Implementation could beaccomplished. in a phased manner over a one to two year period with individual propertyowners, the City of Dallas, TXDOT, and DART. Since these costs are substantial and thedesign of such a system will be complex, a careful development process should precedeproject implementation.

Recommendations;

Engage a consultant to develop a comprehensive wayrmding system motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists to include freeway exit signage, District signage, Downtownmenu boards, Pegasus parking signs, and gateway identification.

2. Other Improvements

a. Develop pedestrian linkages, recognizing human comfort and scale.

Problem Definition'

As stated in the introduction and under division l.a) Network Enhancements. DowntownDallas has nsn been over!y focused on the pedestrian. Therefore, most all pedestrian routesare non "user friendly".

There is minimal landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian street lighting, public art work,etc. This has created a very uninviting pedestrian environment. With the removal ofretailing at grade level, Downtown has become almost totally vehicular orientated.Pedestrian linkages from district to district do not exist. It is assumed people will drive.This in tum, encourages driving. Until recently, convenient transit was not an option;therefore, people drove their cars, even from building to building downtown.

Analvsis:

The Pontetrravers report, Pratt's Downtown urban analysis, and the Corgan DowntownDallas 2010 reports all indicate lack of pedestrian orientation in the downtown area. Majordistrict arteries such as Ross, Main, Young, Pearl, Akard, Market. and Houston Streetsshould be developed from district to district with pedestrian amenities. These pedestrianconnections and district focused movement corridors can enhance the DART Transit Mallconnections discussed in the Network Enhancements section above. The Main Streetimprovements in Dallas City Center are a good example of street level pedestrian sensitivity,including sidewalks, street furniture, street lighting, landscaping, banners, etc. Public artshould be expanded with the Public Art Program. Currently this exists in limited downtownlocations. (such as Pioneer Plaza, Thanksgiving Square and The Arts District). Other artprograms should be accomplished along these major pedestrian corridors could providepedestrian sw1 vehicular visual amenities.

Dallal Center City TSM Non-Motorized Transponation System Options Page· 15

62

DOWNTOWNIMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT

Officers:

larry L. HelmChairman

E. l"rry FontsPresident

John De La Garza, Jr.Secretary-Treasurer

Board ofDirectors:

Michael H. AndersonDiana SoyeaDonald R. Srownlarry B. CooperMatthew R. CraftSenilda A. DizonJohn A. DodsonGrayson D. Gill, Jr.Richard G. GuerraStephen R. HarrellJames W. HowardAlex JimenezVeletta Forsythe lillJohn LozaTheresa lell MartinAlice L. MurrayCecile PepiMary PossAlan C. PowersJoel J. PvstmuellerJohn R"derSergio H. SalinasRichard E. Shaw, Jr.Robert L. SimsStan R. SoroleaOtto K. Wetzel, Jr.Kirby D. WhiteDee Anne Shuman WillisJames e. Yoder

DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

Central Business District Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

Background

The Dallas Downtown Improvement District (DID) is a Public Improvement Districtenabled by chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code. DID is managed byDallas CBD Enterprises, Inc. (DCBDE), a private, non-profit corporation, governedby a 31-member Board of Directors representing private property owners within theDistrict, tenants with business interest in the District, and the City of Dallas. Themission of the Downtown Improvement District is to make Downtown Dallas"Clean, Safe and Fun," a strong competitor among places for people to spend andinvest.

In this regard, and in response to recommendations included in the Center CityTransportation System Management Plan, it is our desire to establish andimplement an urban sign program to include directional and wayfinding signage.As development attracts more people to the Downtown area, it becomes importantthat they find their way into Downtown, to parking or transit points, to points ofinterest, to the underground walkway system, and to facilitate their return.

The Central Business District Urban SignagelWaytinding Plan will be a combinedproject of DCBDE, the City ofDallas Departments ofPlanning & Development andPublic Works & Transportation, Texas Department ofTransportation, Dallas AreaRapid Transit, The Dallas Plan and Dallas County.

Statement ofPurpose

DCBDE is seeking a consultant for professional design services (Consultant) for acomprehensive Central Business District Urban Signage Program (Plan) includinga "waytinding" system, graphics and signage offering direction from a radius of onemile beyond the Downtown freeway loop into Downtown (including freeway and citystreet access), to parking and transit points, to interior districts, to major points ofinterest, to the underground walkway system, and facilitate their return.

The successful firm. or consultant team will be responsible for providing detailinformation to include the following: (1) determine project process andorganizational plan; (2) identify and evaluate existing signage and its effectiveness;(3) establish graphics, design guidelines and criteria for directional andidentification signage; (4) propose typical sign types, material, size, shape andcolors; (5) prepare sign location recommendations and typical messages; (6)recommend options for funding; (7) propose an estimated budget for fabrication andinstallation; (8) provide typical schematic drawings and elevations with dimensionsfor recommended signage.

1

1201 Elm Street • Suite 5310 • Dallas, Texas 75270 • 214-7~5 • Fax 214-7......1986Managed by Oolla. CSD Inte,."ri... and C.ntral 00110. AuoCoWon

63

Request for QualificationsCBn Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

Work Plan

The Consultant will provide the following products and services:

I. Research & Analysis• Establish Plan goals and mission.• Solicit community input (maximum 2 community meetings, approx 1'12-2 hour duration;

DCBDE will identify invitees, provide notification and location and provide a facilitator)• Research and identify state, federal and local codes, including the Americans with

Disabilities Act, that govern signage size, materials, construction and placement.• Research standard International symbols and nomenclature applicable for urban signage

and wayfinding systems.• Research programs implemented in other cities including methods used for

implementation funding.• Analyze sources of funding for urban signage & wayfinding systems.• Identify existing signage and evaluate its effectiveness; state reasons for failure ofcertain

systems.• Identify downtown districts with their commonly used logos.• Utilizing the Center City Transportation System Management (TSM) Plan, identify

existing gateways and access points, districts, public service facilities, transit points,parks, parking, underground access points, points ofinterest, attractions, destinations andmajor transfer points. (A copy ofthe TSM Plan is available for review in the DCBDE office)

• Center City TSM Plan and its recommendations shall be used as a basis for all Plandevelopment. Existing sources for pedestrian information include DART and City ofDallas Planning Department Pedestrian Connections study.

II. Schematic Design• Research and establish issues necessary to formulate concepts (ie. image, history,

perception)• Concepts should address needs ofusers (ie. pedestrians, international visitors, automobile

drivers, transit users) and trip objectives.• Develop a graphic program, range of alternatives and optional schemes for the Plan.

III. DesiR D,velopuwnt• Establish signage hierarchy.• Define type, typography, style, color, size and material of signage proposed.• Present options for sign types appropriate for specific district applications.• Plan standards shall comply with established state, federal and local codes including

requirements found in Texas Manual ofUniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTeD), TexasAccessibility Standards (TAS) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

• Determine conceptual cost estimate for fabrication and installation, by sign type.• Provide preliminary placement criteria.

2

I

64

Request for QualificationseBD Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

IV. Documentation• Provide schematic designs for proposed signage, by sign type.• Provide criteria for selecting signage placement and an estimate of quantities required.• Prepare schematic drawings and written specifications for separate proposed sign

elements to include elevations, color, typography, graphics, materials, finish, supportelements and installation.

• Recommend a plan for implementation including a priority schedule for a phased planimplementation (refer to T8M study).

• Provide a cost estimate matrix for the fabrication and installation of each sign type,broken down by phase for phased plan implementation.

• Create criteria or standards to be used for future additions to the Plan.• Recommend funding sources for Plan implementation.• DO['lmentation shall be provided in hard-copy and electronic formats• Consultant will deliver twenty-five (25) bound copies of the full Plan, eight copies of the

Plan in electronic format and one hundred (100) copies of a five-page Plan summary.Consultant will make four presentations of the final Plan.

Other Information

~ The Consultant will work under the direction of DCBDE, who will serve as the ProjectManager. The City of Dallas Departments of Planning & Development and Public Works &Transportation, Texas Departmen.t ofTransportation, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, The DallasPlan and Dallas County will be represented on a technical review committee for this project.

~ The Plan shall present a consistent theme that will be acceptable to stakeholders and willaddress plans that may be currently underway by participating agencies.

• The Plan shall comply with appropriate State and local standards for applicable installations.

~ The Plan must be reasonable to implement; recommended signage shall provide for ease ofmaintenance and upgrades.

The Consultant shall become familiar with the sign refurbishing program ofTexas DepartmentofTransportation to incorporate as part the funding strategy ofthis Plan.

~ The Plan must meet applicable safety standards.

~ The Plan shall address the .placement of signs on state, city, county and private right-of-way.

~ Standard international graphic designations and other methods .to accommodate internationalvisitors shall be utilized and will be considered an important part of the Plan development andimplementation.

• All mapping shall conform to the Central Dallas Association GIS data base.

3

65Request for QualificationsCBn Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

Consultant Qualifications

Respondents to this notice should possess the following qualifications:

1. Individual or corporate entity legally qualified to conduct business in the State of Texas orlicensed to provided stated services (where necessary or required).

2. A professionally qualified team ofdesign, technical, management and administrative personnelto implement the goals and objectives of the Plan.

3. Consultant shall comply with legal requirements for Equal Opportunity Employmentstandards as evidenced through written employment policies.

4. Design and technical personnel should possess undergraduate or graduate degrees related toone or more of the following fields: graphic design, urban environmental design, engineering,urban planning & design, architectural design, communications and marketing.

5. Firm and Consultant's Project Manager shall possess minimum five years experience in urbansignage system design.

6. Previous experience with projects of similar magnitude to the proposed project.

7. Knowledge of and experience with municipal process and public works projects.

8. Ability to coordinate with various public and private entities to produce a product that willserve all parties.

Statement ofQualificGtioMlPlan. Proposal

A. Overview: Present a one page summary statement which outlines and identifies Consultant'sapproach to the project and indicates a clear understanding of the desired results. Consultantmay present alternate suggestions with explanation and reasons stated in the Plan Proposal.

B. Experience: Provide a list of three (3) previously completed projects similar to the proposedproject (please provide most recent and relevant projects). Discuss the background and historyof involvement of team members in projects similar to the proposed project, with indicationsof level of experience consultant or team members may have with each phase of the project,and how this experience is applicable to the proposed scope of services.

C. References: Provide name, address and telephone ofcontacts for each of the three (3) projectsnoted above, listed on one page.

4

66

Request for QualificationsCBD Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

D. Consultant Team: Consultant may elect to form a multi-faceted team of professionals fromvarious backgrounds to comprise a Consultant Team. In this event, one firm should bedesignated as the prime consultant for the purpose of this contract. Please provide anorganizational chart of individuals/sub-contractors comprising your Consultant Team,including the specific role and responsibility of each individual/sub-contractor. a ProjectManager shall be named for the project. Provide resumes for each team member (not to exceedtwo pages for the Project Manager and one page for other members). Consultant must useteam members as presented in the Statement of QualificationsIPlan Proposal, failure to do somay result in Contract termination.

E. Project Schedule: Provide a project schedule and time line to accomplish the Plan within afour-month period. This schedule will become a part of the resulting Contract for service.

F. Resources Available: Briefly describe any special facilities, equipment, personnel or any otherresources that will be available to assist in completing the project. Describe GIS capabilities.

G. Good Faith Effort Plan: DCBDE is committed to meeting the City ofDallas Good Faith EffortPlan (GFEP) goals for including Minority and Women owned Business Enterprises (M/WBE)in its programs. It is the policy of DCBDE that :MIWBE organizations have the maximumopportunity to participate in the performance of this project. In accordance with this policy,a GFEP goal of 25.66% has been established for this project (expressed asa percentage of theresulting total contract price). Consultant agrees to demonstrate a good faith effort to meet thegoal. Consultant will submit a Schedule of Work and Subcontractor/Supplier Participationform (attached) with the RFQ. Upon request, DCBDE will assist Consultant in identifying:MIWBE organizations that are certified through the North Central Texas RegionalCertification Agency.

H. Statement of QualificationsIPlan Proposal shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length.Please provide eight (8) copies of your proposal.

Selection Criteria.

Eligible Plan Proposals will be reviewed by an advisory panel consisting of (but not limited to)representatives from DeBOE, City ofDallas, Texas Department ofTransportation and Dallas AreaRapid Transit. The following will be among the criteria used to evaluate the Plan Proposals:

1. Experience in developing projects similar in scope, plus background in graphic, architecturaland urban design.

2. Experience and background of the individuals assigned to the project.3. Consultant's GIS capabilities.4 Overall effectiveness and thoroughness of the Plan Proposal in accomplishing the goals of the

Plan.5 Appropriateness of proposed approach.

5..

67

Request for QualificationsCBD Urban SignagelWayfinding Plan

6. Ability to meet Good Faith Effort Plan goals.

Time Frame for Consultant Selection

•

RFQ issued to invited candidates:Statement of QualificationsIPlan Proposal due:Committee Review:Finalist interviews:ContactlFee negotiation:Contract awarded:(Dates are subject to change)

Friday, November 20Friday, December 11December 14-30January 11- 14January 18-22open

Please forward questions or comments to:Patricia Kleinknecht, General Manager, Downtown Improvement District1201 Elm Street, Suite 5310Dallas, TX 75270214-744-6655; fax 214-744-1986

6

M: MaleF: Female

GFEP Schedule of Work and Subcontractor/Supplier Participation

Prime Contractor-------------_.Street Address

Project Name

Instructions: I lypafirmPlease list the work to be performed by each contractor/subcontractor in column 1 and categorize thefirms to be used as S (subcontractor), G (Supplies or Goods) or P (Prime Contractor's own forces) in B: African Americancolumn 2. List the name of the firm to be used, along with the MIWBE certification number (if applicable) H: Hispanicin column 3, the contact name and street address in column 4, and phone number in column 5. Note I: Asian Indianthe ethnicity of the firm (using abbreviations from table at right) in column 6. Estimate the dollar amount of N: Native Americanservices to be provided by the subcontractor/supplier in column 7, and estimate the total contract percentage P: Asian Pacificin column 8. W: WhiteL-- .

NOTE: The total of the amounts shown in the Percent columns must equal 1000/0.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Type of Work S/GIP Name of Firm Contact Name Phone Type Firm $ Estimate PercentWWBe Certification Number Street Address, City, State

Sub-totalThe undersigned, as an authorized agent for the Contractor, intends to enter into a formal agreement withsubcontractors listed in this schedule, conditioned upon execution of a contract with Dallas CBD Enterprises, Inc.l Total fromIf any changes, additions or deletions are made to this list, Contractor must submit a revised list with other pagesexplanation and documentation to DeBOE.

TOTAL

0\QO

Printed name and title Signature Date Page__ of __ Pages

69

DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

December 19, 2000

,'-.,

00 DEC I 3 PH 12: 09

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

The Honorable Commissioners Court

Gloria McCulloch Webb, Purchasing Analyst

Contract Extension - Annual Contract for the Purchase of Scientific Laboratory Supplies andProducts, Bid No. 99-245-183

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session held on November 2, 1999, authorized theaward of Bid No. 99-245-183, Annual Contract for the Purchase of Scientific Laboratory Supplies and Products,with Court Order 99-2053, for the period of November 02, 1999 through November 01, 2000 to VWR ScientificProducts.

The contract provides various types of laboratory supplies and other products used by the Health and Human Servicesand Medical Examiner offices on a daily basis. In accordance with the contract terms and mutual agreement by allparties, the contract may be extended for an additional twelve (12) month period based on the original pricing andterms, and conditions set forth in the bid. As a result of VWR Scientific Products, compliance with contractspecifications, it is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department, that the county exercise the first twelve (12)month extension option contained within Bid No. 99-245-183. VWR Scientific Products has agreed to extend theircontract with.Dallas County in accordance with the existing terms and conditions, and pricing set forth in bid.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period of November 02, 1999 through October 31, 2000, Dallas County's total expenditures for the abovereferenced contract were approximately $176,631.00.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department that the Dallas County Commissioners Court authorizes theftrst twelve (12) month extension of Bid No. 99-245-183, Annual Contract for the Purchase of Scientific LaboratorySupplies and Products with VWR Scientific Products.

Should the Court concur with recommendations, a Court Order will be scheduled for the next regular agenda.

Approved by:

.JIu:lt £.~JOhnJ. Cantweu,~L..haS.;amll::;.;:· :..,.Mr-+-irector--.--------

c: Scott McDowell, Purchasing Department

509 Main St. (Records BldgJ6th. Floor, Room 623

.Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653..7431

70


C'lA \2: 09OOOEe \ 3 (

December 19,2000

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:



Contract Extension - Request for Proposals to Provide Counseling and Treatment Services for theDistrict Attorney Family Violence Division, RFP No. 2000-016-210

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County ComnL. ·sh....lers Court, at their regularly scheduled ses~ion held on December 7, 1999, authorized theaward ofRFP No. 2000-016-210, Request for Proposals to Provide Counseling and Treatment Services for the DistrictAttorney Family Violence Division, with Court Order 99-2347, for the period of December 01, 1999 throughNovember 30, 2000 to The Family Place, Children First Counseling and New Beginning Center.

The contract provides treatment and counseling program services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence ingroup and individual settings. In accordance with the contract tenns and mutual agreement by all parties, the contractmay be extended for an additional twelve (12) month period based on the original pricing and tenns, and conditions setforth in the RFP. As a result ofThe Family Place, Children First Counseling and New Beginning Center, compliancewith contract specifications, it is the recommendation of the District Attorney's Office, that the county exercise the firsttwelve (12) month extension option contained within RFP No. 2000-016-210. All of the organizations have agreed toextend their contract with Dallas County in accordance with the existing tenns and conditions, and pricing set forth inRFP.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period of December 01, 1999 through October 03, 2000, Dallas County's total expenditures for the abovereferenced contract were approximately $85,147.00.

RECOMMENDATION

The Purchasing Department in conjunction with the District Attorney's Office recommends that Dallas CountyCommissioners Court authorizes the fU'St twelve (12) month extension of RFP No. 2000-016-210, Request forProposals to Provide Counseling and Treatment Services for the District Attorney Family Violence Division with TheFamily Place, Children First Counseling and New Beginning Center.

Should the Court concur with recommendations, a Court Order will be scheduled for the next regular agenda.

509 Main St (Records BldgJ6th. Floor. Room 623

Dallas. Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

71DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

.~'(-~ ,~~

" i -i I ' I

00 DEC \3 p~~ \2.: 09

December 19,2000

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:



Contract Extension - Annual Contract for the Purchase and Installation of Office Furniture, Bid No.2000-017-211

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session held on November 16, 1999 authorized theaward of Bid No. 2000-017-211, Annual Contract for the Purchase and Installation of Office Furniture with CourtOrder No. 99-2214 for the period ofNovember 21, 1999 through November 20,2000 to The Executive Desk, Inc.

The contract provides office furniture such as desks, chairs, computer workstations, flIes, modular, partitions, etc..utilized by all county departments at a fIXed item price and an additional catalog discount price of 57.02% off themanufacturer listed price for items which may not be 01'. the itemized list. In accordance with the contract terms andupon mutual agreement, the contract may be extended for an additional twelve (12) month period based on existingterms, conditions and pricing set forth in the bid. As a result of The Executive Desk, Inc. compliance with contractspecifications, the Purchasing Department requests that the county exercise the frrst twelve (12) month extensionoption contained within Bid No. 2000-017-211.

The Executive Desk, Inc. has agreed to extend their contract in accordance with existing terms, conditions andpricing set forth in the original bid award. The proposal submitted by the Executive Desk, Inc. reflects an averagesaving of between 5.5-13.6% when compared to the remaining bidder's proposals. Historically, Dallas County hasexperienced increases in contract when a proposal is re-solicited. Therefore, the extension is recommended.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period ofNovember 21, 1999 through November 14,2000, Dallas County's total expenditures for the abovereferenced contract was approximately $556,126.00.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department that the Dallas County Commissioners Court authorize the fIrsttwelve (12) month extension of Bid No. 2000-0017-211, Annual Contract for the Purchase and Installation of OfficeFurniture. The extension is based on existing .terms; conditions and pricing set forth in the original bid award

Should the Court concur with the recommendation, a Court Order will be scheduled for the next regular agenda.

A:JlBrJ BrObJlU5~L

C: Scott McDowell, Purchasing Department

5.09 Main St. (Records BldgJ6th. Floor, Room 623

,Dallas. Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

72DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

"""C \ ~ F'I~ \2: 09OODt V 1

December 19,2000

TO: The Honorable Commissioners Court

FROM: Gloria McCulloch Webb, Purchasing Analyst

SUBJECT: Contract Extension - Annual Contract for Ambulance Services, Bid No. 2000-022-222

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session held on November 23, 1999 authorized theaward of Bid No. 2000-022-222, Annual Contract for Ambulance Services with Court Order No. 99-2214 for theperiod of December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000 to Laidlaw Medical Transportatio~ Inc. d.b.a. AmericanMedical Response.

The contract provides ambulance service to Dallas County's unincorporated areas and detention facilities. Inaccordance with the contract terms and upon mutual agreement, the contract may be extended for an additional twelve(12) month period based on existing terms, conditions and pricing set forth in the bid As a r,sult of Laidlaw MedicalTransportatio~ Inc. d.b.a. American Medical Response compliance with contract specifications, the Fire Marshal'sOffice requests that the county exercise the first twelve (12) month extension option contained within Bid No. 2000022-222. Laidlaw Medical Transportatio~ Inc. d.b.a. American Medical Response has agreed to extend their contractin accordance with existing terms, conditions and pricing set forth in Bid No. 2000-022-222.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period of December 01, 1999 through October 24,2000, Dallas County's total expenditures for the abovereferenced contract was approximately $24,664.00. In effort to compare pricing, the Purchasing Department contactedtwo (2) other fIrms within this type of industry for a price comparison. The results ofthe survey areas follows:

Laidlaw Medical Transportatio~ Inc. d.b.a. American Medical Response: Rates - $ 100.00 per run (current supplier)CareFlite: Rates - $ 279.00 per run plus $ 5.00 per mileRural Metro Emergency Medical Service: Rates - $ 280.00 per run plus $ 6.00 per mile

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department in conjunction with the Fire Marshal's Office that the DallasCounty Commissioners Court authorize the first twelve (12) month extension of Bid No. 2000-022-222, AnnualContract for Ambulance Services. The extension is based on existing terms, conditions and pricing set forth in theoriginal bid award.

Should the Court concur with the recommendatio~ a Court Order will be scheduled for the next regular agenda.

Approved By:

4 l Jkt1{jg~Jobi11CanlWe~~ goirector

c: Jim Badgett, Fire MarshalBob Grant, Assistant Fire Marshal

509 Main St (Records BldgJ6th. Floor, Room 623

.Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

73


December 19, 2000

-:.-./I

.:: __ ." t ~ ,...

''-, .... _J ...... i

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:



Contract Extension - Contract for the Purchase and Printing of Optical Scan Paper Ballots,Bid No. 98-323

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduleri session held on October 26, 1999, authoriz(;"dthe twel"" (12) month extension of Bid No. 98-323, Contract tor the Purchase and Printing of Optical ScanPaper Ballots with Court Order 99-2038, for the period of December 01, 1999 through November 30,2000to Hart Infonnation Services, Inc.

The contract is for the purchase and printing of optical scan paper ballots that will be used in the recentlypurchased optical scan voting equipment for the Elections Department. In accordance with the contract termsand conditions and upon mutual agreement, the contract may be renewed for two (2) additional twelve (12)month periods based on existing terms, conditions and pricing set forth in the bid As a result of HartInformation Services, Inc. compliance with contract specifications~ it is the recommendation of the ElectionsDepartment that the county exercise the fInal twelve (12) month extension option contained within Bid No.98-323. Hart Information Services, Inc. has agreed to extend the contract for service in accordance withexisting terms, conditions, and pricing set forth in the bid.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period of December 01, 1999 through August 29,2000, Dallas County's total expenditures for theabove referenced contract were approximately $364,647.00.

RECOMMENDATION

The Purchasing Department in conjunction with the Elections Administrator recommends that the DallasCounty Commissioners Court authorizes the fmal twelve (12) month extension of Bid No. 98-323, Contractfor the Purchase and Printing ofOptical Scan Paper Ballots, with Hart Information Services, Inc. Theextension is based on existing terms, conditions and pricing set forth in the original bid award.

Should the Court concur with the recommendation, a Court Order will be scheduled for the next regularagenda.

~") John J. Cantwe:P\uchasfiirector

o- c: Bruce R. Sherbet, Elections AdministratorToni Pippins-Poole, Assistant Elections Administrator

509 Main St. (Records BldgJ6th. Floor. Room 623

Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431


74

" .-. \0.:~. r~, -. I I r""r

.... '-vv,'. i

TO:

FROM:

December 19, 2000

MEMORANDUM

The Honorable Commissioners Court ,$Shirley Rapp, Purchasing Analyst j}~

00 DEC I 3 PM 12: 09

SUBJECT: Dallas County Auction Report

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

On December 7, 2000 Dallas County conducted an auction as authorized by the CommissionersCourt. The auction was held at Roa.d & Bridge District #2 and was conducted by the county'scontract auctioneer, Lone Star Auctioneers. The contract auctioneer sold all items andcompleted the sale by 2:00 p.m. The auction was held for the sale ofvehicles and heavyequipment.oniy. Office equipment and furnishings will be sold at a later date.

The auction grossed $313,075.00. This includes $92,075.00 received for the City of Irving andTarrant County Regional Water District, who participated in the auction. The County portion ofthe sale grossed $221,000.00 less the commission paid to the auctioneer of$22,100.00 (10% ofsale). The County netted $198,900.00 which was deposited with the County Treasurer into thefollowing accounts:

General FundR&B#1R&B#2R&B#3R&B#4Sheriff/ SIDDACSCD

$ 69,097.50$ 55,147.50$ 2,520.00$ 24,660.00$ 24,300.00$ 17,505.00$ 3,375.00$ 2,295.00

The 2000 auction consisted of 131 total sales lots (8110ts County, 4910ts City of Irving, and 1lot Tarrant County Regional Water Dist).

In comparison, the FY 99 auction which consisted ofvehicles, heavy equipment and jewlerynetted the County $159,547.50 with $90,517.50 deposited to the General Fund. That auctionconsisted of 122 sales lots (for the County), 110 vehicles and heavy equipment, and 12 jewlery.

509 Main St. (Records BldgJ6th. Floor. Room 623

Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

75

The Purchasing Department wishes to thank the Commissioners for use of their personnel,equipment and location space for the auction. The auction would not be possible without thecooperation and assistance from many departments. The auction process for 2000 wasdeveloped and conducted in a team spirit with commendable efforts by the Auditor's Office,Sherifrs Department, Sherifrs Reserves, Fire Marshal, Security, ASC, Public Works and allRoad and Bridge District crews. The Purchasing Department wishes to thank all participants fortheir part in the auction.

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with Local Government Code 263.152-158, it is recommended that theCommissioners Court accept the proceeds from the county auction and authorize the depositswith the County Treasurer as listed herein.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

76


- --..;... Ir-;

... ~... --' --' I" t

December 19, 2000

TO

FROM

SUBJECT:


Gloria McCulloch-Webb, Purchasing Analyst

Request for Proposal for an Fully Integrated Personal Computer Network Based DocumentImaging System for the Dallas County Sheriffs Department, RFP No. 99-218-133

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

The Dallas County Purchasing Department on March 06, 2000, briefed the Commissioners Court regarding theaward ofRFP No. 99-218-133, Request for Proposal for an i'llly Integrated Personal Computer l:';etwork BasedDocument Imaging System for the Dallas County Sheriffs Department to the highest rated and lowest cost firmHart Information Services as selected by the evaluation committee (see original attachment). The briefing waspulled at the request of Budget Office due to the fact the Sheriffs Depal1ment did not have enough fundspurchase the system as proposed and the self liquidating aspect of the system would not be realized based onthe initial cost and on-going maintenance cost. In order to come within the budget allocation for the initialsystem cost the Sheriffs Department has agreed to reduce and/or eliminate some of the items listed in HartInformation Services best and fmal offer dated the January 30, 2000.

The items that will be reduced or eliminated all together at the Sheriffs Department request are as follows:

Items/Description

Oracle Workgroup Runtime Database Software (Licenses)VisiFLOW Workflow Version - Concurrent Users (Licenses)VisiFLOW Barcode ServerVisiFLOW Cold ServerVisiFLOW IntranetlIntemet PublisherVisiFLOW Compression Runtime (Licenses)Desktop Software - Microsoft Office 2000Desktop Software - Corel Wordperfect 9.0Hewlett Packard 320ex JukeboxAdaptec 2940 Ultra Controller with cableHewlett Packard Optical Media 5.2 gb 1024 sectorFujitsu M3097DE Duplex Scanner, 39ppm, 100-page ADFSCSI controller and Adrenaline software for scannerKofax SClOIO CablesScanner consumable kit for M3097 Scanners

Pentium 400MHz, 64MB, 6.4gb HO, 32x CD-ROM, W95Mouse, KB, 1.44FD - Scanning WorkstationHitachi 21" color monitor - Scanning Workstation

Pentium 400MHz, 64MB, 604gb HO, 32x CD-ROM, W95Mouse, KB, 1.44FD - Index or Retrieval WorkstationHitachi 21" color monitor - Index or Retrieval Workstation

Proposed

2222010101222222020212805050505

06

06

06

06

ActuaVReduce

101000000010070701016403030303

04

04

03

03


Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

77

PentIUm 400MHz, 64MB, 604gb HD, 32x CD-ROM, \\t'95 02 00 i .Mouse, KB, 1.44FD with Dell 15" monitor and controllerfor barcode, Cold & Import Servers

HP LaserJet 8000n - 24ppm with 12mb memory 04 02

Cable Engineering Services - Server, PC, Printers, Hubs 18 12

The elimination or reduction of the above items does not effective the functionality or the objective of theSheriff s Department imaging system.

Hart Information Services has agreed to reduce or eliminate the requested items by the Sheriffs Department inorder to meet their budget requirements. The unit cost for these items will be remain the same as proposed intheir best and final offer dated January 30, 2000 with the exception of the VisiFLOW Workflow Version Concurrent Users Software Licenses. The VisiFLOW Workflow Version - Concurrent Users SoftwareLicenses are sold in lots of 5's , the more licenses you purchase the overall cost is reduced. The SheriffsDepartment originally requested 22 licenses ?nd have reduced their request to 10 licenses. The unit cost of 22as stated in the best and final ',ffer is approximately $3,364.00 ~4ch. The cost for 10 licenses is $4,500.00 each.

Hart Information Services has also agreed to reduce the overall cost for the Installation of Hardware, Software,Training, Documentation, Custom Programming, Project Management ana Maintenance due to the reductionand elimination of the items stated above. Hart Information Services has agreed to hold their pricing untilDecember 31, 2000 based on their original submission on September 07, 1999 and best and final offer datedJanuary 30, 2000.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

By reducing or eliminating the requested items by the Sheriffs Department the initial cost of the system will bereduced by $140,361.00. The maintenance cost over a five (5) year Period will be reduce by approximately$160,180.00 or $32,036.00 yearly (average). The Budget Department has reviewed these savings and hasagreed that the imaging system project is self liquidating over a five year life span of the system based on thereduction and elimination (see attached briefing dated October 09,2000) and support the recommendation ofaward.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department, Budget Department, and the Evaluation Committeethat the Commissioners Court award RFP No. 99-218-133 to Hart Information Services the highest rated andlowest cost bidder with or without the reduced or eliminated items, with an average score of 81.51 points asstated in the briefing on March 06, 2000.

Should the Court concur with recommendation an Award Court Order will scheduled for the next formalagenda for approval and to authorize the County Judge to execute the fmal negotiated terms of contract onbehalfofDallas County as approved by the District Attorney's Office, M.I.S. Director and SheriffsDepartment.


78

f,

March 6, 2000

TO The Honorable Commissioners Court

FROM Gloria McCulloch-Webb, Purchasing Analyst

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for an Fully Integrated Personal Computer Network BasedDocument Imaging System for the Dallas County Sheriffs Department, RFP No. 99218-133

BACKGROUND/ISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court authorize the Purchasing Department to vpen RFP 99-218-133,Request for Proposal for an Fully Integrated Personal Computer Network Based Document ImagingSystem for the Dallas County Sheriffs Department on September 7,1999. Proposals were openedas authorized by the Court. The Purchasing Department received five (5) responses to its Requestfor Proposal prior to the deadline of 2:00 p.m., September 7,1999. The companies who respondedwere: Compulink Management Center, Inc.; Government Records Services, Inc.; Hart InformationServices, Inc.; Scan-Optics, Inc.; and Venture Technologies.

The evaluation committee was formed consisting of the Sheriffs Department (Patsy McMillian andVal Tartaglino); M.I.S. Director (John Hennessey); District Clerk's Office (Sharon Camarillo);SeT/Data Services (John McGee); and the Purchasing Department (Gloria McCulloch-Webb). Theevaluation committee met throughout the month of November 1999, to discuss the responses to theRFP, clarification matters and scoring of the proposals using the criteria and requirements developedand included in the Request for Proposals. The proposal specifications were developed by theSheriffs Department - Intake Division based on their dePartmental needs for quality and reliablehardware and software in order to handle the daily operation of the department. It is also imperativethat the new system purchased be able to interface correctly (with little or no problem) with theexisting mug shot system and live scan system. The Request for Proposal were evaluated based onseven (7) criteria indicated below:

Dallas, Texas 75202..

Criteria

Functionality capabilities, FlexibilityAnd Upgradabillty of the ProposedDocument Imaging System, as definedIn he software and hardware specifications

Company and Staff Experience and References

Installed Client/Customer References

System Cost - Initial Cost and On-goingMaintenance and Support Cost for Hardware andSoftware for Years 1 through 5


Maximum Points

40

04

04

25

(214) 653-7431

Criteria

Oral Presentation and On-SiteDemonstration of the proposedDocument Imaging System

Project Plan and Project Description

MinoritylWomen Business Participation

Total Points

79Maximum Points

07

05

15

100

Based on the initial evaluation and in accordance with the appropriate guidelines stated in the RFP, itwas determined that three (3) offerors (Government Records Services, Inc.; Hart InformationServices, Inc.; and Scan-Optics, Inc.) would be considered finaUStts and would be invited to participatein the second phase of the Request for Proposal process which inciudes the oral presentation andsystem demonstration. The three (3) offerors were notified of their selections by telephone onNovember 22, 1999 and then by mail on November 23, 1999. The oral presentation and systemdemonstrations were conducted December 2, 1999 through December 28, 19&9. The oralpresentation and system demonstrations allowed the committee members to ask and/or clarify anyquestions regarding the proposals submitted and to identify Dallas County expectations and concemsregarding the proposal.

The committee met after the presentation of aU three (3) offerors to score the oral presentation andsystem demonstration; review any amendment to the original proposal; to detennine the impact of thebest and final cost offers presented by the three offerors (finalists); and re-calculate points allocationdeemed necessary by each committee members. Attached is the point table summary containing thescores assigned to each offeror. The report details the evaluation components and the maximumpoint value for each category. The committee allocated a total of eighty-five (85) points and theMinority Business Officer allocated the remaining fifteen (15) points. Overall, Hart InformationServices, Inc. scored the highest average point value totaling of 81.51 , with Scan-optics, Inc. scoring67.59 points, Government Records Services, Inc. scoring 60.2 points, Venture Technologies scoring59.09 points, and Compulink Management Center, Inc. scoring 48.83 points.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Due to the fact this is a high technology proposal, pricing information can not be disclosed at this timedue to the possibility of further negotiation of the final tenns, conditions and pricing for formalapproval by the Commissioners Court. Partial funding for this project was encumbered in Fiscal Year1999 budget for the amount of $270,000.00.

RECOMMENDAnON

The evaluation committee considered all three finalists qualified to perform the task as specified in theRequest for Proposal. As a result of the scoring, the evaluation committee recommend$ selection ofHart Information Services, Inc. the highest rated firm with a average score totaling 81.51 points toperform the scope of services and work as outlined in the Request for Proposal. Overall, HartInformation Services proposal is considered to be the best offeror meeting the Sheriffs Departmentcurrent needs and future requirement needs. Hart Information Services, Inc. has the resources,

80

reliable, reputation, time, personnel and expertise in order to fully implement the new system withinthe time frame requested by the Sheriff's Department - Intake Division. Those factors and referencechecks were the major consideration during the final analysis.

Should the Court concur with recommendation of the evaluation committee, an Award Court Orderwill scheduled for the next regular agenda for approval and to authorize the County JUdge to executethe final negotiated contract on behalf of Dallas County as approved by the District Attorney's Office,M.1.S. Director and Sheriff's Department.

Thank you for your time consideration of this recommendation.

Patsy McMillian, Sheriff's DepartmentEvaluation Committee Member

Val Tartaglino, She .Evaluation CommillTA4:a..4V1

...

• (J rIl I) (/S~~'-- La _ <h=,=><fL~Sharon Camarillo, Districf'Clerk's OfficeEvaluation Committee Member

John Hennessey, .I.S. Directortion Committee Memb r

81

DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURTMinority Business Office

MEMORANDUM

~ "

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECf:

September 20, 1999

Gloria Webb,Purchasing Department,_ IIrvin Hicks,"",fl.~Vt-Minority Business Officer

MlWBE Review ofBidIRFP #99-218 (Computer Based Document Imaging System)

Gloria,

Listed below is an analysis of the subject bidIRFP:

Venture Tecbnolo"This firm will perform the required duties utilizing intema1 sta1fas well as with the services offollowingcertified vendor:

FImr NtI1II6 -JLAdrian Information Strategies 15,0

PoiDts 0 Certified (NCI'RCA) minority prime contractor3 EEO policy compliance6 Utilization of (other) certified minority vendors

9

Batt Inform.doD S,rvicesThis firm will perform the required duties utilizing internal sWr.

PoiDti 0 Certified (NCI'RCA) minority prime contrae:tor3 EEO policy complianceo Utilization of (other) certified minority vendors

3

82

MlWBE AnaJysis 99-218Page 2

Scan-QpticsThis firm will perform the required duties utilizing internal sta1f.

Points 0 Certified (NCTRCA) minority prime contractor3 EEO policy complianceo Utilization of (other) certified minority vendors

3

Government Records Services. Inc.This firm will perform the required duties utilizing internal stat[

Points 0 Certified (NCI'RCA) minority prime contractor3 BEO policy comp1iaDceo Utilization of(other) certified miDority veDdors

3

Compalig" Mp.nmegt Ceater. ge.This firm will perform the required duties ..rilizja. intema1 staf[

PoiDts 0 Certified (NCI'RCA) minority prime contractoro EEO policy comp1iaDceo Utilization of (other) certified miDorily veudors

0*

"nnfailed to submitMlWBE dot:IuMntation, thuRFP does not comply witJr Dallas County ~GFEpo/icy.

c:Co~Co'" (tImI J. Au. a.ru.}11111(9921')

I,

Final Avwagtt PoInt AIocatlon by CommIttee

ocr.ror Hart information Servlen.lnc:. SC:an-Optlcs.Inc:. Government Record Servlc.s.lnc Venture Technologies Compullnk Management Center. In

Criteria

FlexibilityAnd UpgradabtIity of the ProposedDocument Imaging System, lIS definedIn he software and hardware specifications

Company and Stair Experience and References

Installed CltentlCustorner References

MaxImum Points Available

410

4

4

Finalist

3667

3.17

3.5

FinaIl&t

30

3.5

3.5

Finalist

2533

35

3

Not a finalist

2967

3.25

3.17

Not a finalist

20

267

2.33

System Cost - Initial Cost and On-goingMamtenance and Support Cost for HafctMIre andSoftwafe for Years 1 through 5

Oral Presentation and On-SiteDemonstration of the proposedDocument ImaglllQ System

PrOJeCt Plan and Project Description

MinoIityNVomeo Business Participation

Total

25

7

5

15

100

25'

6.67

3.5

3

81.51

20

3.67

3.92

3

17.51

19.04

3

3.33

3

10.2

9.83

o

4.17

9

59.09

2033

o

35

o

48.83

QC~

84

~us

~ •!~ •u

ju

! ! !.~ 0 N N ~ 0 N 0 ~ I ~~ N N ~

~~ ~

~

! ~ 2 ~i

Ji

! ! 8= = ~= =t I r )=u u s

! jJ ! J~

~ ~ I •I 0 ~z

~ M M ~ 0 M ~ I j ~~u j j•~i J! ) Is

j ji I~

!j ~

~ M ~ • N M ~

J~N •

JJ J

J! I~ ~

j i j

f J~ M N 2 N M = f J 2N °1

!J I J I

j j

I • • ~ M M a II

•

Ij JI I I I

_ _ ~ ~ _ M :

IIi. · ~ ~ ~ ~ !

J

If ill1 I I~!j iiI f 1Iii ffJ~ I I iii ~iJ f i !

CommiIf..Mtmber: Val TINtIlfllino

orreror Hart IntormatlOft ServIttt,lne. SeaftoOpllea,lne. Covernment Record~..,Ine. Venture Tec:hnologle. Compullnk Management Center,lnc.

FlnIIlSCores FInel SCores Final SCores Initial Scores - Not a finalist Initial ScOfes - Not a finalist

Crtt..... Ma....... PoInbI Ava....

Flexibility 40 38 20 15 20 10And UpgrIIdabiIlty oIlhe PropoeedDocument IINglng System...definedIn he...... lII'Id...... apedficatIons

~ III'Id SIIII Elcpertenc:e end References .. 3 .. .. 3

InsIlI/Ied CllenUCulIIomer ReIerenc:es .. .. .. 4 2 2

System Colt -1nlIlIII Colt and 0n1Il:*'D 26 25 20 19 13 16MaintenIInce end Supp:lrt Colt tor HtlfdwereandSoIlwent for V... 11hR1ugh 6

Oral Pr.......... and 0n-SMe 7 7 5 2 0 0DemonsltIIMon oIlhe PfOPOMdDocumenIImtIging System

Projed AlA III'Id Project DeIatpIon 5 5 4 1 .. 5

MinorItyIWornen Business hrticIpation 15 3 3 3 9 0

Tolal ,. IS • ... 51 3. QOeomm.w.. A.Mnber. Sharon GamMiIo t.h

Offeror Hart ........tton s.mc..,~. Scan-OpUcs, Inc. Gcw.......... ReconI SerIte",lne. Venture Tec:hnoiogIH Compullnk Management Center,lnc.

Final SCores FlneI SCores FlneI SCores Initial ScOfes • Not a finaliSt Initial Scores . Not a finallsl

C,..,.. Max...... PoInts Available

Flexibility 40 37 40 30 35 20And UpgradabiIlty oIlhe ProposedDocumenlIrMging System. .. cleIInedIn he IOftw8re end ...... apedficatIons

Comptny and SCd EJcpertence and ReIenlnces 4 3 3 3 3.5 2

InsI8IIed CIenIICustomer References 4 4 4 2 4 2

System Cost -1nlIlIII Cost and 0n1Il:*'D 25 25 20 19 11 15Mainten8nce and Suppoft Cost tor twdware andSoftwere for V.... 111vough 5

Oral PresenlatiOn end On-Sile 7 7 8 5 0 0DemonstratIon oIlhe PfOPOMdDoa.unentlmllging Syslem

Project Pten end Project Desatption 5 3 4.5 4 5 2

MinorltyIWomen BusineSS ParIldpetion 15 3 3 3 9 0

TWiI ,. 12 10.5 .. .7.5 41

86

~ ~! !c: c:• •u u

ij t~

II) • 1II: ... ... N 0 II) 0 ...CIt tlI CIt tlI

! ~ ! ~i .;, i

J..~ I:!

:J :J

r 1 f ii'= !u .s: u

;;; !"'ii .I1 .i

J tlI ftil

'5 Ig z 0 ... ... N 0 II) (I) ... ~,J:: <or - ...y

j ! j•...! !B

I ! Ic:~

j . ji

fJi!

j iJ ~ ... ... ~ 01

II) 1'2 ~ JI J

i!

) JA I I

~~

j i j

i j $ ... ... liiJ 01II) 1'2 = f J ~

~i! I

j j

f $ ... ... ~ "- 1ft 1'2 • fI IJ Ij I j !

~

87

DALLAS COUNTYOFFICE OF BUDGET AND EVALUATION

October 9, 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO:

~:IROUGH:

FROM:

SUBJECf:

Commissioners Court

Phil Scheps ~rBudget Officer

Ryan Bro-[;')SeniorBU~-& Policy Analyst

Sheriffs Office Central Intake Imaging System

BACKGROQNDAs part ofthe FY99 Budget, 5270,000 was approved (and subsequently encumbered) for a Sheriff'sOffice Central Intake Document Imaging System. Since the imaging system was eXPeCted to be selfliquidating through staffsavings, Commissioners Court requested that they be briefed on the costs andstaff savings prior to the award ofthe bid. In March the Office of Budget and Evaluation briefedCommissioners Court on the bids for the imaging system at that time the cost ofthe system appeared tobe more than the payback. At the time of the briefing the Sheriff's Office requested that they be allowedto work with the vendor to. see if they could get the eXPenditW'e down to a reasonable payback period.The Office ofBudget and Evaluation presents to Commissioners Court a recommendation on the revisedimaging Project and cost

IMPACT ON OPEBATIONSThe Sheriff's Office Central Intake Section currently has 23 clerical assistant positions authorized tomicrofiche inmate records. As originally briefed, everyone agreed that the imaging system would bemore efficient than microfiching inmate records. As such, once the imaging system is on-line theSheriff's Office Central Intake Section has agreed to delete five clerical assistant positions. Theremaining staffof 18 clerks would be needed to operate the imaging system 24 hours a day, seven days aweek.

411 Elm Street - 3rd Floor, Dallas Texas 75202-3340(214) 653-6384. Fax (214) 6~3-6517. [email protected]

88

After the Commissioners Court did not approve the imaging system as originally bid the Sheriffs Officerequested the low bidder review their bid and make changes that would decrease the system cost butminimize the impact upon ftmctionality. This resulted in the self-liquidating system currently beingoffered.

The imaging system that is currently being offered generally has the same components as originally bidwith the exception of the VisiFlow Project Builder, Barcode Server, Cold Server and IntranetJInternetpublishers (bid decrease of $30, I 50) these. items were not part ofthe initial request for proposal and wereadded on behalfof the Sheriffs Office for additional ftmctionality. Removal will not impact the abilityof the system to Perform the core ftmctions.

The Sheriffs Office reviewed the number of licenses and determined that they could decrease thenumber from 22 to 10 and this would be sufficient to meet their immediate needs. The decrease in thenumber of licenses resulted in the bid decreasing by $37,265.

The numL .. ofoptical disk storage units were reduced fro~ two to one. This will provide the SherifI'sOffice storage capacity that will meet their current needs. Should additional storage capacity be neededin the future it can be added with minimal installation cost. The decrease in the number ofoptical diskstorage units resulted in the bid decreasing by S20,761.

As part ofthe original bid the Sheriffs Office requested 24 hours a day, 7 days a week premiummaintenance service at a cost ofS168,560 over the five-year life of the system. The Sheriff's Office hasdetermined that they can accept regular maintenance service.

FINANCIAL 1MfAC[ICQNSIDEBATIONSThe following table compares the costs used in the initial briefing in FY99 to those that resulted from therevised bid. process

System CostAvg. yearly operating/maintenance cost

Total

Five year cost

OriginalEmmlteS260,000$ 32534S292,534

$422,670

ModifiedLQWDid.S353,491S4S 547S399,038

$581,227

Staff SayjQP -The elimination offive grade four clerical assistant positions would result in an annualsavings of5127,769. In additioa to the staffsavings there would be savings related to not purchasingmicrofiche, not replacing equipment related to the microfiche process and not renewing the annualmaintenance contract on the microfiche equipment ofS25,263. Therefore, the total savings ofsuspending microfiche operations is 5153,032 per year. Assuming that salaries increase by 3% per year,the total savings would be 5768,824 over five years.

Revised CostlBenefit - 10hn Hennessey bas advised the Office ofBudget and Evaluation that imagingsystems tend to have a five to seven year life-spans. The Office ofBudget and Evaluation utilized theconservative life-span offive years for our calculations. As the lDalY8S aMm, the ima&i»a system issclf-liq,yjd.atina mthe fiye-ynr.life.span oftbe mtmn ($758 627 in aavJDpanO SS81 227 mSiosts). TheSheriff's Office (ChiefEdgar McMillan) bas agreed to allow the Office ofBudget and Evaluation toreview Central Intake's duty roster to ensure that these positions are not filled with overtime.

89

The changes provided by the vendor and agreed too by the Sheriffs Office resulted in a system that is$256,736 less than what was originally bid. With the deletion of five clerks January 1, 2001 the systemwill have a three-year payback and a net savings of$187,597 over the five-year life span. The actualflI'St year cost of the system will be $381,673 ($353,491 for equipment and installation and $28,182 formaintenance).

RECOMMENDATIQNSince the imaging system is self-liquidating within the normal five-year life-span of the system theOffice ofBudget and Evaluation recommends that Commissioners Court proceed with the award of thebid. Partial funding necessary for the award of the bid is available in prior year encumbrance ($270,000)with the remaining funding of$111,673 available within the Sheriffs Office Budget.

Cc: John Hermessey

90

MEMORANDUMDALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

t ,

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

November 10,2000

Gloria Webb, Purchasing Analyst

Captain Val Tartaglino, Intake Division

Document Imaging System

In order to bring the costs of the Document Imaging system down to an amount where theBudget Office would recommend purchase to the Commissioner's Court, I worked withthe vendor who had been selected by commi1;tee to reduce the number of workstations.These additional workstations had not been in my original request for DocumentImaging, but had been added by Data Services during the 2 years the project was in theirhands to optimize the system purchased. None of the functionality of the DocumentImaging system was altered from that in the original R.F.P.Hardware and associated software licensing was reduced as follows:

R.F.P. specified (6) scanning/retrieval stations. Reduced system included (4)

R.F.P. specified (6) retrieval stations. Reduced system included (3)

R.F.P. specified (6) laser printers. Reduced system included (4)

Number of jukeboxes was not specified. Vendor was originally going to supply (2) butdecided they could meet storage requirements specified with (1)

Although a barcode server was not specified in the R.F.P., the vendor had included thisoption. Reduced system does not have the (2) import/barcode/fax stations.

Since workstations were priced out by each bidder on a cost-per-station, and none of thefunctionality of the system specified in the R.F.P. was altered, I hope we will be able toproceed with the purchase without starting all over again. It has taken six years to get tothis point! The vendor who was awarded the contract advises that if they must rebid,they cannot hold to their offer and their price will go up to accommodate the additionalwork.

Captain Val TartaglinoCommanderIntake Division


December 19, 2000

91

,:

00 DEC \ 3 PM 2: 06

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:



Purchase of Passenger Vehicles, Bid No. 2001-026-708

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session held on December OS, 2000, authorized the award of BidNo. 2001-026-708, Purchase of Passenger Vehicles with Court Order 2000-2389 to Various Vendors. Item Number 4: Full SizeCrew Cab Pick-up was withheld from award pending briefmg to the Commissioners Courts.

Item Number 4: Full Size Crew Cab Pick-up Trucks

Requesting Department: Sheriff's DepartmentEstimated Quantity: Two (2)

Dallas County received a total of five (5) bonalide bids for this item. The low bidder did not comply with DallcLli Countyspecification requirements regarding seating configuration. Dallas County bid specified that the front seat be bucket type and therear seat being bench type. The low bidder proposed bench type for both the front and rear seat Bucket type seats were requesteddue to the installation ofpolice console equipment in between the two front seats.

The recommended bidder is underlined and the unit cost for all vehicles proposed are listed below for the request vehicle type.

V~ndQO

Philpott MotorsLawrence Marshall ford. LPVillage FordLawrence Marshall Chevrolet, LPShowcase Chevrolet

Unit Cost

$23,613.00$23,a~7,00

$23,988.00$24,676.00$26,917.00

MfL MosielYear CQmpliant

Ford 2001 Nofm:d Z!W. YaFord 2001 YesChev. 2001 YesChev. 2001 Yes

Recommend award to Lawrence Marshall Ford, LP

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The total additional expenditures, which Dallas County will incur by awarding to the recommend bidders, will be $488.00 or $244.00each.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation ofAutomotive Service Center and the Purchasing Department that Item Number 4 be awarded to the lowestcompliant bidder Lawrence Marshall Chevrolet, LP at a total bid cost of $47,714.00.

Should the Court concur with the recommendation, an Award Court Order will be scheduled for the next regular agenda.

Approved By: ~

~10~~rc: Dick WakerrD, Fleet Manager Automotive Service Center

509 Main St (Records BldgJ6th. Floor, Room 623

Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7431

TO:

FROM:

THRU:

SUBJECT:

DATE:

92

Dallas County Information:;" ;:Technology Services 00 DEC 12 PH 3:

John M. HennesseyDallas County M.I.S. Coordinator f\07Angi Bell, Computer Acquisition Specialist ~Dallas County Information Tec~oJpgy Services

John Nero, Account Executive 0tJDallas County Information Technology Services

FY2001 Replacement Requests

December 5, 2000

---4

!!

The M.I.S. Coordinator recommends that20 comp\4ter related FY2001 replacement requests for a totalof $74,853 be funded from the County Replacement Fund. It is important to note that two of thereplacement requests are not included in this briefing for the reason that Information TechnologyServices are in the process of reviewing mainframe printers that will function in this environment.A separate briefing will be submitted to Commissioners Court once an acceptable mainframe printeris established.

Backgound

These requests were reviewed by the M.I.S. Coordinator and have been recommended to be replacedat a cost of $68,048. In addition, the M.I.S. Coordinator recommends approval of $6,805 for theinstallation of all approved requests utilizing temporary services provided by a State catalog vendorand funded from theCounty ReplacementFund. The total costofreplacementhardware and softwareplus installation is $74,853.

The total one-time costs of this request are as follows:

Regpeu De~D

Numb"FY2001-015 District Oerk - Bar Code Scanner and Printer

FY2001-029 Grand Jury - liP 1100 LaserJet Printer

FY2001-030 Grand Jury - Computer and Printer

FY2001-031 District Court Administration - Computer

$

$

$

$

600

440

2,550

2,178

509 Main Street, Ste. 504 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214)653-6141 Fax: (214)653-6708

93

FY2001-048 Constable, Precinct 7 - Printer $ 440

FY2001-050 Sheriff - Training Division - Printer and External CD Drive $ 765

FY2001-052 Sheriff - Photo Lab - Computer with 17" Monitor and Printer $ 2,680

FY200I-053 Sheriff - Print Shop - Desktop Publishing System $ 5,849

FY2001-064 Sheriff - Allen Jail - Two Deskjet Printers $ 860

FY200I-067 Sheriff - Release Division - Computer, Printer and Terminal $ 2,185

FY200I-080 Public Works - Property - Computer and Printer $ 3,242

FY2001-081 Public Works - Property - Replacement MLS Computer $ 4,891

FY2001-082 PubhL Works - Property - HP 85~ONLaserJet Color Printer $ 3,575

FY200I-085 Automotive Service Center - Computer and Printer $ 2,847

FY2001-086 Automotive Service Center - Computer and Printer $ 2,847

FY2ool-088 Communications and Central Services - Computer $ 2,110

FY2oo1-092 Data Services/SCT - Upgrade ABS1 Server $ 23,000

FY2oo1-094 Engineering & Project Management - Printer $ 440

FY2ooI-098 Community Supervision & Corrections - Computer and Printer $ 2,550

FY2oo1-103 Elections Department - Notebook Computer $ 3,999

Installation services for all approved requests $ 6,805

Total One-Time Costs: $ 74,853

The total ongoing costs of this request are as follows:

Years 1-3 Warranty on Standard Microcomputer $ 0

Years 1-3 Warranty on Norebook Compurer $ 0

Years 1-3 Warranty on Server $ 0

Year 1 Warranty on Printer $ 0

Years 4-5 11 - Standard Microcomputers @ $96 ea. per year $ 2,112

Years 4-5 1 - Notebook Computer @ $200 ea. per year $ 400

Years 4-5 1 - Server @ $350 ea. per year $ 700

94

3,400

6,612

$-----$

Years 2-5 17 - Printers @ $50 ea. per year

Total Ongoing Costs:

81,465$=========:i:====

Total Projected Costs (5yrs):

Fundins

The FY2001 budgeted amount for replacement requests from the County Replacement Fund is $85,000.Approval of this request would reduce the available balance '..y ~74,8531eaving $10,147 in the fund.

Project S,hedulc

This equipment will be installed with the use of temporary services to supplement in house staff inorder to expedite the installation within 30 days after it is received from the manufacturer. The 60man months allocated to Network Services from the annual work plan will also be used to supporttheCounty's PC Enterprise Networkenvironment, special projects, and requests received throughoutthe year.

RuoDUllCndation

The M.I.S. Coordinator recommends that Commissioners Court approve the use of the ComputerReplacement Fund (00120.9940.08630.2001) to provide for computer and hardware replacements forvarious County Departments for a total cost of $74,853.

ReviewedBy~A1q~ .....~ohn Hennessey, .I.S. Coordinator

95

COURT ORDER

ORDER NO: _

DATE: _

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

§§§

BE IT REMEMBERED, at a regular meeting of the Commissioners Court of Dallas County, Texas,

held on the, day of ----J. 2000, on motion made

by ---J. and seconded

by ----J. the following order wasadopted:

WHEREAS, This issue was briefed before Commissioners Court on December 19, 2000; and

WHEREAS, The M.I.S. Coordinator reviewed all FY2OO1 computer related replacement requests; and

WHEREAS, Funding for the total one time cost of $74,853 is available from the Computer ReplacementFund #00120.9940.08630.2001; and

WHEREAS, A three year warranty is provided with the standard microcomputer. Beginning in thefourth year, maintenance for this equipment will cost approximately $%/year (based oncurrent prices). Future maintenance costs will be funded by the County General Fund; and

WHEREAS, A three year warranty is provided with the server. Beginning in the fourth year,maintenance for this equipment will cost approximately $350/year (based on currentprices). Future maintenance costs will be funded by the County General Fund; and

WHEREAS, A three year warranty is provided with the notebook computer. Beginning in the fourthyear, maintenance for this equipmentwill cost approximately $200/year (based on currentprices). Future maintenance costs will be funded by the County General Fund; and

96WHEREAS, A one year warranty is provided with the printer. Beginning in the second year,

maintenance for this equipment will cost approximately $50/ year (based on currentprices). Future maintenance costs will be funded by the County General Fund; and

WHEREAS, Funding for vendor-provided temporary services to install the approved equipment andsoftware has been included; and

WHEREAS, The above request has been recommended by the M.I.S. Coordinator.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Dallas County CommissionersCourt authorizes the implementation of 20 computer related replacement requests for a total one timecost of $74,853 to be funded from the County Replacement Fund #00120.9940.08630.2001.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this the day of. ---J' 2000.

Lee F. Jackson, County Judge Jim Jackson, CommissionerRoad and Bridge, District 1

Mike Cantrell, CommissionerRoad and Bridge, District 2

John Wiley Price, CommissionerRoad and Bridge, District 3

Kenneth A. Mayfield, CommissionerRoad and Bridge, District 4

RECOMMENDED BY:John Nero, Account Executive, Information Technology Services

97

DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS

(2 December 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: Commissioners Court

THROUGH: Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield,Road and Bridge District No. 3

FROM: Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E., Director

:. i

00 CEC I 3 ~;i 10: 5 I

SUBJECT: Work Order No.3Clark Road, Project No. CP04-30, 31, 32Indefinite Delivery/Quantity Contract - Surveying!Preliminary Design Investigation

BACKGROUND

Dallas County has a current indefinite delivery and quantity (IDQ) contract for surveyingservices with Dal-Tech Engineering, Inc. This contract requires that each work order beapproved by the Court.

We currently have need of such surveying and preliminary design investigation services;specifically, all field survey work required for the preparation of construction plans,specifications and cost estimates for the captioned MCIP project.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

This work is the first step in delivery of this MCIP project

LEGAL INFORMATION

The IDQ contract does not expire until 25 January 2001. It also contains an option to renew foran additional year.

MlWBE INFORMATION

Dal-Tech Engineering is an MlWBE certified firm.

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas'. Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151

98

Commissioners Court12 December 2000Page Two

FINANCIAL IM:PACT

The "not-to-exceed" estimated total cost for the work is $88,271.00. The surveying IDQ contractis a unit price agreement under which only the actual work performed or materials furnished arepaid for at the contractual unit prices. Funds are available for this work in the MCIP for ClarkRoad in Fund 196, FY2001, Project 08201, Account 08050.

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The surveying firm will begin work within five days following execution of the attached workorder. The estimated time for completion ofthe listed tasks is ten (10) weeks.

RE(:OMMENDATION

The Director of Public Works recommends that the attached Work Order Number 3 be executedby Dallas County. If the Commissioners Court is in agreement, a Court Order authorizing theCounty Judge to execute the Work Order in the amount of $88,271.00 with Dal-TechEngineering, Inc., to be paid from Fund 196, FY2001, Account 08050, Project 08201, will beplaced on the next regular agenda.

APPROVED BY:

Donald Holzwarth,P.~Director ~

DHIj~survbrfJ.wdJ

99

\VORK ORDER NUMBER THREE28 November 2000

Project Number CP04-30,31,32Clark Road (From Couch Street to Danieldale Road)

All field survey work required to prepare complete construction plans, specifications andestimates and ROW documents, if needed, for the project and any transitions, on ClarkRd. or any cross streets. The project is to be a six lane, divided, concrete pavement withcurb, gutter and storm sewer. The cross-section is to be 6-11 or 12 ft. lanes with a 15 ft.median and 8.5 ft. or 10.5 ft. parkways. Items included but not limited to:

~ Surface topography to include all surface or elevated features, natural or manmade, and sufficient elevation data with which a digital map model (DM1v1) canbe developed for the entire project and far enough onto intersecting streets andcross-drainage lines to allow proper design.

~ Research and field location of the street-side property comers ofall abuttingproperties to include a listing ofthe recording references of these owners.

~ Tie to the Texas Plane Coordinate System (North Central Texas Zone). All workto be on this same coordinate system.

~ The DM1vI should extend 100 ft. upstream and downstream at the 2 large crossdrainage lines.

~ If the outlines ofall drainage areas contributing to flow onto or across the projectcannot be determined from existing mapping they must be determined by fieldsurvey work.

~ Review and verification ofexisting HEC studies performed for the City of CedarHill for the two large cross-drainage streams.

~ After the alignment has been set perform sufficient level work to set bench markseach 500 ft. and in the immediate vicinity ofthe two cross-drainage structures.

> After the alignment has been set monument horizontal control consisting ofreference points at or beyond the ROW line for each curve PC, PT and PI and forPOTs spaced approximately 500 ft. apart.

> Plot all existing survey information with horizontal control, coordinates, andbench marks, and prepare contour map at 1" intervals.

~ Perform line work, label all lines, and show addresses, lot and block numbers andproperty information.

100

~ Show all surface features including pavement type, property comers, fence lines andtrees (including size and type).

~ Incorporate all information from SUE into the base map including all line sizes anddepths.

)- After the alignment has been set monument any new street side property comersresulting from ROW acquisition.

~ Subsurface Utilities Engineering (SUE) along with utility coordination's and as partof (SUE), the following will be performed:

• Records Search - Based on as-built records ofexisting utilities "Level D".• Surface Visible Feature Survey - All above ground utilities such as power poles,

manholes, valves, transforming, gas and water meters, etc. "Level C".• Designating Services - To determine approximate horizontal position ofutilities

consistent with designated services "Level B".• Locating Lines - Using nondestructive digging equipment to determine horizontal

and vertical position ofunderground utilities "Level ~'.

The target date for completion ofthe projects is 5 March 2001.

The "not-to-exceed" total estimated cost for the project is $88,271.00.

The Dallas County point ofcontact is Jack D. Hedge, P.E., 214.653.6420, fax214.653.6445.

Accepted by the Surveyor:

Dal-Tech Engineering, Inc.

By: _

xc: Project ManagerProject FilesContracts AdministratorManager, Design Section

survwo3.wdl

Approved by Dallas County:

By: _Lee Jackson, County Judge

Recommended for Approval:

(\ ()I {L ~tY1BY:_~ O__- __

Donald Holzwarth, P.E.Director ofPublic Works

/~",."",..,o-/'.....) ._~ '-' ~ / ,

~::-".,. ~ '~"'7,

"'.:- '-~ J,ENGINEERING, INC. (; NO~ 2000 ~LCONSUlllllG CMl ENGIHEERS I suRVEYCIlIS . : ~ ReceiVed :.'

CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS ", Oal\as County )', . Public v;or~s',/l

, ." .

--- --_: .. -"

November 29, 2000FAJ(214)653~16

Mr. Jack D. Hedge, P.E.Sr. Design Civil EngineerDallas County Public Works411 Elm Street, 4th FloorDallas, Texas 75202

RE: FY 2000-2001 Indefinite Delivery I Quantity Contract - SurveyingBudget Estimate For Clark Road (Project No. CP04-30,31,32)Danleldale Rd. to Couch Street (Map.co 71B-UO)

Dear Jack:

DAL-TECH Engineering, Inc. is please to provide you with a Budget Estimate for thesubject project (Work Order # 3) under our Survey IDQ contract. The Scope ofServices which includes: Surveying for Design and Right-of-Way. Right-of-WayPreparation Documents, HEC-Analysis as needed Subsurface Utilities Engineering andBase Mapping is presented based en our understanding of the scope along with theestimated scope as follows:

All field survey work required to prepare complete Construction Plans, Specificationsand Estimates and Right-of-Way Documents, if needed, for the project and anytransitions, on Clark Rd. or any cross streets. The project is to be a Six Lane, divided,conuete pavement with CLI'b, gutter and storm sewer. The cross-section is to be 6-11ft. lanes with 8 15 ft. median and 8.5 ft. parkways. Items included but not limited to:

Field Sua.y

• Surface topography to include all surface or elevatecl features, natural or manmade, and sufficient elevation data with which a digitaJmap model (DMM) can bedeveloped for the entire project and far enough onto jnt~secting streets andcross--dreinage linea to allow proper design.

• Tie to the Texas .Plane Coordinate System (North Central Texas Zone). AU workto be on this same coordinate system.

• The OMM should extend 100 fl upstrnm and downstream at the 2 large crossdrainage linN.

F:Q:)I'~\8UoceTiST1MATE FOR CLARK ROAD 2-doo

17311 DALLAS PKWY I STE 208 I DALLAl, TI 75241 I 172-250-2721 I FAX 172-250-4n4222 W. EXCHANGE I FT. WORTH, TX 78101 I 817-626-8777 I FAX 817-626-5777

webmaStItOdaI-tecn.com

;,, __ ::.t.i .. , I ..

102

• If the outlines of all drainage areas contributing to flow onto or across the projectcannot be determined from existing mapping they must be determined by fieldsurvey war\(.

• . After the alignment has been set, perform sufficient level work to set benchmarks each 500 ft. and in the immediate vicinity of the two cross-drainagestructures.

• After the alignment has been set monument horizontal control consisting ofreference points at or beyond the ROW line for each curve PC, PT and PI and forPOTs spaced approximately 500 ft. apart.

Right-of-Way

• Research and field location of the street-side property comers of all abuttingproperties to indude a listing of the recording references of these owners.

• Prepare ROW parcel documents and drawing exhibits as necessary for ROWacquisitions resulting from established alignment, (15 parcels of ROWesta~Cishedat this time).

• After the alignment has been set monument any new street side property cornersresulting from ROW acqu;sition.

Hydrology

• Review and verification of HEC Study performed for the City of Cedar Hill for thetwo large cross-drainage streams.

Subsurface Utilities Engln••rlng fSUE) along with utility coordination's and as part of(SUE) , the following wilt be performed:

8. Records Search - Based on as-built records of existing utilities -Level 0-.b. Surface Visible Feature Survey - AU above ground utilities such as power

poles, manholes, valves, transforming, gas and water meters. etc. "LevelCIt.

c. Designating Services - To determine approximate horizontal position ofutilities consistent with designated services "Level S-.

d. Locating lines - Using nondestructive digging equipment to determinehorizontal and vertical position of underground utilities -Level Alt.

.BMeM-plng

8. Plot all existing survey information with horizontal control, coordinates,and benchmarks, and prepare contour map at 1" intervals.

b. Perform line work, label all lines, and show addresses, lot and blocknumbers and.property information.

e. Show all sutfacefeatures including pavement type, property comers,fence lines and trees (including size and type)"

d. Incorporate all information from SUE into thebe•• map including an linesizes and depths.

f:'C)()Il~UDGET 2STltMTE FO~CLARK ROAD 2._

I,

103

SURVEY SUBMITTAL

The completed survey will be transmitted in electronic files and GEOPAK format. Inaddition, ROW documents, HEC analysis, subsurface utility engineering maps and basemaps will meet the DaUas County required format for submittaL

PROJECT BUDGET

We recommend a project budget of $88,271.00 be established to complete the abovescope. We can commence this survey within five working days of receipt of your writtenauthorization to proceed and anticipate the survey can be completed within 10 weeks,preparation of Right-of-Way documents and drainage analysis depend on timing of theCountYs project design.

We look forward to working with you on this project. Please advise if you have anyquestions.

Sincerely,DAL-TECH Engineering, Inc.

Attachment:Cost Breakdownl BudgetAerial MapSAT/cmnldkj

tJ

11129100 DAL-TECH Engineering, Inc.Budget&time. tor CIII,* Road

WOftlorderl3OfEJoblOOl1

....~[

L

20=1t:"

~~

2L;

5&J

i~

'"1

.......,"';)n0"

-0'1\

...):;)

...,-4

"';)"';)"';),n

"'.....-4...

SURVEYCREW PRCNCORD. COIIPTECH DESlGNENR SURVEY TECH SEeR. TOTALDESCRI...... PRlNGWAL R.P.LS. aMAN •• tlUG $17. ....~ '41•.1... $N.

$121M

Surface Topography 2 8 120 8 8 8 $18030.00ne to Texas Plane CoOrdinate

8 1 $3.080.00SYStem 1 2 16 2

FIELD Drainage Cross sec::tion 2 16 2 .. 2 $2.750.00

SURVEY Drainage Area outline 2 4 12 4 4 2 $2.928.00

Setting Bench MaIU 1 2 12 2 .. $2.295.00Horiz.ontalNertical Control

4 $3.699.00Monuments 1 4 20 4

FIELD SURVEY TOTAL $31,712.00

ROW Researdl & Survey .. 16 40 .. 24 24 8 $10,696.00RIGHT..()f - Right-of-Way p,ep.ation

40 8 16 60 45 $17.937.00WAY 1(15 Parcels EsU 6 50

Rigtll-Or-Way Monuments 6 32 8 $5.102.00

RIGttT.oF-WAY TOTAL $33.735.00

HYDROLOGY Review of existing study 3 3 16 10 .. 4 $4.182.00

HYDROLOGY TOTAL $4.112.00

S.U.I:.Subsulface Wities

18 8 8 8 $9,324.00IEnalneerina (SUE) 4 8 40

S.U.E. TOTAL $1,324.00

BASE MAPBase Map for design including

8 8 80 24 4 4 $8248.00all line works 4

S.U.E. TOTAL $1,241.00

I TOTAL OF BUDGET ESTIMATE '$88,271.001OALSE.RV\OEBRA'0061'6UOOEr ESTlMA1E 2.xLS

~

=...

105

DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS

ber lI, 200000 DEC \2 PM 3: 23

MEMORANDUM

TO: Commissioners Court

FROM: Selas Camarillo, P.E., R.P.L.S P/Assistant Director - Property~sion

SUBJECT: Resale ofTax Foreclosed Properties via Sealed BidRequest for Bid No. 2001-029-716 (Sale No. l2)

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2000, the Dallas County Commissioners Court authori.2ed the Purchasing Department to solicitbids for the resale offour tax foreclosed properties. Sealed bids to seD the tax foreclosure properties advertisedin Request for Bid No. 2001-029-716, were received by the Purchasing Department on December 7, 2000. Theresults ofthe bid are as follows:

UNIMPROVED PROPERTIES (Vacaat mets):

PROPERTY ADDRESSCASE # JUDGMENT MINIMUM BIDDCAD ACCOUNT # BIDDER'S NAME AMOUNI- BmAMOUNI REC'D

160 Sea Hawk Drive No Bid $47,215.69 530,700.00(2) No BidDeSoto, TexasCase #95-30490-TEDCAD#2003I450000110000

150 Sea Hawk Drive No Bid 553,041.01 534,500.00(2) No BidDeSoto, TexasCase #95-30490-TEDCAD#200314500008BOOOO

8 & 9 Park: Circle 1. Ina. Barris Cia... $14,678.66 S 1,1tO.tt(3) 53.900.25Lancaster, Texas 2. Romeo H. Lewis, Jr. 53,000.00Case #91-4115S-TJ 3. AlD. Sani $2,511.00DCAD#360025OOO30080000DCAD#36002S00030090000

500 Belt Line Road I.....a Barris Claa.. $31"34.76 53,308.88(1) S6,l81.90Lancaster, TexasCase#93-30398-TDDCAD#65017228010330200

(2) - (3) Denotes number oftimes property has been offered for resale

•Judgment Amount The minimum bid DlOUDCed by the SherifI's Dep.-tment at the Sberift's Sale includes the totalamount oftaxes, penalties and interest awarded in the judgment plus court casu, attorney's fees,post judgment interest, sheritl's fees and publishing fees.

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151

106

Commissioners CourtDecember 11.2000Page 2

LEGAL INFORMATION

This sale is in compliance with the Property Tax Code, Section 34.0S and the Revised Tax Foreclosure ResalePolicy adopted by the Commissioners Court via Court Order No. 2000-396. The City ofDeSoto and the DallasIndependent School District have been requested to consent to the sale ofthese properties. All sales are subjectto and conditioned upon approval of the Dallas County Commissioners Court and each taxing unit entitled toreceive proceeds of the sale under the judgment.

The bid deposit of$SOO.OO submitted by Ms. Chase on the SOO Belt Line Road property was $118.29 less thanthe required deposit of $618.29 (10% of $6,182.90). Staff contacted Ms. Chase immediately after the bidopening and she indicated that she mis-read the bid specifications. After our contact, Ms. Chase provided acashier's check for the remainder of the required bid deposit or $118.29.

Dallas County will execute a Quitclaim Deed which will contain an acknowledgment that the property is subjectto the prior owners' right of redemption, ifany, and that the property is being purchased"AS ISIWHERE IS"atld "WITH ALL FAULTS" and the County of Dallas has no responsibility for the condition of theproperty.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Ofthe four properties offered for sealed bids, two received bids above the advertised minimum bid amount. Thehigh bid received on 8 and 9 Park Circle is approx. 510,771.00 less than the total amount of the judgmentsagainst the property. The bid received on SOO Beh Line Road is approximately $26,752 less than the JudgmentAmount as shown in the Sheriff's Deed.

In accordance with the Tax Code, Sec. 34.06. Distribution ofProceeds ofResale, the purchasing taxing unit shallpay all costs and expenses of court, sale, and resale and, after deducting an amount equal to the amount thetaxing unit has reasonably spent for the maintenance and preservation of the property, shall distribute theremainder ofthe proceeds to each taxing unit participating in the sale in an amount equal to the proportion eachparticipant's taxes, penalties, and interest bear to the total amount of taxes, penalties, and interest due allparticipants in the sale, less any amount previously paid as costs on the property. The cost to advertise the noticein the Dallas Morning News was $1,330.56 or 5332.64 for each tract ofland $1,330.56/4). Accordingly, DallasCounty may deduct its pro rata share ofthe advertising costs for the two tracts sold. Fund 0120, Department9930, Expense Code 2013 will be reimbursed $665.28 (5332.64 x 2).

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Court Order to Accept Bid"Authorizing Execution ofQuitclaim Deed

Balance Purchase Price DueExecute Quitclaim Deed

December 19, 2000

January 18,2001January 18, 2001

107

Commissioners CourtDecember 11, 2000Page 3

RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Public Works has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends that the CommissionersCourt: (1) waive the irregularity in Ms. Chase's bid and accept post bid opening submittal of Cashier's Checkin the amount of$118.29 being the balance of the 10% bid deposit, (2) award the bids to the following highestbidders in the amount of their respective bid as shown below, subject to and conditioned upon approval of eachtaxing unit entitled to receive proceeds of the sale under the judgment and the previous owners right ofredemption, if any, (3) authorize the sale of these properties by quitclaim deed, and (4) authorize the TaxAssessor Collector to receive the awarded bid amounts below, calculate the amount due each ofthe taxing unitsand disburse the proceeds in accordance with the Property Tax Code.

Irma Harris Chase'1617 Gardenside DriveDallas, TX 75217

Property Address:

8 and 9 Park Circle, Lancaster, TX500 Belt Line Rd., Lancaster, TX

Bid Amount:

$3,900.25$6,182.90

If the Commissioners Court is in agreement, a court order authorizing the matters above will be placed on thenext regular agenda.

APPROVED BY:

DJV.~ (Donald R. Holzw~h, P.E.Director ofPublic Works

!~AE:pe,SCj\J DTAX20oo-3.Brf2 2001-029-716 Awd

xc: John Dahill, Advisory Chief, Assistant District Attorney's Office, Civil SectionJohn Cantwell, Purchasing DepartmentDavid Childs, Tax Assessor/CollectorDeMetris Sampson, Attorney, LHGBGPS

108

DALLAS COUNTYPERSONNEUCIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

December 13.2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court

Mattye Mauldin-Taylor, Ph.D.Director of Personnel/Civil Service

Renewal of Health Benefit Contracts

BackgroundThe renewal com.facts for Texas Health Choice HMO, United Dental DMO andSafeguard DMO have been received and are ready for Commissioners Court approvaland execution. These contracts set the rates already approved by the Court during thebudget process in September 2000. Each of the contracts is for one year from January 1,2001 to January 1, 2002.

Operational ImpactThese three contracts support the County's Health Program.

Financial ImpactThe cost of the contracts has been anticipated and is budgeted in the Benefit Trust forFY2001.

Legal ReviewThe Civil Section of the District Attorney's Office has reviewed the Agreements.

RecommendationThe PersonneVCivil Service Department recommends the Commissioners Court approvethe contracts with Texas Health Choice (Attachment 1), United Dental Care ofTexas,Inc. (Attachment 2) and Safeguard Health Plans, Inc. (Attachment 3) and authorize theCounty Judge to sign them on behalfofthe County.

Recommended by:

Attachments

501 Main Street, Room 103Criminal Courts Building

ldin Taylor, Ph.D.Personnel/Civil Service

Dallas. Texas 75201

Equal Opportunity Employer

(214) 653-7638

109

Te*asHealth Choice

October 24, 2000

Public Employee Benefits CooperativeC/O Diana Kongevick616 Six Flags Dr., Suite 200Arlington, TX 76011

Re: 2001 Renewal for Dallas County - 10005158 A001

Dear Diana:

On behalf of Texas Health Choice, I am pleased to provide renewal rates for theemployees of Dallas County. Several changes have occurred in our organizationover the past year arid I'd like to take a minute to update you. We haveexpanded our HMO Hospital network to 32 and contracted with Physicians in thecommunity to provide care for our members. .

Texas Health Choice is committed to provide the highest quality services andmedical care to employees of Dallas County. We understand that havinghealthy, productive employees is key to an organization's success and we atTexas Health Choice, make this our business to take care of the employees ofDallas County.

In order to complete this renewal, please review and sign the enclosed rate andbenefit confirmation page and return to my attention. We must have this signedconfirmation page in order to process this renewal and ensure that we havecorrect billing and 10 cards issued for a January effective date. If you have anyquestions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 972-479-5439. I lookforward to our continued business relationship.

SJi'~.Tom DonahueAccount Manager

Tdl1m

Texas Health Choice, Le. • Northpointe II • 9330 Amberton Parkway • Dallas, TX 752<43Phone: (9n) <479-5000

110

Te*asHealth Choice

HMO RENEWAL RATESFor

DALLAS COUNTY -10005158-A001

RENEWAL RATES EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 1,2001

RATE TIER RENEWAL RATESHMO PLAN C

Subscriber Only $216.05Subscriber + Spouse $468.03Subscriber + Child(ren) $354.32Subscrib~~lr +......;.F.....;;a.;..;..;m..;...il_y ......--1- ---:;.$5..;...9;;...,;4;.;;...1;;..;;;;6 ----1

BENEFIT HMO PLAN COffice Visit $15Inpatient Hospital $0Outpatient Surgery $15Emeraenev Room $50/$75; waived If admittedPrescription Drua $10/20/50%Dependent to Age 19Student to Age 23

The above renewal rates include the following riders: $10120150%, Serious Mental Illness, DurableMedical Equipment and In Vitro Fertilization

• This renewal offer is based on the attached proposal assumptions.• Benefit plan and riders are attached.• Vision Benefit included at no additional cost through EyeMasters.• Dental Benefit included at no additional cost through Careington.

Acceptance Signature of Authorized CompanyRepresentative

Printed Name and Title

Date

111

1'e*asHealth Choice

Renewal Proposal Assumptions

1. The above rates are effective JANUARY 1, 2001 and are guaranteed for12 months if contribution and participation requirements are met.

2. Rates are valid for 30 days from the date of this proposal.

3. If multiple offerh .';:-1. are extended, a minimum participation of 15% of alleligible employees must be enrolled in the health plan. (Or a minimum of10 employees. whichever is greater.)

4. Employer contribution is assumed to be at a minimum of 50% of theemployee rate.

5. Employer contributions are assumed to be at the current level. TexasHealth Choice reserves the right to adjust rates due to a change incontributions levels that result in a greater than 10% change in theenrolled demographics of the group.

6. All employees must be actively at work at time of enrollment. All eligibleemployees must work or reside in Texas Health Choice's current servicearea to receive benefits under the HMO or Point-of-Service plan.

7. Groups with fewer than 20 total eligible employees must enroll allemployees age 65 or older in the Golden Retiree Choice Medicare RiskPlan regardless if they are still actively at work. In order to enroll andmaintain enrollment. employees and dependents eligible for Medicaremust be entitled to and enrolled under both Part A and Part B of Medicare.

8. The terms of this proposal are subject to change in order to conform toTexas State law requirements.

9. Rates may be revised based on group's selection or declination of ridercoverage.

10. A minimum of two employees must be enrolled to keep this policy activeuntil next renewal.

United Dental Care-of Texas, Inc.

A........ c......,

112

UNITED DENTAL CARE OF TEXAS, INC.13601 Preston Road, Suite 500 East

Dallas, Texas 75240(972) 458-74741 (800) 443-0225

APPLICATION FOR GROUP DENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE

APPLICATION for Group Dental Service Agreement and Certificate of Coverage, hereinafter called "Application,"is hereby made to United Dental Care of Texas, Inc., hereinafter called "UDC," by the Applicant named below,hereinafter called "Organization," for the purpose of making certain prepaid dental services and benefits availableto eligible individuals under a Group Dental Service Agreement and Certificate of Coverage issued by UDe toOrganization, hereinafter called the "Agreement." The arrangement for the provision of such services andbenefits shall be subject to the Agreement between UDC and the Organization and shall be based upon thestatements and representations contained in the Agreement and this Application, a copy of which shall beattached to and made a part of said Agreement.

1. ORGANIZATION:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Dallas County

501 M§jn Street

Dallas, TX 75202

2. EMPLOYER COVERAGE BASIS: o Contributory f8J Non-Contributory

3. ELIGIBarrv: An employee ofthe Organization who meets the eligibility requirements for coverage underthe Organization's policies as determined by the Organization shall be eligible for coverage under thisAgreement as stated in Section 3.4 of the Agreement.

A. Class ofemployees (members) to be covered:

B. Rules ofEligibility:

4. DENTAL CARE SERVICES:

f8J Active f8J Retirees

A Dental Care Services: Dental Care Services as specified in Schedule ofBenefits, Plan 185A oftheAgreement.

B. Other: _

5. MONTHLY PREPAYMENT FEE: The monthly Prepayment Fee for the number ofMembers in eachcategory below is due and payable from Organization to UDC beginning on the date specified in Section 6 ofthis Application, and on that same day for each month this Agreement continues in force.

App:rx I t 19K

Employee OnlyEmployee + 'SpouseEmployee + Child (ren)

Employee + FamilyMonthly Administrative Fee

$ 9.21$ 18.33$ 26.57$ 33.26$ 0.00

10f2

113

APPLICATION FOR GROUP DENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE

6. TERMIRENEWAL: This Agreement shall become effective at 12:01 A.M., Central Time, on the first dayof January 1. , 2001 ("Effective Date") and may be renewed at the end of eachAgreement period pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement unless tenninated by UDC or the Organizationas provided herein. The first Agreement period shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate at12:00 A.M., Central Time, on January 1. 2002 , unless terminated before this date byUDC or the Organization. UDC may terminate this Agreement (a) upon ten (10) days written notice for thefailure of Organization to pay the Prepayment Fees, subject to a twenty one (21) day grace period, (b) uponsixty (60) days written notice, in the event Organization shall be guilty offraud or material misrepresentationof fact in obtaining coverage hereunder or shall have otherwise materially breached this Agreement, or (c)subject to Section 4.2 of the Agreement. In the event Organization terminates this Agreement prior to theend of an Agreement period, the termination provision stated in Section 4.2 of the Agreement shall apply. Inthe event Organization is regulated under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act of 1974(ERISA), UDC will cooperate with Organization in supplying Organization with any information in itspossession in meeting any ERISA reporting requirements. UDC :s not and shall not be designated theadministrator or fiduciary for ERISA reporting requirements as defined in the Agreement.

FOR INFORMATIONOR TO MAKE A COMPLAINT

CALL 1·800-443-0225

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures to this Agreement.

UNITED DENTAL CARE OF TEXAS, INC.

By:Signature

Print Name and Title

Date

APP.'TX 111911

ORGANIZATION _

By:Signature

Print Name and Title

Date

20f2

114

SAFEGUARD n~ALlliPLANS, INC.95 Enterprise

Aliso Viejo, California 92656-2601(949) 425-4300

Fax (949) 425-4587

GROUP CONTRACT FOR PREPAID SERVICESACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT

The Group Contract for Prepaid Services (the "CONTRACT"), as supplemented by this Group DentalContract for Prepaid Services Acceptance Agreement, has been entered into between SafeGuard HealthPlans, Inc., a Texas corporation ("SAFEGUARD") and the organization named below (hereinafter called"ORGANIZAnON"):

A. ORGANIZATION - ADDRESS FOR NOTICE

Name of Organization: PEBC-Dallas County

Name of Representative: Director of Employee Benefits

Address: do Diana Kongevick, 616 Six Flags Drive, #200

Group #4201-R

City: Arlington

B. EFFECTIVE DATE

State: Texas Zip Code: 76011

SAFEGUARD, subject to all the conditions and provisions of the CONTRACf, and in reliance upon thestatements of each Member in his or her Enrollment Card, shall provide the services and benefits and theother rights and privileges, which are set forth in the CONTRACf, which shall take effect on January 1,2001, (herein after called the "Effective Date").

C. TERM OF COVERAGE

The term of this CONTRACT shall be from 12:00 a.m., Central Time, January 1, 2001, to 12:00 a.m.,Central Time, January 1,2002, and shall be automatically renewed at the end of each contract period,unless terminated by SAFEGUARD or ORGANIZATION as provided in Section 4.1 of theCONTRACf.

The CONTRACf shall continue in force subject to earlier termination by SAFEGUARD for (a) thefailure of ORGANlZAnON to pay the prepayment fees, subject to a thirty-one (31) day grace period,and (b) upon fifteen (15) days written notice in the event ORGANIZATION shall be guilty of fraud; or(c) upon sixty (60) days written notice in the event ORGANIZATION shall be guilty of materialmisrepresentation of fact in obtaining coverage hereunder or shall have otherwise materially breachedthis CONTRACf.

D. COVERAGE BASIS

Client Paid

TXAA

_Voluntary Portion _%

6-00

115

E. ELIGIBILITY

An employee of ORGANIZATION who meets the eligibility requirements for coverage underORGANIZAnON's policies will be eligible for coverage under the CONTRACT as stated in Section 3.4of the CONTRACf.

(1) Classes of employees (Subscribers) to be covered:

_ All EmployeesSalaried

_ RetireesOther

UnionNon Union

(2) Age limit for Dependents: __; Extended age limit: __0

(3) Rules of Eligibility: According to the rules and regulations of the ORGANIZAnON.

F. PREPAID DENTAL CARE SERVICES

Dental Care Services as specified in the Schedule of Benefits and Copayments of Plan TXSP312Eo

G. MONTHLY PREPAYMENT FEE

The monthly prepayment fee for the number of Members in each category below is due and payable fromORGANIZATION to SAFEGUARD on the first day of the month for each month the CONTRACf is ineffect commencing January 1,2001.

PREMIUM

Subscriber only

Subscriber and one Dependent

Subscriber and Child(ren)

Subscriber and Dependents, regardless of number

$ 8.70

$15.69

$15.69

$20.12

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures to this Contract AcceptanceAgreement as of the dates set forth below.

SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS, INC.,a Texas Corporation

Name: _

Signature: _

Title: Vice President

Name: _

Signature: _

Title: Vice President

Date: _

TXAA

ORGANIZATIONPEBC·Dalltu CO"""

Name: _

Signature: _

Title: _

Date: _

CONTRACTSITXGAG9'.DOC

116~vSafeGuard)ENTAL BENEFITS RENEWAL NOTICE

iVe are pleased to present your SafeGuard Dental Benefits Renewal. Your continued business is important to us ando ensure that you receive the best benefits package at the best rates available, our underwriters review currentnarket trends and utilization of plan benefits prior to developing your renewal rates. If you should have anyluestions, a contact name is provided below. We have also included your Acceptance & Acknowledgement of theseenewal rates. Please make any corrections necessary, sign where indicated and return the document to us. 177ank'ou for choosing SafeGuard

GROUP ID NO. PLAN CODE BENEFIT TYPE RENEWAL DATE~ Managed Care Dental

4201-R TXSP312E o Indemnity/PPO Dental January 1, 2001o Vision 12:01 AM

Rates based on CURRENT RATES RENEWAL RATESo Utilization o Pooled Information

Member OnlyMember + 1Member + Family

Member Only $ 8.70Member + Spouse 15.69 Rate PassMember + Child(ren) 15.69Member + Family 20.12

Member OnlyMember + Family

Composite

Rates quoted above are guaranteed to January 1, 2002

SafeGuard Health Plans, Inc.Post Office Box 30900Laguna Hills, california 92654-0900

Your Account Manager's Name It Telephone:Hope Ibanez 972-364-5061

Group Names It Address Agent/Consultant Name a Address

PEBC-Dallas CountyC/o Diana Kongevick

616 Six Flags Drive, #200Arlington, TX 76011 .

117


December 13, 2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court


Amendment to Extend LifeRe Insurance Company Service Agreement

BackgroundDallas County Commissioners Court Order 98-921 authorized an Agreement WIll1 LifeReInsurance Company to administer the Section 125 (Flexible Spending Account) BenefitProgram for Dallas County. The original Agreement expires Decemher 31,2000. TheHuard of Governance of the Public Employee Benefit Cooperative has recommended athree-year extension of the Agreement (Attachment 1).

Operational ImpactThe extension of the Agreement supports the County's Employee Benefit Program. Theextension will assure continuity of the Program in the future.

Financial ImpactThe cost of the Agreement has been anticipated and is budgeted in the Benefit Trust forFY2001.

LeKal ReviewThe Civil Section of the District Attorney's Office has reviewed the Agreement.

RecommendationThe PersonneVCivil Service Department recommends the Commissioners Court approvethe extension ofthe Agreement with LifeRe Insurance Company and authorize the CountyJudge to sign the extension on behalfofthe County.

Recommended by:

Attachment

501 Main Stree~ Room 103Criminal Courts Buildinl Dallas, Texas 75202


(214) 653-7638

118AMENDMENT #1

The Section 125 Service Agreement, "Agreemenf', by and between Dallas County,hereinafter called the "Employer", and LifeRe Insurance Company, hereinafter called"LifeRe" effective as of January 1, 1998, and accepted by Dallas County on May 5,1998, is hereby amended as follows:

1. Contract Terms -The term of the Agreement shall be extended for a three year periodcommencing January 1, 2001, and ending December 31, 2003, or untilterminated as provided in the Agreement;

2. Plan Administration Fee -The Plan Administration Fee will be as follows:

Monthly Fee .

* - Flexible Spending Account

1st Year(2001)$4.00

2nd Year(2002)$4.25

per FSA* participant

3rd Year(2003)$4.50

However, in the event Employer elects to make an Employer contribution to the MedicalFlexible Spending Account of all of its employees, the Employer will pay LifeRe amonthly Plan Administration Fee for each of the Employer'S eligible employees basedon the following schedule:

1st Year(2001)$2.00

2nd Year(2002)$2.25

3rd Year(2003)$2.50

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Accepted and agreed by:

Signature

James C. Black, Jr.Name

President & COOTitle

LifeRe Insurance Company

Date

Dallas County

Date

119

AMENDMENT #1

The Section 125 Service Agreement, "Agreemenf', by and between Dallas County,hereinafter called the "Employer', and LifeRe Insurance Company, hereinafter called"LifeRe" effective as of January 1, 1998, and accepted by Dallas County on May 5,1998, is hereby amended as follows:


2. Plan Administration Fee -The Plan Administration Fee will be as follows:

Monthly Fee .


1st Year(2001)$4.00

2nd Year(2002)$4.25


3rd Year(2003)$4.50

However, in the event Employer elects to make an Employer contribution to the MedicalFlexible Spending Account of all of its employees, the Employer will pay LifeRe amonthly Plan Administration Fee for each of the Employers eligible employees basedon the following schedule:

1st Year(2001)$2.00

2nd Year(2002)$2.25

3rd Year(2003)$2.50



Signature




Date

Dallas County

Date

120

AMENDMENT #1

The Section 125 Service Agreement, "Agreemenf', by and between Dallas County,hereinafter called the "Employer", and LiteRe Insurance Company, hereinafter called"LiteRe" effective as ot January 1, 1998, and accepted by Dallas County on May 5,1998, is hereby amended as follows:


2. Plan Administration Fee-The Plan Administration Fee will be as tollows:

Monthly Fee .


1st Year(2001 )$4.00

2nd Year(2002)$4.25


3rd Year(2003)$4.50

However, in the event Employer elects to make an Employer contribution to·the MedicalFlexible Spending Account of all of its employees, the Employer will pay LifeRe amonthly Plan Administration Fee for each of the Employer's eligible employees basedon the following schedule:

1st Year(2001)$2.00

2nd Year(2002)$2.25

3rd Year(2003) •$2.50



Signature




Date

Dallas County

Date

121

......


December 13,2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court


Extension Addendum to Agreement with North Texas Healthcare Network

BackKroundDallas County Commissioners Court Order 98-753 authorized Agreements with NorthTexas Healthcare Network for Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) and PreferredProvider Organization (PPO) products to support Dallas County's self-funded MedicalBenefit Programs. The original Agreements expire December 31, 2000 and terms of newAgreements are being negotiated. Two-month extensions (Attachments 1 and 2) arerequested to allow time to complete the negotiations without interrupting service.

Operational ImpactThe extensions of the Agreements support the County's Employee Benefit Program. Theextensions will prevent disruption of the Benefit Program.

Financial ImpactThe cost of the Agreements has been anticipated and is budgeted in the Benefit Trust forFY2001.

LeKal ReviewThe Civil Section of the District Attorney's Office has reviewed the extensions of theAgreements.

RecommendationThe Personnel/Civil Service Department recommends the Commissioners Court approvethe extensions ofthe Agreements with North Texas Healthcare Network and authorize theCounty Judge to sign the Extension Addenda on behalfofthe County.

Recommended by:

Attachments


auldin Taylor, Ph.D.of Personnel/Civil Service

Dallas, Texas 75102


(114) 653-7638

122

Extension Addendumto the

Managed Healthcare System Agreement for Non-Risk Gatekeeper Exclusive ProviderOrganization (EPO) Products

WHEREAS, North Texas Healthcare Network and and The County of Dallas (Customer)entered into an agreement effective January I, 1998 (hereinafter, the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the Contract term will expire on December 31,2000; and

WHEREAS, the parties are currently negotiating the terms of a new agreement for servicescurrently provided under the Contract; and

WHEREAS, the parties have established fees to be paid to North Texas Healthcare Networkunder the new agreement, but other terms are continuing to be negotiated; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Contract for the period January 1,2000 thruFebruarj 28,2001 in order to avoid any interruption in services under the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

1. The Managed Healthcare System Agreement for Non-Risk Gatekeeper Exclusive ProviderOrganization Products (EPO) together with Attachments B, C, D, E and F is extended thruFebruary 28, 2001.

2. Attachment A has been revised for benefit plan year effective January 1,2001 and is made apart of this Addendum.

3. This Addendum shall automatically terminate upon the effective date of any new agreementbetween the parties for services performed pursuant to the Agreement and this Addendum.

4. Except as set forth herein, all terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

EXECUTED this day of December, 2000.

Lee JacksonCounty Judge

Date

Robert J. BrownChief Operating Officer

Date

'.

123

Extension Addendumto the

Preferred Provider Organization Alternative Delivery System Agreement

WHEREAS, North Texas Healthcare Network and The County of Dallas (Customer) enteredinto an agreement effective January 1, 1998 (hereinafter, the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the Contract term will expire on December 31,2000; and

WHEREAS, the parties are currently negotiating the tenns of a new agreement for servicescurrently provided under the Contract; and

WHEREAS, the parties have established fees to be paid to North Texas Healthcare Networkunder the new agreement, but other tenns are continuing to be negotiated; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Contract for the period January 1, 2000 thruFebruary 28, 2001 in order to avoid any intellUption in services under the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

1. The Preferred Provider Organization Alternative Delivery System Agreement (PPO) togetherwith Attachments B, C, D, E and F is extended thru February 28,2001.

2. Attachment A has been revised for benefit plan year effective January 1, 2001 and is made apart of this Addendum.

3. This Addendum shall automatically terminate upon the effective date of any new agreementbetween the parties for services performed pursuant to the Agreement and this Addendum.

4. Except as set forth herein, all tenns of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

EXECUTED this day of December, 2000.

Lee JacksonCounty Judge

Date

Robert J. BrownChief Operating Officer

Date

124

DALLAS COUNTYPERSONNEL/CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

December 13,2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Members of the Commissioners Court

Mattye Mauldin Taylor, Ph.D.Director of PersonneVC ivil Service

Cooperative Use Agreement Between the Dallas Federal Employee Child CareCorporatio~ Dallas County, and the General Services Administration

BacgroundDallas County has had a Cooperative Use Agreement with the Dallas Federal Employee Child CareCorporation and the General Services Administration silt:~ 1991. In this Cooperative Agreement, thefederal government makes it child care facility available to County employees who meet eligibilitycriteria established by the County. Dallas County also agrees to pay $3,828.00 per year ($319.00 permonth) for the leasing of the Center's playground area. The current Agreement, signed in late 1997, is upfor another three year renewal

Impact on Operatio..The signing ofthis Cooperative Use Agreement will allow Dallas County to continue providing child careservices to its eligible employees through the childcare facility owned by the General ServicesAdministration.

Financial ImpactNo additional financial impact will be incurred due to the signing ofthis Agreement. CommissionersCourt allocated $35,000 to the Program in the Workforce Investment Allocation approved during thebudget process.

LgaiReviewWhile the terms of the Use Agreement are the same as they have been for the past nine years, a copy ofthe Agreement has been forwarded to the District Attorney's Civil Section for review.

Recommendado.The PersonneJlCivil Service Department recommends Commissioners Court approve the three yearrenewal olthe Cooperative Use Agreement between Dallas County, the Dallas Federal Employee ChildCare Corporation and the General Service Administration and authorize the County Judge to sign theAgreement

Reco_~ ,-.......__

uldin Taylor

Attachment - Cooperative Use Agrement

CC: John Dahill

501 Main Street, Room 103Criminal Cou1s Blilding D~lIas, Texas 75202

EQual Opportunity Employer

(214) 653-7638

125

.COOPERATIVE USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEDALLAS FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE

CORPORATION, DALLAS COUNTY, AND THE GENERALSERVICES l\DMINISTRATION

The Dallas Federal Child Care Corporation, a non-profit, tax exempt Corporation,operates a Federal child care center known as Stars and Tykes. The center is located onthe first floor ofthe Federal Building, 207 South Houston, Dallas, Texas, a buildingowned and operated by the General Services Administration, an agency of the UnitedStates government. The center was constructed to satisfy the needs of the downtownDallas Federal community.

The County Government ofDallas has a demonstrated need for child care services fortheir employees in the downtown Dallas area and has expressed an interest inparticipating in the Stars and Tykes Federal Child Care Center.

It is hereby agreed through this cooperative use agreement that employees of the CountyofDallas will be allowed to participate in the Center under the following provisions:

1. Currently the playground area is leased by the Federal Government, specificallythe General Services Administration, from the City ofDallas, under a term leasefor the sum of$3,828.00 per annum, paid in arrears at the rate of$319.00 permonth. Dallas County agrees to assume the rental ofthe Center's playground areafor a firm term of three years, commencing October 1,2000, through September30, 2003. At the end of the initial three-year period, if the County chooses tocontinue to utilize the Center, the County will pay the playground rental,annually, for each year of the Center's use.

2. The Corporation will provide County employees all child care services currentlyprovided to Federal employees at the prevailing Federal rates.

3. County employees will be allotted all vacant slots up to capacity at the Center notbeing utilized by Federal employees.

4. Upon reaching Center capacity, priority will be given to Federal employees forany vacant slots which become available. IfFederal employees express nointerest in utilizing available vacant slots, priority will then be given to Countyemployees for all vacant slots up to 500iO ofthe Center's capacity.

5. The County may elect to be represented in the Corporation by appointing arepresentative to serve on the Corporation's Board ofDirectors. Thisrepresentative will have all rights and privileges accorded to all Board Members.

126

Page 2Cooperative Use Agreement

6. The County is encouraged to support the Center by contributing furnishings andequipment to be used in the Center's operation. All such properties will betransferred in ownership to the Corporation.

7. This agreement becomes effective October 21, 2000, and can be terminated byeither party by giving a 30-day written notice.

, PresidentDallas Federal Child Care CenterBoard ofDirectors

Real Property OfficerGeneral Services Administration

Honorable Judge Lee F. Jackscw.Dallas County Judge

127

DALLAS COUNTYPERSONNEUCIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENlO DEC 13 ?;i 3: 52

December 13,2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court


CountyChoice Silver Retiree Medical Program

BackgroundDallas County has been invited to participate in The Texas Association of Counties (TAC)Retiree Medical Program called CountyChoice Silver. The Program is a supplement to Medicarefor thc'se retirees over age 65. The program is almost identical to the Blue CrosslBlue Shield(BCBS) supplement currently offered to Dallas County retirees. The notable exception is in thearea of prescriptions. The BCBS program does not have a prescription component while the TACProgram does (utJ to $3,000 per year). Dallas County does offer a PEBC prescription card withno annual limit to those retirees enrolled in BCBS.

Costs for both the BCBS and TAC programs are age-banded. They range from $107.00 to$216.00 per month depending on zip code in the BCaS Program and from $158.35 to $280.00per month in the TAC Program. The cost of a PEBC prescription card is $151.00 per month andis not age-banded.

Dallas County also offers its two self-insured medical plans and two HMOs to retirees over age65. The provider networks for these programs are limited to the metroplex and a few otherlocations. The BCBS and CountyChoice Silver programs offer greater coverage for those retireeswho live outside of the metroplex. There are currently 20 retirees enrolled in health plansthrough the County who live outside the metroplex catchment area.

Operational ImpactNone to the County. The program applies to retirees over age 65 only.

Financial ImpactNone to the County. Retirees pay the cost of the program.

RecommeDdatiogThe Personnel/Civil Service Department recommends the Commissioners Court take no action atthis time and refer the invitation to the PEBCfor consideration next year when there will beadequate timefor evaluation/comparison ofthe Program andfor inclusion in the open enrollmentprocess.

Recommended by:

50I Maia Street, Room 10JCrimiaal Courts Buildial Dallas. Texu 75201

Equal ppportunity Employer

(214) 653-7638

128

Df\LLAS COUNTYPERSONNEL/CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT 00 CEe 13 PH 3: S2

December 12, 2000

To: Members of Commissioners Court

From: Mattye Mauldin-Taylor, Ph.D.Director of Personnel/Civil Service

Subject: Extension of Contract with Hay Consulting Group

BackgroundOn February 1, 2000, Commissioners Court approved the Personnel/Civil Service Department'srequest to utilize Hay Consulting Group to provide personnel consulting for the following services:(1) job analyses and evaluations, (2) review and recommendations on proposed options from theSheriffs Department regarding pay for training officers, (3) review of compensation policies andprocedures, (4) review of internal standard operating procedures, (5) staff training and (6)recommendations and s1rategies to the Director on other identified issues. The cost ofthe consultingservices was not to exceed $38,000 and was for the period ofFebroary 1,2000 and extended throughDecember 31, 2000.

The Personnel/Civil Service Department is requesting an extension of the contract to March 31,2001. Limited time has been spent on other projects due to the consultant's work on clericalreorganization issues and FLSA issues. In addition, we experienced the loss of our most seniorcompensation analyst and are faced with a number of requests for salary and reclassification studies.

Impact on OperationsExtension ofthe contract will allow the Personnel/Civil Service Department to continue to maintainits current service levels and complete the remaining comPensation projects.

Financial ImpactNo additional fmancial resources are required. There is a balance of approximately $15,000outstanding on the contract.

RecommendationThe Personnel/Civil Service Departme commends Commissioners Court approves the extensiondate ofthe consulting agreement . Hay Consulting Group to M

Recommended by:e Mauldin-Taylor, Ph.D.tor of Personnel/Civil Service

501 Main Street, Room 103Criminal Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202

Equal 0 pportunity Employer

(214) 653-7638

129, ~I.. ~ , .~ or

DALLAS COUNTY .~. " _.;,\1

PERSONNEUCIVIL SERVICE DEPtij~~~ PH 3: 52

f.

December 13,2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court


Rationale for Briefing and Court Order on Same Day

Presenting the Briefing and Court Order on the same day for approval of a Notice ofElection for Exemption under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of1996 (HIPAA) is necessary because (1) the document was received from the PEBC lateon December 11, 2000 (2) Commissioners Court session for December 26, 2000 has beencancelled and (3) the document has to be at the Health Care Financing Administration nolater than December 31, 2000 to be effective for the Benefit Plan Year 2001.

501 Main Street, Room 103Criminal Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202


(214) 653-7638

130


December 13,2000

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court


Election of Exemption for Self-Funded Health Insurance Programs

BackeroundThe County is eligible, as ~ nc 1-federal governmental entity, to elect to exempt the selffunded portion of its Health Plans from certain requirements of the Public Health ServiceAct. As a member of the Public Employee Benefit Cooperative (PEBC), Dallas Countyhas made this election each of the last three years. In order to continue the exemption forPlan Year 2001, the Notice of Election (Attachment 1) needs to be sent to the HealthCare Financing Administration by December 31, 2000.

Operational ImpactNone. The exemption impacts only Employee Health Plans.

Financial ImpactWithout the exemption, the cost of the self-funded portion of the County's Health planswould increase because of the nature of the exemption.

Leeal ReviewThe Notice of Election for Exemption has been forwarded to the Civil Section of theDistrict Attorney's Office for review.

RecommendationThe Personnel/Civil Service Department recommends the Commissioners Court approvethe Notice ofElection for Exemption under the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act of1996 (HIPAA) and authorize the County Judge to sign the Noticeon behalfofthe County.

Recommended by:

Attachment


din Taylor, Ph.D.Personnel/Civil Servi e

Dallas, Texas 75101.Equal Opportunity Employer

(214) 653·7638

131

NOTICE OF ELECTION FOR EXEMPTION UNDERTHE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABLITY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 (HIPAA)FOR NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS

Name of Plan: Dallas County Public Employee Benefits Cooperative Plan

Plan Sponsor: Dallas County

Address: 411 Elm St.Dallas, TX 75202Attention: Lee Jackson

Plan Year: January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001

Plan Administrator: Public Employee Benefits Cooperative of North Texas (PEBC)

Address: 616 Six Flags Drive, Suite 200Arlington, TX 76011

The portion of the Dallas County Public Employee Benefits Cooperative Plan that is self-funded (PEBCEPO Medical Plan, PEBC PPO Medical Plan and PEBC Dental Plan) is not provided through insurance.Dallas County elects under authority of section 2721(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act),and 45 CFR 146.180 of Federal regulations, to exempt the self-funded portion of the plan from thefollowing requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act:

1. Limitations on preexisting condition exclusion periods.

2. Special enrollment periods.

3. Prohibitions against discriminating against individual participants and beneficiaries based on healthstatus.

4. Standards relating to benefits for mothers and newborns.

5. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.

6. Required coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomies.

This election has been made in conformity with all rules of the plan sponsor, including any publichearing, if required. I certify that the undersigned is authorized to submit this election on behalf of DallasCounty Public Employee Benefits Cooperative Plan. A copy of the notice to plan enrollees is enclosed.If HCFA has any questions regarding this election, please contact the Plan Administrator, PEBC, Attn:Diana Kongevick at 817-695-9141.

STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF DALLAS

By: _

Lee Jackson, County Judge

Date: --------------

132

December 19, 2000

MISCELLANEOUS

1) ROAD & BRIDGE #2 (CANTRELL) - requests permission for home storage ofaCounty vehicle for Mr. David Williams, Crew Chief: who has been placed on 24 hourcall for the purpose of assisting the General Foreman and Superintendent with afterhours and weekend calls such as emergency sanding ofroadways during inclementweather, grass fires, removID.!1,.ofdead animals 81"1 debris from roadway, and placingbarricades oftlooded roadways when needed. Mr. Williams will also be required tokeep emergency materials in this vehicle which will avoid time delays in taking careofemergencies when they arise.

2) OWCE OF BUDGET" EVALVATION - requests approval of the line itembudget for the Dallas Challenge Truancy Enforcement Center for FY2001. Fundingfor this program in the amount of$320,500 was approved in the FY2001 budget andthis action will have no additional impact on the General Fund. This approval willformalize the arrangement between Dallas Challenge based on monthly invoices forreimbursement ofactual costs not to exceed the budgeted amount.


It is requested that this item presented as a court order on the same day it is briefedin order to allow the Auditor's Office time to process October and Novemberpayments for Dallas Challenge before January. Since this program was discussedduring the budgetprocess and this funding level was approved in the FY2001budget,no additional decision is needed at this time. This request simply authorizes paymentfor the approved amount.

3) HEALTH" IIlJMAN 5ERVU;ES - requests approval to transfer $5,000 fromHealth & Human Services Unallocated Reserves (00120.9950.09110.2001) toPreventive Health, Drogs & Medical Supplies (00120.5213.02920.2001) to purchasesupplies for the Tattoo Removal program. This expenditure will be offset bycorresponding revenue from the program deposited to the General Fund.Recommended by Office ofBudget & Evaluation.

133

4) JUVENILE DEPARTMENT - requests permission to retain a passenger van (R008)scheduled to be sent to surplus. This van will be assigned to the Emergency Shelterfor infrequent trips (approximately 4 to 5 per month) to various medical facilities.Currently, Emergency Shelter staffutilize their personal vehicles for these trips. Thisrequest was originally submitted to the Juvenile Board as a request for a new vehiclein the FY2001 budget. The Juvenile Board asked the department to find a surplusvehicle that could be used for the stated purpose. Recommended by Communications& Central Services.

5) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - recommends approving Chase Manhattan'srequest to revise its three-phase tax abatement so that it has more ofa start-up periodto hire new employees/create newjobs during Phase I's first two years and to increasethe amount of new business personal property it must have during these first twoyears. These changes involve reducing the Year 1employment requirement from 650to 600 and the Year 2 requirement from 1,000 to 1,400 and increasing the Year 1personal property requirement from $8 million to $9 million and the Year 2requirement from $9 million to $10 million. All other items and conditions of theoriginal abatement, including the number ofjobs that must be created by Year 3 (Le.,1,400), remain in effect.


Staff is asking that this item be briefed and court ordered on the same day becauseChase Manhattan, which had been reviewing the proposed abatement agreement sinceMarch, did not provide its final revisions until December 7; because Chase has legalconcerns that this matter must be completed by the end of this calendar year; andbecause December 19 is the last scheduled Court meeting ofthe year.

TRAVEL REQUESTS

6) SHERIFF'S DEfARTMlNT - M.A. Howard - 204mSession of the FBI NationalAcademy - Quantico, VA - January 3-March 23, 2001 in County vehicle with gascredit cards and no other cost to DaUas County.

134

MISCELLANEOUS EOUIPMENT

DEPARTMENT: 4702ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

PROPOSED ACTION:

Probate Court # 21 - Printer$410Contingency, Computer Hardware00120.4702.08630.2001 (General fWd, Probate Court #2. Computer HardwAre, FY2001)Judge Price currently does not have a printer for hiscomputer. He requested one from surplus, for costsaving measures, but the one supplied was not able toperform simple tasks, such as prb+.ing envelopes. Anewbasic printer has been requested in its place.Recommended by M.I.S. Director.

TELECQ~ATij)NS

Data SSm'R - requests:M-0012004 - to install seven network locations and four voice stations to relocate DataServices. Installation: $415.77; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

M-0012017 - to install a cat-S data-line on the 2nd floor of the Frank Crowley CourtsBuilding to support new time-clock location. Installation: $80.74; no monthly serviceincrease. Recommended.

PubUe WodllM-8011051· requests to install six network locations on the 3rd and 4th floorsoftheAdministrationBuildingtoprovide network access. Installation: $457.95; no monthlyservice increase. Recommended.

SherUIM-0011066 - requests to install a cat-S data-line in Room B-3 to provide networkaccess. Installation: $80.74; no monthly service increase, Recommended.

District (;lc$ M-0012018 - requests to install six cat-S data-lines in Room C-2 on the 2nd

floorofthe FrankCrowleyCourts Buildingtoprovide network: access, Installation: $272.22;no monthly service increase. Recommended.

135

Health & Human Services - requests:M-OOII071 - to install a cat-5 data-line in Rooms 533, 514 and 721 to provide networkaccess. Installation: $140.81; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

M-OOII063 M-0012036 - to install a cat-5 data-line in Rooms 224 and 132 to providenetwork access. Installation: $45.27; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

Public Defenders Office - requests:M-0012035 - to install two new voice lines to replace existing line that is currently a workhazard. Installation: $74.70; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

M-OOII065 - to install two cat-5 data-lines in Rooms CI-23 & CI-24 to provide networkaccess. Installation: $82.74; no monthly service increase. Recommended.

Funding for the above request is available from countywide Department 800, line item 432,Telephone Contingency.

••••••••••••