Nov 30, 2017 - Steering Committee â. ⢠City Manager, Assistant City Manager(s), City Engineer, ... In early 2014, Ci
11/30/2017
CITY OF BUDA 2014 BOND PROGRAM UPDATE Proposition 1 – City Hall / Library Proposition 2 – Public Safety Building
Background • Voters approved 5 bond propositions in November 2014 • Prop 1 - $21 million for Municipal Facilities • $3.9 Million additional received for Site Development and Drainage Sept
2016 • Prop 2 - $6.75 million for Public Safety Building • Prop 3 - $12.25 million for Streets • Prop 4 - $ 7 million for Drainage • Prop 5 - $8 million for Parks
• Monitor progress at ci.buda.tx.us/2014-bonds • Project history, blog, and live stream
171
1
11/30/2017
Timeline • May 2014 • January 2015 • August 2015 • August 2015 • Sept. 2016 • Sept. 2016 • Dec. 2016 • Dec. 2016 • January 2017 • January 2017 -
Facility Study / Master Plan completed by Wiginton, Hooker, Jeffery Architects Site selected Page Southerland Page Architects selected thru RFQ JE Dunn selected as Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) thru RFP Issuance of General Obligation bonds Issuance of Certificates of Obligation bonds for site acquisition and site work JE Dunn’s GMP accepted based on the 100% DD’s by Page Public Works Department completes site work for the drainage Heritage Tree Relocation completed Construction started on PSB & CH/L
What is CMAR? • Construction Manager at Risk is a delivery method
which entails a commitment by the Construction Manager (CM) to deliver the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) which is based on the construction documents and specifications at the time of the GMP plus any reasonably inferred items or tasks. • The CM is brought on during the design process to assist with constructability review and to offer value engineering and alternatives.
172
2
11/30/2017
Design Goals • Based on the Facilities Study and space requirements,
the Design Goal was to create and develop a municipal complex that would sustain the City’s current and future growth and the anticipate staffing needs to facilitate growth for the next 20 years.
Team Members • Facility Study – Wiginton Hooker Jeffery Architects / Hidell • • • • •
Assoc. Architects Design - Page Southerland Page Architects / Dewberry Construction - JE Dunn Construction – CMAR Broaddus – Consultant – Plan Review, VE, and Site LCCx – Commissioning Agent (HVAC) Steering Committee – • City Manager, Assistant City Manager(s), City Engineer, Director of
Public Works, Director of Parks and Recreation, Librarian, Public Safety, Director of Finance and City Secretary
173
3
11/30/2017
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
• General Contractor (JE Dunn) was awarded a CM at Risk
contract based on an accepted GMP by Council in December 2016 and started construction in January 2017. • Anticipated completion of City Hall and Library is April 2018.
Total Project Cost (TPC) – Prop 1 • 2014 – GO Proposition Funding: • 2016 – CO Proposition Funding: • Total Proposition 1 Funding: • Obligated Cost to date:
$21,000,000 $ 3,904.260 $24,904,260 $24,794,726
(Land Cost, Legal, Administrative, Design Fees, Consulting Fees, Construction Cost (GMP), Site Development Cost, Tree Relocation, Design Fees, OFOI, Misc. Expenditures)
• Remaining Non-Obligated Funds: • CM Contingency Funds (@75%) • Allowances Funds
$ $ $
109,534 400,000 659,585
174
4
11/30/2017
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
175
5
11/30/2017
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
176
6
11/30/2017
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
177
7
11/30/2017
Prop 1 – Municipal Facilities
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
• General Contractor (JE Dunn) was awarded a CM at Risk
contract based on an accepted GMP by Council in December 2016 and started construction in January 2017. • Substantial Completion of Public Safety Building was October 30, 2017 – Move in set for December 9-11, 2017.
178
8
11/30/2017
Total Project Cost (TPC) – Prop 2 • 2014 – GO Proposition Funding: • Total Proposition 2 Funding: • Obligated Cost to date:
$6,750,000 $6,750,000 $6,572,611
(Land Cost, Legal, Administrative, Design Fees, Consulting Fees, Construction Cost (GMP), Site Development Cost, Tree Relocation, Design Fees, OFOI, Misc. Expenditures)
• Remaining Non-Obligated Funds: • CM Contingency Funds (@75%) • Allowances Funds
$ $ $
177,389 169,992 100,000
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
179
9
11/30/2017
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
180
10
11/30/2017
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
Prop 2 – Public Safety Building
181
11
11/30/2017
Next Steps • City Hall / Library • FF&E - Selection • Landscaping • Interior finishes / Completion of the exterior trim and finishes • Pedestrian bridge completion • Parking lot completion • Last 5% of Glass and Glazing to be completed • Millwork • Landscaping • Public Safety Building: • Close Out – O&M Manuals • Completion of Punch List items • Security Fence • Move-in
182
12
12/1/2017
December 5, 2017
CITY OF BUDA 2014 BOND PROGRAM UPDATE Proposition 3 – Streets Proposition 4 - Drainage
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… In early 2014, City Council appointed the Buda Bond Advisory Committee (BBAC). The BBAC was tasked with determining: If a bond election was warranted; The types of project to be included; and • The appropriate overall bond package dollar amount. • •
City hires Gap Strategies and ECM International as consultants to facilitate the bond program process. Activities included: • • • • • • •
Developing a website and online survey (virtual open house); Making paper surveys available at City offices, library and the various public meetings; Holding two community public meetings; Presenting to the various City commissions (P&Z, Parks, Library, etc.); Presenting to civic organizations; Sending outreach emails to homeowner associations and citizens requesting information online; and Leading six BBAC meetings that were open to the public.
183
1
12/1/2017
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… The BBAC, Gap Strategies and ECM reviewed the following plans to determine the highest priority needs of the City: • • • • • • •
2011 Comprehensive Plan; 2012 Parks and Recreation Plan; 2012 Library Long Range Plan; 2013 Transportation Plan; 2014 Downtown Plan; 2014 Drainage Plan; and 2014 Facilities Plan.
54 citizens served on the various special committees responsible for development of these plans. City received over 1,565 responses on five different surveys regarding these plans. 301 responses were received at part of the BBAC effort. Over 49 public meetings involved in the development of these plans.
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… Gap Strategies / ECM Role: • Facilitate BBAC meetings and organizing research / background papers for •
• • • •
BBAC members; Update individual project cost estimates. Estimates included “soft-costs” such as inflation, professional fees, bond issuance costs, right of way, utility relocations, etc. in addition to construction costs. Facilitate public meetings, open houses; Host program website; Assist in development of questionnaires; and Present to City commissions and civic groups.
184
2
12/1/2017
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… BBAC Findings presented to Council on July 1, 2014: The Bond advisory committee spend more than 15 hours in deliberation in addition to numerous hours spent reviewing data and attending public meetings to listen to citizens. On June 25th, with 10 of the 12 members present, the Committee unanimously agreed to present the findings below to City Council.
Finding #1: The BBAC agreed that a bond program was warranted. Finding #2: Bond program should address three critical areas: Facilities Basic infrastructure: roads, sidewalks, and drainage / flooding. • Parks and trails • •
Finding #3: Present voters with several propositions. At least 3, but likely more. Finding #4: Maximum bond program dollar volume of $55 million.
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… Project selection: The BBAC started with approximately $100 million worth of projects which had already been vetted by City staff and recommended in City plans and/or citizen committees. The BBAC narrowed the projects down to approximately $60 million during the rating process. These projects were presented for public discussion during a meeting held on June 19th. Based on responses received during this meeting, extensive additional analysis and 3 hours of deliberation by the BBAC, the BBAC unanimously developed a recommended set of projects for a $55 million bond program package. The BBAC considered: City anticipated growth rate and property tax implications; Construction inflation rates; and • Anticipated bond interest rates. • •
185
3
12/1/2017
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… On August 12, 2014 the City Council passes an ordinance calling a bond election. Proposition Proposition • Proposition • Proposition • Proposition • •
1: Municipal Facility - $21 million 2: Public Safety Facility - $6.75 million 3: Streets - $12.25 million 4: Drainage - $7 million 5: Parks - $8 million
December 2014: The City issues a Request for Qualifications for Program Management services. January 2015: City selects ECM International / HDR Engineering to provide Program Management Services. • •
ECM: Propositions 1, 2 & 5 HDR: Propositions 3 & 4
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… HDR’s Role: HDR was selected to provide program management services on Propositions 3 and 4. General scope of services include: • • • • • • • • • • •
Prepare RFQ for selection of design firms, assist/facilitate review of RFQ responses, facility/schedule design firm interviews and scoring; Negotiate design fees and coordinate with City legal counsel regarding contract terms on behalf of the City; Provide program progress and cost updates to City Council and BBAC; Participate in bond program public meetings / open houses; Review right of way appraisals and acquisition documents; Review utility relocation agreements in conjunction with City legal counsel; Provide technical review of design consultant submittals; Coordinate street and drainage projects with municipal facility, public safety facility and City Park and other City projects due to project limit overlap; Prepare base front end documents for construction contractor procurement; Prepare advertisement for construction and assist City staff in review of proposals and recommendation of “best qualified: contractor for street and drainage projects; and Participate in construction progress meetings. Review contractor pay applications / change order requests.
186
4
12/1/2017
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… RFQ for the selection of Proposition 3 and 4 design consultants was issued on April 22, 2015. • Ten firms submitted a response to the RFQ on Proposition 3 as well as on Proposition 4. • Three firms receiving highest RFQ response scores selected for interviews. • Interviews were conducted. Interview staff consisted of 5 City staff members and 1 HDR
representative.
After interviews City staff / HDR recommended selection of: • •
RPS Klotz Associates for Proposition 3 Freese and Nichols for Proposition 4.
Design scope and fee negotiated. Professional services agreements executed in August 2015.
2014 Bond Program How we got here…… Bond Propositions:
187
5
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 - Streets Projects Bond language identifies specific projects. Therefore expenditure of bond funds is limited to those named projects until such time that project costs are well enough defined to assure completion of the named projects. Named project include: Improvements to Old Goforth Road Improvements to San Antonio Street • Main Street at RM 967 intersection improvement • Improvements to Main Street from Bradfield to Railroad Street • •
Bond language also included: “constructing, improving, extending, expanding, upgrading and/or developing streets, roads, bridges and intersections, including utility relocations, sidewalks, traffic safety and operational improvements, purchasing right of way, related drainage and other related costs identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and City’s Downtown Master Plan”.
Proposition 3 - Streets Project Goals Old Goforth Road: Increase roadway capacity, address roadway condition, improve drainage and enhance pedestrian / bicycle facilities. San Antonio St.:
Add pedestrian facilities, increase on-street parking, aesthetic improvements, improvement to San Antonio Street intersection with Main Street.
Main St. @ RM 967: Add through lanes and turn lanes to address traffic flow, pedestrian safety improvements, improve intersection safety for larger vehicles and aesthetic enhancements. Main Street:
Address roadway condition, increase capacity, improve drainage at creek crossing, add pedestrian / bicycle facilities. Minimize impacts to historic oak trees along corridor.
188
6
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Old Goforth Road Improvement Update The general scope of work for this project includes:
Dedicated left and right turn lanes at Tom Green Elementary. Intersection safety improvements at FM 2001 Increase pedestrian / bicycle connectivity between subdivisions and school Aesthetic enhancements.
Project design is 95% complete. Design coordination for recent construction within the Stonefield and Stoneridge developments is complete. Discussions regarding slope easement and temporary construction easement is nearing completion. Hays CISD donated ROW for right turn lane improvement (November 2016). Initial offer made to Buda Bluff, LLC for ROW / easement required roadway realignment and PEC relocation. Negotiation of utility relocation agreement with Goforth SUD and GBRA for joint bid of utility work and roadway construction is nearing completion. Letting delayed due to PEC relocation that was significantly impacted by Hurricane Harvey and Irma recovery efforts.
Proposition 3 – Streets Old Goforth Road Improvement Update
189
7
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Old Goforth Road Improvement Update
Proposition 3 – Streets Old Goforth Road Improvement Update
190
8
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets San Antonio St. Improvement Update The general scope of work for this project includes: Widening of existing pavement to enhance parking at Buda City Park Additional on-street parking. Intersection safety improvements by separating San Antonio St. and Garison Road turning
movements through realignment of Garison Road. Aesthetic enhancements / coordination with City Park project.
Project design is 95% complete. Coordination with Design Workshop regarding the interface with the Proposition 5 City Park project is on-going. Utility relocation / coordination activities are on-going. Discussion with City staff regarding construction packaging of park and road projects is on-going. Project delayed after scope of the City Park project was more developed to allow for coordination of the two projects for a more cohesive result.
Proposition 3 – Streets San Antonio St. Improvement Update
191
9
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update The general scope of work for this project includes:
Create turning lanes and through lanes to address traffic flow:
Widening of existing Main Street pavement for dedicated left turn lanes. Extend limits of current right turn lane.
Reconfiguration of sidewalks, signing and striping for enhanced pedestrian safety. Maintain existing diagonal parking. Relocation of traffic signal poles.
Project design is 95% complete. Council and Bond Advisory Committee requested bench seating, planters and medallion to be placed within concrete sidewalk area on either side of RM 967. Utility relocation / coordination activities are on-going. Discussion with City staff regarding construction packaging of Main Street projects is on-going. TxDOT Advanced Funding Agreement is required. Coordination is on-going. Change in TxDOT process and project backlog has resulted in delays.
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update
192
10
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update Sidewalk Aesthetic Concepts: Benches and Shade Trees BBAC & City Council requested a smaller medallion within the sidewalk versus driving surface due to long term appearance and maintenance concerns.
Council has expressed interest in moving utilities underground. Project cost impact to accommodate this request is in excess of $500,000 in addition to an additional delay in construction start of at least six months.
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update TxDOT blocked access to the right hand turning lane from RM 967 due to incidents with large trucks in the intersection. Minimizing / limiting truck traffic at this intersection will improve pedestrian / bicyclist safety, as well as enhances appeal of the downtown corridor. Truck traffic (with the exception of local deliveries) would be prohibited once the Robert S. Light Extension is completed (estimated to be mid / late 2019). The current design includes minimal impact on this portion of RM 967 because it is a state (TxDOT system) roadway. Increased traffic is driving an investigation into what would be necessary to accommodate a dedicated right turn lane and the impact on the project design for various size trucks.
193
11
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update Right turn movements make up a total of 1/6th (AM) and 1/5th (PM) of the total traffic volume movements at the intersection. Limited storage space is available for right turn movements due to the RM 967 / Austin Street intersection.
AM Peak
PM Peak
Limited Storage
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update SU-30 Truck
- Current pavement will accommodate cars and smaller single unit (SU-30) trucks which are the usual design vehicle for downtown or commercial streets. - No additional modification or impacts to utilities.
194
12
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update WB 40 Truck 45.5’
40’
- No additional ROW - Proposed signal pole would need to be relocated. - Utility pole and water valve would need to be relocated. - Added coordination with TxDOT is required and the AFA in process would need to be revised.
Proposition 3 – Streets Main St. @ RM 967 Update WB 50 Truck
be
- No additional ROW - Proposed signal pole would need to be relocated. - Utility pole and water valve would need to be relocated. - Fire Hydrant would need to relocated. - Added coordination with TxDOT is required and the AFA in process would need to be revised.
195
13
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main Street Improvement Update The general scope of work for this project includes: Widening of the Bradfield Drive / Main Street Intersection and extension of the 5 lane section to the
west of Santa Cruz Catholic church Signal Modification at Bradfield Drive and Main Street to accommodate additional lanes Bradfield Park cross culvert extension / modification Extension of sidewalk along Main Street and improved accessibility to Bradfield Park Select areas for pavement base repair Pavement overlay and restriping
Additional lanes would be required to increase capacity and improve overall level of service. However, adding lanes would require removal of numerous large oak trees along the corridor and would not fully address the issue of delays caused by the large volume of train traffic that stops traffic during peak travel hours. Therefore operational improvement such as dedicated left and right turn lanes at select intersections were felt to provide the best return on investment at this time.
Proposition 3 – Streets Main Street Improvement Update Section 1: West of Cabela’s Drive to Bradfield Park Cross Culverts
Section 2: Bradfield Park Cross Culverts to Railroad Street
196
14
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Main Street Improvement Update The City Council agreed with staff recommendation that construction on the various Main Street projects would occur after major work activities and delivery of large and heavy items have occurred to prevent damage to the new roadway. • Design is 90% complete. • Project will require acquisition of ROW from 8 parcels. Appraisals were submitted for City staff review. They were acknowledged and initial offers will be made soon. • Coordination with utility companies regarding relocation is on-going.
Proposition 3 – Streets W. Goforth to Cabela’s Drive Connector Update During consideration of proposed improvements to Main Street to alleviate congestion, the City Council requested HDR and RPS consider improvements to other corridors including W. Goforth Road and a connection between W. Goforth and Cabela’s Drive. After discussion and consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of each corridor, the Council voted unanimously to begin preliminary design on the Cabela’s Connector. The initial project scope of work includes: Development of a preliminary schematic including pavement design. Geotechnical study, environmental study and utility conflict analysis. • ROW acquisition. • •
197
15
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets W. Goforth to Cabela’s Drive Connector Update
Proposition 3 – Streets W. Goforth to Cabela’s Drive Connector Update • Preliminary schematic is complete and was submitted to City for review. • Geotechnical study and pavement design is complete. • Environmental study is complete. • City staff is scheduled to discuss potential ROW acquisition with owner
when he returns to the State later this month.
198
16
12/1/2017
Proposition 3 – Streets Program Costs Update ITEM \ PROJECT
West Goforth / Cabela's Drive Connector
COST INITIAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT Bond Issuance Cost $ ‐ $ 2,117 $ ‐ Internal City Costs (Attorney, etc.) $ ‐ $ 298.00 $ 298.00 Program Management $ ‐ $ 16,500.00 $ 14,227.00 Right of Way $ ‐ $ 100,000.00 $ ‐ Utility Relocations $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Design $ ‐ $ 120,000.00 $ 119,015.91 Construction $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Construction Management (Materials Testing Only) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Contingencies (15% ‐ 20%) $ ‐ $ 33,000.00 $ ‐ TOTAL $ ‐ $ 271,915.46 $ 133,540.91
Main St. @ RM 967 Intersection Improvements COST INITIAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 3,830 $ 7,608 $ 3,830 $ ‐ $ 2,336 $ 2,336 $ 20,500 $ 55,500 $ 51,119 $ 100,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 200,000 $ 80,000 $ ‐ $ 315,000 $ 300,000 $ 267,309 $ 900,000 $ 750,000 $ ‐ $ 33,000 $ 25,000 $ ‐ $ 140,000 $ 93,000 $ ‐ $ 1,712,330 $ 1,313,444 $ 324,593
TO‐DATE $ 2,117 $ 650 $ 2,213.38 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 43,128.01 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 48,108.91
San Antonio Street Improvements
Old Goforth Road Improvements
COST COST TO‐DATE INITIAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT TO‐DATE INITIAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 7,608 $ 2,580 $ 3,810 $ 2,580 $ 3,810 $ 25,380 $ 19,303 $ 25,380 $ 2,336 $ ‐ $ 1,170 $ 1,170 $ 1,170 $ ‐ $ 5,926 $ 5,926 $ 21,840 $ 13,800 $ 26,000 $ 25,601 $ 13,309 $ 135,800 $ 135,000 $ 129,700 $ ‐ $ 50,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 102,809 $ ‐ $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ ‐ $ 238,622 $ 185,000 $ 200,000 $ 223,241 $ 196,588 $ 464,000 $ 375,000 $ 359,863 $ ‐ $ 370,000 $ 480,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,320,000 $ 2,200,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 24,000 $ 27,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 73,000 $ 74,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 69,180 $ 60,840 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 360,000 $ 272,880 $ ‐ $ 270,407 $ 814,560 $ 848,820 $ 252,592 $ 214,876 $ 3,603,180 $ 3,457,109 $ 623,678 BASE BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT TO‐DATE Approved Proposition 3 Budget $ 12,250,000 Current Program Costs $ 12,250,000 $ 11,231,019 $ 2,589,584 $ 1,819,294 Program Budget vs. Current Program Costs $ ‐ $ 1,018,981 $ 9,660,416 $ 10,430,706
Main Street Improvements (Segments 1 & 2) COST INITIAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 41,730 $ 28,715 $ 41,730 $ ‐ $ 8,815 $ 8,815 $ 223,200 $ 212,400 $ 192,937 $ 150,000 $ 300,000 $ 272,700 $ 150,000 $ 250,000 $ ‐ $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 738,997 $ 4,000,000 $ 3,150,000 $ ‐ $ 125,000 $ 102,000 $ ‐ $ 630,000 $ 487,800 $ ‐ $ 6,119,930 $ 5,339,730 $ 1,255,179
TO‐DATE $ 19,303 $ 5,926 $ 112,221 $ 4,630 $ ‐ $ 343,020 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 485,100
TO‐DATE $ 28,715 $ 8,815 $ 181,329 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 581,942 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 800,802
QUESTIONS?
199
17
12/1/2017
February 28, 2017
CITY OF BUDA 2014 BOND PROGRAM Proposition 4 – Drainage Drainage Improvement Projects
Proposition 4 – Drainage Projects 6 projects selected by BBAC from 2014 Drainage Master Plan (LAN) 1. Oxbow Neighborhood Area (Project Area 3) 2. Bluff Street Area 3. Buda Fire Station Area (Project Area 1) 4. West Goforth Road Area 5. Houston Street Area (Project Area 2) 6. Lifschutz Headwaters Area (Project Area 4)
200
18
12/1/2017
Proposition 4 – Drainage Goals & Objectives 1) Reduce flooding of habitable structures 2) Reduce roadway overtopping Initial Design Criteria – 100-year Flood (per City Development Code, typical standard of care) After 2015 Halloween Flood – 500-year Flood (as directed by City Council)
Project Area 1 West Goforth, Fire Station, Bluff St. Area – Existing Flood Problems
201
19
12/1/2017
Project Area 1 – West Goforth Street Proposed Drainage Improvements • Channel improvements and culvert
upgrades Prop. 2P- 5’x4’ RCB Prop. 3 - 8’x5’ RCB
Prop. 3 - 6’x4’ RCB
West Goforth St.
6’ Concrete Channel w/ 1H:1V Side Slopes
6’ Concrete Channel w/ 1H:1V Side Slopes
8’ Concrete Channel w/ 1H:1V Side Slopes
Prop. 3 - 8’x5’ RCB
Project Area 1 – Fire Station/Bluff Street Area Proposed Drainage Improvements • Flood diversion (relief) channel to Onion Creek
20’ Natural Channel
Prop. 3 - 11’x6’ RCB
40’ Natural Channel
Status: 60% design complete 10 easements anticipated Pending ROE on Centex and Trudeau properties Archeology, survey, and geotech pending ROE $1.7M FEMA HMGP Grant awarded Coordinating TXDOT AFA UPRR permit coordination ongoing Utility coordination started
202
20
12/1/2017
Project Area 2 – Houston St. Area Existing Flood Problems
Project Area 2 – Houston St. Area Proposed Drainage Improvements • Channel improvements and culvert upgrades.
Prop. 6’x3’ RCB 6’ Channel Bottom w/ 3H:1V Side Slopes
Prop 6’x3’ RCB Prop. 18” RCP
Prairie Ave
8’ Channel Bottom w/ 2H:1V Side Slopes
Earthen Channel w/ 3H:1V Side Slopes
Prop. 2 - 6’x3’ RCB
Prop. 2 - 6’x3’ RCB 8’ Channel Bottom w/ 2H:1V Side Slopes
Proposed 24”x24” Area Inlets
Status: IFB under final review 2 easements – acquisition in progress UPRR shared use ditch permit coordination ongoing Utility coordination ongoing
203
21
12/1/2017
Project Area 3 – Oxbow Neighborhood Area Existing Flood Problems
Project Area 3 – Oxbow Neighborhood Area Proposed Drainage Improvements • Channel improvements and culvert
upgrades
Prop. 3 - 10’x5’ RCB
20’ Channel Bottom w/ 3H:1V Side Slopes
Prop. 4 - 10’x5’ RCB
Prop. 4 - 10’x5’ RCB
20’ Channel Bottom w/ 3H:1V Side Slopes
204
22
12/1/2017
Project Area 3 – Oxbow Neighborhood Area Proposed Drainage Improvements Status: Draft IFB under review 17 easements proposed – acquisition underway Utility coordination in progress
Project Area 4 – Lifschutz Headwaters Area Proposed Flood Mitigation Solution Voluntary Buyouts 3 manufactured homes on ½ acre lots Status: Administrative process initiated
205
23
12/1/2017
Proposition 4 – Budget Summary Buda 2014 Bond Program Proposition 4 ‐ Drainage Updated November 1, 2017 ITEM \ PROJECT
Bond Issuance Cost Internal City Costs (Attorney, etc.) Program Management Real Estate Utility Relocations Design Construction Construction Management (Materials Testing Only) Contingencies TOTAL
Project Area 2 ‐ Houston St. Area
Project Area 1 ‐ W. Goforth, Fire Station & Bluff St. Areas INITIAL BUDGET $ 28,220 $ ‐ $ 173,520 $ 1,085,000 $ ‐ $ 3,253,000 $ ‐ $ 162,322 $ 4,702,062
COST UPDATED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 28,220 $ 28,220 $ 2,902 $ 2,902 $ 168,888 $ 168,888 $ 750,000 $ ‐ $ 100,000 $ ‐ $ 542,245 $ 508,659 $ 3,047,100 $ ‐ $ 48,000 $ ‐ $ 457,065 $ 5,144,420 $ 708,669
TO‐DATE $ 23,627 $ 2,902 $ 132,992 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 336,386 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 495,908
INITIAL BUDGET $ 6,250 $ ‐ $ 38,400 $ 32,000 $ ‐ $ 928,000 $ ‐ $ 35,922 $ 1,040,572
COST UPDATED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 6,250 $ 6,250 $ 642 $ 642 $ 37,375 $ 37,375 $ 16,950 $ ‐ $ 5,000 $ ‐ $ 119,999 $ 112,566 $ 598,300 $ ‐ $ 10,000 $ ‐ $ 89,745 $ 884,261 $ 156,833
Project Area 3 ‐ Oxbow Neighborhood Area TO‐DATE $ 5,229 $ 642 $ 29,431 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 74,442 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 109,744
INITIAL BUDGET $ 4,560 $ ‐ $ 28,000 $ 30,000 $ 670,000 $ ‐ $ 26,193 $ 758,753
COST UPDATED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 4,560 $ 4,560 $ 468 $ 468 $ 27,253 $ 27,253 $ 389,740 $ ‐ $ 5,000 $ ‐ $ 87,499 $ 82,080 $ 854,000 $ ‐ $ 13,000 $ ‐ $ 128,100 $ 1,509,620 $ 114,360
TO‐DATE $ 3,813 $ 468 $ 21,460 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 54,281 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 80,022
Project Area 4 ‐ Lifschutz Headwaters Area INITIAL BUDGET $ 3,000 $ ‐ $ 18,400 $ 270,000 $ ‐ $ 190,000 $ ‐ $ 17,213 $ 498,613
COST UPDATED BUDGET APPROVED AMT $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 308 $ 308 $ 17,909 $ 17,909 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 53,938 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 21,217 $ 75,155
TO‐DATE $ 2,505 $ 308 $ 14,102 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 35,670 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 52,586
Total Program Costs for Proposition 4 ‐ Drainage Bond Issuance Cost Internal City Costs (Attorney, etc.) Program Management Real Estate Utility Relocations Design Construction Construction Management (Materials Testing Only) Contingencies FEMA HMGP Grant TOTAL
INITIAL BUDGET $ 42,030 $ ‐ $ 258,320 $ 1,417,000 $ ‐ $ 5,041,000 $ ‐ $ 241,650 $ ‐ $ 7,000,000
UPDATED BUDGET $ 42,030 $ 4,320 $ 251,424 $ 1,156,690 $ 110,000 $ 749,743 $ 4,499,400 $ 71,000 $ 674,910 $ (1,600,000) $ 5,959,518
APPROVED AMT $ 42,030 $ 4,320 $ 251,424 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 757,243 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,055,017
TO‐DATE $ 35,174 $ 4,320 $ 197,987 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 500,780 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 738,260
Proposition 4 – Drainage Status Overview • Status Summary: • April 2017 – 60% Design Submitted • July 2017 – 90% Design Submitted • December 2017 – Bid Documents Complete • First Quarter 2018 – Advertise for Bid • First Quarter 2018 – Construction NTP
206
24
12/1/2017
QUESTIONS?
February 28, 2017
CITY OF BUDA 2014 BOND PROGRAM Global City Construction Project Schedules
207
25
12/1/2017
Construction Schedule Conflicts During the November 7th City Council Meeting, the construction schedule of multiple projects including the new municipal complex, other bond program projects, and several utility capital improvement projects were noted to significantly overlap. City Council requested that HDR coordinate with the various entities to obtain the most current construction schedules and provide this information at a future meeting. The schedule reveals there are numerous projects in close proximity to each other that have overlapping construction schedules. This information provides City Council and staff with a tool to evaluate which are the highest priority projects and allow the appropriate staging of construction.
Anticipated Construction Schedules
208
26