Administrative Services Committee Meeting

Administrative Services Committee Committee Room- 9/10/2007- 12:35 PM Meeting ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1. Consider a request from Melinda Rider regarding the Attachments allocation/rebudgeting of funds for the Neighborhood Improvement Project, Inc.'s after school program Building Exceptional Students Today (BEST). 2. Motion to approve the Reprogramming of $615,273.93 in Attachments CDBG Funds and Changing the Scope of Work for the McDuffieWoods Community Center Year 2007 CDBG Project. 3. Approve authorization to solicit Request for Qualifications Attachments for Consultant for Laney-Walker II and Bethlehem Redevelopment Areas. www.augustaga.gov  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 9/10/2007 12:35 PM Melinda Rider Department: Clerk of Commission Caption: Consider a request from Melinda Rider regarding the allocation/rebudgeting of funds for the Neighborhood Improvement Project, Inc.'s after school program Building Exceptional Students Today (BEST). Background: Analysis: Financial Impact: Alternatives: Recommendation: Funds are Available in the Following Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 1 Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 1 Item # 1  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 9/10/2007 12:35 PM Reprogram $615,273.93 in CDBG Funds Department: Housing & Community Development Caption: Motion to approve the Reprogramming of $615,273.93 in CDBG Funds and Changing the Scope of Work for the McDuffieWoods Community Center Year 2007 CDBG Project. Background: On August 27, 2007, staff presented to Administrative Services Committee as a discussion item, the reprogramming of $615,273.93 in CDBG funds. The purpose for the reprogramming of funds is to accelerate the expenditure of funds so the City will be timely in expending its funds by October 31, 2007. In accordance with HUD requirements and the City’s Citizen Participation Policy, any substantial changes to the Consolidated Plan must be presented to the public for a 30-day comment period. If comments are received, they must be presented to the Commission for action. On August 17, 2007, the public comment period started and the deadline for comments is September 17, 2007. Because of time constraints, we must present this agenda item before the end of the comment period (9/17/07). However, this item will be scheduled for Commission consideration on September 18, 2007. At that time, staff will present all comments received, if any. A recap of the Proposed Reprogram of Funds presented to Committee on August 27, 2007 is listed below. Projects funds are being reprogrammed from: 1. AugustaCanalAuthorityPark “HeritagePark” - $155,000 - Justification: The Atlanta Gas Company was supposed to donate the property to the authority which would be used as a park at the corner of 9th & Walton Way. To date, the property has not been donated. Therefore, the project cannot be completed this year. 2. Golden Harvest Food Bank - $100,000 - Justification: The agency was supposed to acquire property which would be used as a soup kitchen. CDBG funds were to be used for kitchen equipment. The agency has Cover Memo Item # 2 been unable to acquire a building; therefore, the project cannot be completed this year. 3. Light of the World Neighborhood & Economic Development, Inc. - $18,700 - Justification: Funds were allocated for the agency to purchase a van which would be used to transport alternative school students to the Tutoring Program in AragonPark. The Department has possession of the van recaptured from the Transition Center Program on Wrightsboro Road. We are planning to repair the van and provide it for use by Light of the World. 4. Façade Rehabilitation Program - $13,569.93 - Justification: These are Year 1999 uncommitted Façade funds that HUD will recapture if not used by December 31, 2007. 5. Program Income - $328,004 - Justification: The $328,004 is the result of an increase in program income from what was anticipated over the course of several years. Program income is generated from the repayment of Housing Rehabilitation loans, Economic Development loans or any other loans that the Department may have granted. Because we underestimated the amount anticipated, we accumulated an excess. Therefore, this accumulation of funds needs to be allocated to projects. Projects that the $615,273.93 will be reprogrammed to are indicated below: 1. 30901 Clinic - $133,000 - Justification: $175,000 in CDBG funds were originally approved for this project July 10, 2007. The architect’s estimate for the project is $275,000. Due to architectural fees and the additional cost for construction, $133,000 is needed for the project. Project is scheduled for bid September 11, 2007. 2. BeulahGroveResourceCenter - $7,000 - Justification: A total of $75,000 in CDBG funds were allocated for paving the parking lot and installing handicapped accessible doors to the BeulahGroveResourceCenter. Due to the construction planned for the clinic (above), architectural plans for the parking lot had to be redrafted. The additional cost required for revision to this project amounts to $7,000. This project will be done in conjunction with the clinic above. 3. New Bethlehem Center Improvements (playground equipment) - $18,842.50 - Justification: $57,000 was originally approved for this project. The project was let for bid with the low bid being $68,966.57. With the bid and architectural fees, an additional $18,842.50 is required in order for the project to proceed. 4. Apple ValleyPark – Phase II - $96,000 - Justification: $96,000 in CDBG funds will be used to replace the $96,000 in SPLOST funds expended on this project. 5. Hope House - $183,431.43 - Justification: To be used toward the purchase of the property located at 2205 Highland Avenue. Property will be renovated into 42-units which will be used to provide permanent housing for Cover Memo Item # 2  homeless females recovering from substance abuse. Agency has State HOME funds that will be used for construction. 6. Laney Walker Development Corporation - $30,000 - Justification: Funds will be used for capacity building ($13,000 loan; $17,000 grant) 7. Augusta Mini Theatre - $100,000 - Justification: Funds will be used for the demolition of the dilapidated structure next to the new theatre in process of being built on Deans Bridge Road. 8. Augusta Mini Theatre - $25,000 - Justification: Funds will be used for program services. 9. MACHAcademy – FlemingTennisCenter Improvements- $22,000 - Justification: $125,000 was originally allocated to the project. Because of the need to rehab the shower/bathroom, an additional $20,000 is required for construction and $2,000 for A/E fees. McDuffieWoodsCommunity Center Improvements – $25,000 was originally designated in the 2007 budget for construction of a walking track. Because of the need for a kitchen, funds will be used for kitchen improvements. Analysis: Reprogramming of these funds will allow the department to accelerate the expenditure of funds to prevent non- compliance of the CDBG regulations. Financial Impact: This reprogramming of funds is a reallocation of existing funds. Alternatives: None recommended. Recommendation: Approve the Proposed Reprogramming of $615,273.93 in CDBG funds. Funds are Available in the CDBG Following Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 2 Cover Memo Item # 2  REPROGRAM FUNDS – 9/18/07 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $615,273.93 FROM PROJECT AMOUNT $ TO PROJECT AMOUNT $ # # AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY PARK 07032 155,000.00 30901 CLINIC 2007R/1546 133,000.00 -Agency has not acquired property - Additional funds required for existing project GOLDEN HARVEST FOOD BANK 07034 100,000.00 Beulah Grove Resource Center 04032/1003 7,000.00 - Agency has not located site for placement of Parking – 1446 Lee Beard Way kitchen equipment - Additional funds required for existing project LIGHT OF THE WORLD NEIGHBORHOOD & ED 04069/1430 18,700.00 New Bethlehem Center 04071/1468 18,842.50 -Additional funds required for existing project FAÇADE REHABILITATION PROGRAM 1999/1531 13,569.93 Apple Valley Park – Phase II 04031 96,000.00 - uncommitted 1999 funds need to be reprogrammed - Additional funds required for to active projects existing project PROGRAM INCOME 328,004.00 Hope House 2007 183,431.43 - For transitional housing project on Highland Avenue Laney-Walker Development 2007 30,000.00 Corporation – For capacity building ($13,000 loan; $17,000 grant) Augusta Mini Theatre - construction 2007 100,000.00 Augusta Mini Theatre – services 2007 25,000.00 MACH Academy 07037 22,000.00 -Additional funds required for existing project TOTAL $615,273.93 TOTAL $615,273.93 ALSO, A CHANGE IN SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED: McDuffie Woods Community Center Improvements – Year 2007 ($25,000) - Scope of project being changed from construction of Attachment number 1 Item # 2 walking track to construction of kitchen. Reprogram Funds 09-18-07 Page 1 of 1  Administrative Services Committee Meeting 9/10/2007 12:35 PM RFQ - Consultant Department: Housing and Community Development Caption: Approve authorization to solicit Request for Qualifications for Consultant for Laney-Walker II and Bethlehem Redevelopment Areas. Background: The Department is in the process of starting the development of housing in low income areas. The initial focus will be on two (2) neighborhoods, Laney-Walker II and Bethlehem. Previously, two (2) development plans were prepared for the Department: 1) Augusta-RichmondCounty Target Area Master Plan prepared by EDAW/Trinity Plus One Consultants in 2003 and 2) Housing Market Analysis – Laney Walker Neighborhood prepared by Dale Henson Associates in 2004. To start with the development process, we must obtain the services of a consultant to prepare a neighborhood action plan for the targeted neighborhoods. The consultant will use the previously prepared plans to develop an Implementation Plan. The revitalization implementation plan will focus 1) on contiguous parts of the neighborhoods of Laney-Walker and Bethlehem with the boundaries as outlined below, and 2) on the commercial corridor of Walton Way from 7th St./Twiggs Street to 12th Street. South: Anderson/Davidson/Parks Streets West: Mill/Phillips Streets East: James Brown Blvd. North: Dugas Street Analysis: Upon receipt of the Requests for Qualifications, staff will review the proposals and make a recommendation for award of the consultant contract based on the most qualified and experienced respondent. Financial Impact: The only cost for this solicitation will be the newspaper advertisement. Cover Memo Item # 3 Alternatives: None recommended. Recommendation: Approve Authorization to Solicit Request for Qualifications for a Neighborhood Revitalization Consultant Funds are Available in the CDBG Following Accounts: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Finance. Administrator. Clerk of Commission Cover Memo Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 6 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Chester A. Wheeler, III Director Request for Qualifications Laney-Walker II and Bethlehem Redevelopment Areas Neighborhood Revitalization Implementation Plans I. General Information The Augusta Housing and Community Development Department seeks professional services for the preparation of a neighborhood action plan for the neighborhoods of Laney-Walker and Bethlehem. This revitalization implementation plan will focus: 1) on contiguous parts of the neighborhoods of Laney-Walker and Bethlehem with the boundaries as outlined below, and 2) on the commercial corridor of Walton Way from 7th / Twiggs Street to 12th Street. Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Neighborhoods Boundaries South: Anderson/Davidson/Parks West: Mill/Phillips East: Twiggs Street North: Dugas Street II. Project Background This project will result in an Implementation Plan for the revitalization and future development in Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Neighborhoods. A variety of issues will be addressed, including land use, zoning, housing and building conditions, infrastructure, and economic development. Special attention should be paid to commercial areas of the community, especially those along Laney-Walker Boulevard, Wrightsboro Road, and Walton Way. The implementation plan should also address the relocation of the residents of Gilbert Manor into the revitalized neighborhood. The final plan will include strategies and recommendations based on an analysis of existing conditions and citizen input. Housing and Community Development 925 Laney Walker Blvd., 2nd Floor - Augusta, GA 30901 (706) 821-1797 – Fax (706) 821-1784 www.augustaga.gov Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 2 of 6 III. Scope of Work The consultant should review the following reports and then submit a detailed work plan resulting in an Implementation Plan for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Redevelopment Project: Augusta- Richmond County Target Area Master Plan prepared by EDAW/Trinity Plus One Consultants in 2003, and Housing Market Analysis – Laney Walker Neighborhood prepared by Dale Henson Associates in 2004. The Plan should also include but not be limited to the following: • Twenty (20) elevations of house designs (residential and rental) and cost estimates that should be used as preferred homes to be built in the neighborhoods • Recommended starting points for residential development • Recommended sites for senior housing development • Recommended economic development sites and components • Recommended sites for green space development • Recommended strategies for leveraging development resources The recommended development concepts and designs should improve the quality of life standards of the existing residents; and offer wherever possible, the development of mixed-income residential choices. IV. ISSUING OFFICE The Augusta Housing and Community Development Department is the Issuing Office. Correspondence with the Issuing Office should be addressed as follows: Chester A. Wheeler, III, Director Augusta Housing and Community Development Department 925 Laney Walker Boulevard Augusta, GA 30901 V. CONSULTANT SELECTION A. Minimum Requirements of Consultant The consultant must have completed at least three (3) neighborhood plans and shall submit examples of plans (to include house designs) prepared by the consultant team that demonstrate the consultant’s previous experience in neighborhood or area plans with an implementation component. B. Schedule of Performance This Request for Proposals is intended to identify a consultant who will assist the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department with development of a neighborhood implementation plan for Laney-Walker and Bethlehem Neighborhoods. The contract will be 2 Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 3 of 6 with the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department for one year, with the consultant having the opportunity to utilize sub-consultants, subject to City approval. C. Competitive Selection The selection process is initiated through the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department. The Evaluation Committee consists of one representative from the Office of the Mayor, the Chairman of the Administrative Services Committee, one representative of Laney Walker/Bethlehem Oversight Committee, and two representatives’ from the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department. Among the firms or agencies evidencing interest in performing the services, the Committee will: Ù Prepare an alphabetical list of those Consultants (firm or agencies) determined by the Evaluation Committee to be qualified, interested and available; and Ù Designate three Consultants on the alphabetical list considered by the Evaluation Committee to be the best qualified to perform the work required. The best qualified selection shall be based upon the Evaluation Committee’s ability to differentiate qualifications applicable to the scope and nature of the services to be performed. D. Selection Criteria The Evaluation Committee shall determine qualifications, interest and availability by reviewing all written responses received that express an interest in performing the services and by conducting formal interviews of the final three (3) selected respondents that are determined to be best qualified based upon the following considerations. Each of the six (6) criteria will be evaluated and can receive a maximum total of 100 points. 1. Competence, including technical education and training, experience in the kind of project to be undertaken, availability of adequate personnel, equipment, and facilities, the extent of repeat business of the persons, and where applicable, the relation of construction cost estimates by their person to actual costs on previous projects. (15 points) The application of this criterion shall include an assessment of the general capabilities of the firm or individuals that will be engaged in the project. Qualities and indicators that should receive consideration should generally include the various professional, technical, and educational achievements and registrations of the firm and individuals, the size, facilities, and overall experience of the firm, the applicable experience of the proposed assigned staff, and the specific experience gained on similar projects. 3 Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 4 of 6 Professional experience and knowledge in local government comprehensive planning, land development regulations, urban design, land use, transportation, market analysis and capital improvement planning should be discussed. Recognizing that a team including sub-consultants with experience in the full range of disciplines required for the redevelopment plan is encouraged, resumes of all proposed consultant team members. 2. Current Workload (10 points) The application of this criterion shall include an assessment of the perceived ability of the firm to devote the necessary human resources and management attention to the project. Qualities and indicators that should receive consideration should generally include the number and size of the projects presently being performed by the firm and the assigned staff; the status of existing projects with respect to competition timetables; the status of personnel to be assigned to the projects; the number and type of projects that would be concurrently undertaken by the assigned staff; the past ability of the firm to deliver projects on a timely basis; and the nature of existing projects that are behind schedule or past the completion date. 3. Ability to Observe and Advise Whether Plans and Specifications are Being Compiled With, Where Applicable (15 points) The application of this criterion shall include an assessment of the past experience of the firm in general. Qualities and indicators that should receive consideration should generally include the number and types of projects the firm or its employees have completed; the variety of projects completed and a demonstration of the firm’s ability to undertake a range of differing projects, the general level of experience in the areas of the supervision, observing and monitoring projects; the firm’s ability to realize project budgetary goals, timetables, and quality control objectives; and the demonstrated general ability to bring about successful completion of the projects under the firm’s direction. 4. Past Record of Professional Accomplishments (10 points) The application of this criterion shall include as assessment of the firm’s specific experience in undertaking similar professional engagements. Consultants are advised to submit examples of previous work products they wish the Evaluation Committee to consider. Qualities and indicators that should receive consideration should generally include the number and types of the projects completed by the firm that are similar in nature to the scope of work being required within the solicitation; the degree of similarity of the projects completed and the ability of the firm to bring about a successful completion of such similar projects; the number and quality of references furnished in conjunction with similar projects; and any outstanding accomplishments of the firm that relates to the specific scope of services being sought. 5. Past Record of Performance for Using Agencies (10 points) 4 Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 5 of 6 The application of this criterion shall include an assessment of the firm’s record of performance as it relates to projects undertaken for the City of Augusta Commission or any using agencies. The using agencies shall describe the performance of the consultant relative to all deadlines, describe the success of each of the projects and include the Using Agency’s project manager’s name and telephone number. Projects on which the consultant contracted directly with the City will be considered. If the consultant has performed no work directly for the City of Augusta or its using agencies, the response should so state. 6. Ability to Design and Approach a Work Plan to Meet the Project Requirements, Where applicable (40 points) The application of this criterion shall include an assessment of the overall quality of the proposal. Qualities and indicators that should receive consideration should generally include the firm’s performance in converting the Scope of Services into a work plan; the detail and clarity of the discussion as to the respondent’s approach to undertaking the project; the firm’s performance in identifying any special problems or concerns which may be associated with the project and the preliminary ideas about how these obstacles should be designed to save time and money; and the demonstrated ability to work with government bodies and a full understanding of applicable laws or regulations that relate to the project. A statement outlining how the consultant team would seed the Implementation Plan relating to the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Neighborhood Redevelopment Project must be included. The consultant must have experience in designing and implementing housing and community development strategies that include working with private lending institutions in leveraging mortgage financing and establishing homebuyer preparation programs. The consultant must clearly demonstrate the ability to establish housing design standards and other effective housing design and implementation strategies that have effectively provided guidance and direction to non-profit and for profit builders on a City driven initiative. E. Rules for Evaluating and Selecting The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received and reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the proposals submitted. Therefore, the proposals shall be submitted in the most favorable manner addressing the scope of services. The actual selection process will be conducted in accordance with the previously outlined section criteria. The city also reserves the right to award both services of Housing and Economic Development components to one consultant, or they may be awarded separately. VI. Cost Incurred in Responding These specifications as cited do not commit the City/Department or any other public agency to pay any cost incurred in the submission of proposals, nor to procure or contract for any articles or services. It is understood that the proposal will become a part of the official file on this matter with out obligation to the City/Department. All proposals must be in writing. Non-responsive proposals shall not be considered. 5 Item # 3  Attachment number 1 Page 6 of 6 VII. Contact Person/Inquiries Persons may make inquiries by contacting Chester Wheeler, Director at the Augusta Housing and Community Development Department. He may be contacted by telephone at (706) 821-1797, by facsimile at (706) 821-1784, by email at: cwheeler@augustaga.gov or by mail at 925 Laney Walker Boulevard, Augusta, GA 30901 VIII. Response Date The final date for acceptance of proposals is by 4:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on October 19, 2007. Seven (7) copies of the proposal should be submitted to: Augusta Housing and Community Development Department Attention: Chester Wheeler 925 Laney Walker Boulevard 2nd Floor Augusta, GA 30901 6 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 Page 1 of 1 Item # 3