HomeMy WebLinkAboutC2015-283 - 9/28/2015 - NA -/ il --• CITY OF CORPUS CHRISITI
Q Va /I a� ONTRACT Fa��¢PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
�v►�Q �
This AG EMENT is be een the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation,
"CITY", acting th ough its duly authorized City Manager or designee ("City Engineer"), and National Center for
State Courts, a ' , acting through its duly authorized representative who is Laura Klaversma,
Court Services Director, ("Consultant") which agree as follows:
1. DECLARATIONS."CITY"desires to engage"CONSULTANT"to provide services in connection with
City's project, described as follows: Municipal Court Facility Needs Assessment(Project No.E15190)"Project".
2. SCOPE OF WORK. "CONSULTANT"shall provide services for the PROJECT in accordance with
the accompanying Letter, Scope of Services, and Fee attached as Exhibit"A".
3. FEE. The "CITY" agrees to pay the "CONSULTANT" for services provided in accordance with
Exhibit"A", Scope of Services, and Fee under this AGREEMENT, a total fee not to exceed$49,500.00, (Forty Nine
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents). Monthly invoices shall be submitted in accordance with
Exhibit"B".
4. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. The "CONSULTANT" agrees to indemnify, save
harmless and defend the "CITY", and it's agents, servants, and employees as more fully set forth in Exhibit "C".
5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents including contract documents (plans and
specifications), record drawings, contractor's field data and submittal data will be the sole property of the City and
may not be used again by the Consultant without the express terms written consent of the Director Capital
Pr-•rams. Ho ! - • - the Consultant may use standard details that are not spe,cifi -to this project.
C /• o F US C I-ISTI
l /•N/9/CENTER FOR TAT
% OURTS
e e R..
'onald L.la.on Date '- - •• ,A- it. . ol% Date
City Manager • - - - =rVt ce elpectcie..Ki
ourt Consulting Services
707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900
R • M = �2�� Denver, CO 80202-3429
4 ( a te (� (800)466-3063 Office
Val_i : H. Gra v.E Date
Ex= u ve P' -cto o Publ. Works
�,, . 1 /ag/(5
. Gustavo G•M;lez, P.E Date
Assistant City Manager
of Public Works and Utilities
APPR VEDAS TO LEGAL FORM
z q zZ-,s
As stant City Attorney I Date
2015-283
9/28/15
National Center for State Courts INDEXED
2T\E15190 MUNICIPAL COURT FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT\AGREEMENT NATIONAL CENTER STATE COURTS.DOC
APP VED/11474-r- /P-3,-;
V 41
0 ice of Management and Budget I I jilp
Project No. E15190
Accounting Unit 1020-10440-231
Account 530000
Activity E15190 01 1020 EXP
Account Category 30000
Fund Name General (Municipal Court Administration) _ems
1172
K\ENGINEERING DATAEXCHANGE\VELMAP\MUNICIPAL COURT\E15190 MUNICIPAL COURT FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT\AGREEMENT NATIONAL CENTER STATE COURTS.DOC
SC
"iiaitdtial Center for State Courts
A nonprofit organization improving justice through leadership and service to courts
Mary Campbell McQueen Daniel J.Hall
President Vice President
Court Consulting Services
Denver Office
June 24, 2015
Gustavo Gonzalez, P.E.
ACM for PW and Utilities
City of Corpus Christi
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Dear Mr. Gonzalez:
To confirm your consulting arrangement with Chang-Ming Yeh, this letter will serve as
the agreement between the City of Corpus Christi (City) and the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC).
Specifically, Chang-Ming Yeh, Principal Court Management Consultant, and the NCSC
team will conduct facility needs assessment for the Municipal Court, city of Corpus Christi. The
all-inclusive total project fixed fee for the service proposed in the attached task plan, from phase
I through phase II, is $49,500, including staff time and project expenses. Mr. Yeh's billing rate
is $182/hour, senior architect is $147/hour, analyst/statistician is $115/hour, and administrative
staff is $85/hour which is based on a federally approved, GSA rate designated through our
Mission Oriented Business Integrated Services (MOBIS) contract. The detailed proposal is
attached.
If you concur with this agreement, please sign below, keep a copy for your records, and
return one copy to this office. Thank you.
City of Corpus Christi,Texas National Center for State Courts
By By
Laura Klaversma
Title Title Court Services Director
Date Date June 22, 2015
Headquarters Court Consulting Washington Office
300 Newport Avenue 707 Seventeenth Street,Suite 2900 2425 Wilson Boulevard,Suite 350
Williamsburg,VA 23185-4147 Denver,CO 80202-3429 Arlington,VA 22201-3326
(800)616-6164 (800)466-3063 (800)532-0204
www.ncsc.org EXHIBIT"A"
Page 1 of 20
,' �44j_4rt
\ C;:, .79.
', ii Thal Center for State Courts
PROJECT WORK PLAN, BUDGET & SCHEDULE
FOR
FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
June 22, 2015
SUBMITTED BY
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
DANIEL J. HALL, VICE PRESIDENT
COURT CONSULTING SERVICES
707 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2900
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-3429
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 2 of 20
•
•
NCSC Project Plan
The NCSC has a well-honed approach to space needs planning of the Municipal Court of Corpus
Christi, Texas. The NCSC has developed the following task plan to address the project
requirements and the project deliverables. The project tasks are categorized in two phases and
listed below.
Phase I Data Collection and Projection of Requirements
Task 1: Data Collection
This task represents the initial data collection effort of the project and will focus on developing a
clear understanding of current system operations and gathering historic caseload, workload, and
staffing data that will be used to generate projections of future Municipal Court growth and
space requirements. The NCSC team will conduct a space requirements survey to receive input
from the facility user groups, including the Municipal Court and the court-related agencies
currently at the courthouse, about their concerns and needs for their present and future work
environments. Highlighted facility issues and users' requirements will be incorporated into the
facility needs projection and functional space programming in the latter phases of the project.
Task 2: Court Operations Survey and User Interviews
The NCSC team will tour the existing Municipal Court to observe court operations and use of the
facility. The NCSC team will interview representatives of the user groups housed in the
Municipal Court to gather input from the facility user groups. An understanding of existing
operations as well as physical constraints will allow the NCSC team to identify opportunities for
improvement of future operational environment of the Court as well as the effectiveness of
service deliveries. Attention will be directed to specific facility-related operations such as
utilization of courtrooms, hearing rooms,jury facilities, prisoner movement and security, public
access to court services, public traffic patterns in the facilities,jury management, court office and
public counter operations, record processing/storage, judges' chambers and their support
requirements. Office operating environments of designated court-related departments in the
Municipal Court will also be observed. In addition to collecting planning information through
surveys and the on-site interviews with users, the NCSC team will review available court
planning studies or documents, previously conducted by the City, and the existing building plans,
provided by the city project manager, prior to the facility tours.
Task 3: Assessment of Long-Term Needs
In order to project future space needs of the Municipal Court, it is necessary to develop a court
system forecast model to quantify judicial and other personnel requirements. The forecast will
factor in relevant trends in the municipal justice systems in Texas as well as future trends of the
municipal justice systems from a national perspective. Utilizing geographical population data
from the City and the surrounding broader planning district, historical caseload data, forecasts of
future workload levels, in terms of ranges of court case filing levels, will be prepared. An
analysis of the court case filing forecast results, with reference to the perceived court operational
standards and service requirements, will facilitate the NCSC team to optimize the estimate of
future judicial positions and court support personnel required. These projections will be
prepared for the next 25 years in five-year intervals. The projected judicial position and
personnel requirements will be used as the basis for the planning of future facility needs.
11Page
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 3 of 20
Deliverable: The delivery process for the court analysis and future growth forecast require close
coordination and team work between the NCSC team and the Client, i.e., representatives from
the user groups and the City's designated project manager/committee. During the course of data
compilation, analysis, and the projection/assessment process, the Client will participate in the
process and work with the NCSC team to verify, confirm, and accept the findings and
conclusions on the scheduled regular project meetings. This process is estimated to take the first
twelve weeks of the project. An interim work summary will be delivered to the Client for review
at the end of eleventh week. The Client will review the work data and findings in the summary
for their accuracy and return their comments to the NCSC team in two weeks. The NCSC team
will integrate the comments and include them in the development of the subsequent court space
standards and master plan.
Phase II Development of Facility Planning Report
Task 4: Analyze Operational Issues Impacting Space
The planning of a long-term facility solution affords an opportunity to streamline operations in
the remodeled or new environment. The NCSC court operation specialist will work with the
court administrator to prepare a list of court operational issues for the NCSC team to study and
incorporate the findings in the facility space requirements. The NCSC team will analyze existing
and future court operations in order to achieve the best use of space. Issues to be assessed may
include the impact of using new technologies, such as e-filing and video conferencing, or new
court service initiatives that will affect court space planning; proposed improvements to the
workflow and staffing structure and the resulting impacts to court functional adjacency
requirements, improvements or enhancements of public access to court service with streamlining
public/court interface and accommodation; interaction and circulation between the court
adjudication area and detainees in the holding blocks of the detention center, and access control
and space separation of court participants and in-custody prisoners/witness in courthouse
complex. Referencing to best practices on various court operational subject matters applicable to
the City of Corpus Christi Municipal Court and its justice partners, such as the City Attorney's
Office and the Magistration and Detention Center, would substantiate court improvement
objectives, which would provide guidance to the physical work environment planning. The
operational analysis will ensure efficient and effective space allocation planning that meet the
modern court operation needs. Conclusions resulting from the analysis will be incorporated in
the space program for the court functional space analysis.
Task 5: Develop Space Standards
Although subject to future refinements in the building design project, which is not within the
scope proposed herein, preliminary space standards for the space needs assessment will be
developed. The space standard program will identify court functional space elements, including
courtrooms, courtroom ancillary facilities, offices, public counters, and workstations, with square
footage estimate, based on an analysis of current and future operational practices. Current space
standards recommended in publications such as The American Courthouse, Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for State and Government Facilities, and The
Courthouse Planning and Design Guidelines developed by the National Center for State Courts,
as well as office space standards adopted by the City of Corpus Christi will be utilized where
applicable. In conjunction with the evaluation of the existing facility utilization, the space
2IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 4 of 20
standards developed for the court functions will form the basis for projecting future space needs.
The resulting calculation will be used in the developments of departmental space requirements
and building space configuration concepts.
Task 6: Project Future Space Requirements and Adjacency Study
Based on the forecast of future court operations and caseloads as well as the resulting judicial
position requirement, this task will apply the functional space identified to anticipated judicial
and non judicial personnel needs, the anticipated volume of public activities, and the
incarceration requirements to project long-term facility needs for the Court. The accepted space
standards developed in Task 5 will be applied in the development of the net square footage
requirement for individual functional spaces within the Municipal Court. In conjunction with the
net space requirements of individual functional areas projected, appropriate building grossing
factors and departmental circulation factors, based on the projected activities to be
accommodated within respective areas, will be applied in the development of the total facility
space need estimate.
The NCSC team will identify and define the inter-office and intra-office functional relationships
between major court functional areas. Maintaining appropriate adjacency among functional
areas and regulating access by various court users will be critical to an efficient and secure
courthouse. The NCSC team will define vertical and horizontal circulation requirements for the
public, court employees, witnesses and prisoners; proximity relationships between courtrooms
and judges' chambers; separation between the jurors and the witnesses; appropriate building
access control; and regulated public access to private areas. In addition, requirements for public
access, proximity to courts, and internal office circulation for offices and the detention will be
analyzed and documented. A space adjacency relationship matrix will be developed and
included in the space requirement document.
The NCSC team will develop a conceptual cost opinion of the planned construction of the
Municipal Court, based on the space requirement estimate and the applicable construction unit
costs. The conceptual cost information form the basis for budgetary reference in the project
planning initiative and should be refined for more detail as the project proceeds forward. The
final operations and space program will be reviewed in detail with the City for approval.
Deliverable: The development of the Facility Planning Report will take place on the eleventh
week in the project and is estimated to take six to eight weeks to complete. The NCSC team will
develop the space requirements and go over its findings with stakeholders of respective agencies
and the Court in the review meetings. The City and the Court will review the draft document
and return their comments to the NCSC team in two weeks. The NCSC team will include
comments received and submit the final report in two weeks. The total time schedule for
completing Phase I and II work is 24 weeks.
Project Communication and Management
The successful delivery of this planning service requires comprehensive knowledge and
expertise from the consultants and effective teamwork between the NCSC team and the
City/Court. The NCSC team will thoroughly and openly communicate with the City of Corpus
Christi's judicial staff, and the City's project manager to provide a direct line of communication
for information sharing and brainstorming creative ideas. The NCSC team proposes regular
meeting schedules and project status communication during the data collection, needs assessment
Wage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 5 of 20
•
and master planning phases. Clear understanding of data collected and how the data will be used
will facilitate the developments of the data analysis and projection models for the long-term
requirements. Timely feedbacks and comments from the user groups to the NCSC team in the
meetings will provide clear guidance to the work development and avoid misunderstanding or
mistakes. The NCSC team will present various data collected for user confirmation and
approval. Space standards and the space adjacency requirements to be adopted for major court
functional areas and the detention facility will be presented to the stakeholders to allow for group
discussion, comments, and/or modification. This proactive project approach, featuring regular
communication for data confirmation and status report, as well as review meetings for solution
development, will encourage participation of concerned parties and enable the effective
communication through the planning efforts.
Planning document and reference information to be provided to NCSC team by the City:
A. Building engineering studies and documents:
1. Most recent building study documents/plans prepared for the Court, if available.
2. City of Corpus Christi general plan, if available.
3. Set of existing floor plans of the Municipal Courthouse.
4. City office and workstation space standards.
B. Court statistical data and operation information:
1. Historical court case filing data (15 years).
2. Information of current court calendars and court operational documents for the study
will be determined upon the start of the project task.
PROJECT BUDGETS
The total fee for this project as proposed in the task plan, from phase I through phase II, is
$49,500, including staff time and project expenses. The project will require 265 hours of
professional and administrative time to complete all project tasks. The travel expenses are
budgeted for five person trips from Denver to Corpus Christi for the on-site work. The NCSC
team hourly rates for principal consultants including facility planner, and operation specialist are
$182/hour, senior architect is $147/hour, analyst/statistician is $115/hour, and administrative
staff is $85/hour.
4IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 6 of 20
Project Budget Summary Table
Total
Fee, Budgeted Total
Expenses, Consulting Budgeted Days
Phase/Task Cost Hours For Site Work*
Phase I — Data Collection $ Projection $16,500 fee
Requirements (Tasks 1, 2, and 3) $2,600 exp. 100 Hrs Task 2: 2 P-trips
$19,100 cost
Phase II - Facilities Planning (Planning $27,100 fee Task 6: 2 P-trips
Report of Tasks 4, 5, and 6) $3,300 exp. 165 Hrs Task 7: 1 P-trip
$30,400 cost
Subtotal Fee $43,600
Subtotal Project Expenses $5,900 265 Hrs 5 person trips
Total Project Fee 4 $49,500
*The budgeted consulting hours include consultant office work time, travel time and on-site
work time.
5IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 7 of 20
•
Project Time Schedule
Wage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 8 of 20
b h 0 '� 0 0 1� 1~ 'r1" 'tib tib by tib 11 ti% ti� 15/1>' titi 'L^' tib
Corpus C h ri s i to Municipal Court Project Schedule e� ee eek ee�t eek eet �� eev e* ee� ee� ee� ee' ee� ee� eee ee� �� �� es' es' ee*
Task Name
Phase I-Data Collection&Projection of Requirements
Task 1-Data Collection
Statistical Data Collection "WM.
Data Review and Refinement with Client
Task 2-Court Operations Survey&User Interviews
On-Site:Visit and Building Tours •
Court Operations and User Survey
User Group Interviews
Building Document Review
Task 3-Assessment of Long-term Needs
Geographic and Demographic Data Confirmation
Statistical Analysis and Projection
Deliverable:Interim Summary
On-Site:Presentation of Interim Summary •
Interim Summary Client Review
Project Team Refinement •
Phase II-Development of Facility Master Plan Report • ••
Task 4-Analyze Operational Issues Impacting Space
Task 5-Develop Space Standards
Task 6-Project Future Space Requirements and Adjacency Study11111111111111112
Deliverable:Final Draft Facility Planning Report •
On-Site Presentation •
Final Draft Deliverable Client Review
Project Team Refinement and Delivery of Final Report
Key
Project Task
■ Project Deliverable
• On-site Visit and Meeting
Client Deliverable Review
Project Team Deliverable Update and Revision
rn
Iveax
• W7IPa �u; e
cD _
o
N y
•
•
Project Staff Resumes
81Page
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 10 of 20
701,
S C
''tiliertinbal Center for State Courts
Chang-Ming Yeh • Mohave County Superior Court Space
Judicial Facility Planner,Principal Program and Design Feasibility Study,
National Center for State Courts Kingman, AZ
cyeh@ncsc.org • Volusia County E-filing Courtroom Design
Concept Study, Daytona Beach, FL
• Waukesha County Circuit Court Facility
Master Plan, Waukesha, WI
• Scottsdale Municipal Court Facility Master
Plan, Scottsdale, AZ
• Maricopa County Superior Court Criminal
Court Tower Planning and Design Review,
Phoenix, AZ
• Albemarle County Circuit Court Facility
Plan, Charlottesville, VA
• Halifax County Courthouse Renovation
Planning, Halifax, VA
Work Experience • Orleans Civil District Court Requirement
Responsibilities include: Providing technical and Space Program,New Orleans, LA
assistance and consulting services in fields of • New Municipal Court Space Program,
courthouse facility requirements analysis, Schematic Design, and Design
design and planning; long-term facility Implementation Consultation, Oklahoma
strategic planning; architectural evaluation; City, OK
court security analysis; court technology • Strategic Planning and Schematic Design
requirements analysis; and technical Development, Clackamas County, OR
assistance on ADA court facility accessibility • Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
compliance. Presently the principal court New Courthouse Planning and Design,
facility planner for the NCSC consultant team Columbus, OH
in charge of delivering court facility related • Municipal Court Space Programming,
consulting services. Austin, TX
• Hawaii State-wide Court Facility Master
Education Plan, Honolulu, HI
M.S.,University of Kansas, Computer
Science, 1988 Court Facility Renovation Programming
M.S., University of Kansas,Architectural • Court Facility Evaluation and Renovation
Engineering—Construction Management, Planning, Lake County, CA
1985 • Courthouse Addition and Retrofitting
B.S., Chinese Culture University, Design, Adams County, CO
Architecture Design and Urban Planning, • 24th Judicial District Courthouse Annex
Taiwan, 1978 Renovation Design Consultation, Jefferson
Parish, LA
Project Highlights • Municipal Courthouse Renovation Space
Court Facility Master Plan Development Program, Baton Rouge, LA
•
• Multnomah County Circuit Court Facility 61st District Court Facility Renovation
Planning Study, Portland, OR Feasibility Study, Grand Rapids, MI
Wage
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 11 of 20
`',14aiional Center for State Courts
• Tulsa County Courthouse Renovation Presentations
Design Planning, Tulsa, OK • "Courthouse Design and Technology
Requirement," Court Technology
Courthouse Facility Technology Planning Conference, Long Beach, California 2011
and Design • "Retrospective of Courthouse Design
• Huntsville Municipal Court Video 1990-2010,"National Court Management
Arraignment system Planning, Huntsville, Association 2011 Annual Conference, Las
AL Vegas, Nevada, July 2011
• Mesa Municipal Court Space, Technology • "Courthouse Design Retrospective, 1990—
and Security Consulting, Mesa, AZ 2010,"AIA 7th International Courthouse
• Yuma County Justice Center Design Design Conference, Boston,
Project, Yuma County, AZ Massachusetts, November 2010
• Pinal County Justice Center Technology • "Equal Access to Justice: ADA and
Planning and Design, Florence, AZ Courthouse Design," forum speaker,
• Overview Assessment of Facilities, American Institute of Architects St. Louis,
Records Management and Information Missouri Chapter, Architecture for Justice
Technologies, Chatham County, GA Committee, 1992
• Hawaii County Court Facility Planning and
Design, Hilo, HI Awards and Honors
• Warren County New Justice Center Court • NCSC Staff Excellence Award: Year 2000
Security and Technology Planning,
Bowling Green, KY
• 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Facility
Technology and Security Planning, Gretna,
LA
• UNLV Law School Moot Court Space
Programming and Technology Planning,
Las Vegas,NV
• Clark County Regional Justice Center
Technology Planning, Las Vegas,NV
• Harris County Criminal Court Courtroom
Technology Planning, Houston, TX
Selected Books and Publications
• Author of Americans with Disabilities Act
Court Facility Accessibility Reference
Guide, National Center for State Courts,
1992
• Co-author of The Courthouse: A Planning
and Design Guide for Court Facilities,
National Center for State Courts, 1991 &
2000
• "Retrospective of Courthouse Design,
2001 —2010,"National Center for State
Courts, Director
10IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 12 of 20
. , .
•
S,
: -CSC
'"PAlatioi al Center for State Courts
NATHAN HALL
Senior Court
Planning Consultant
Colorado Registered Architect Education
#401776 Master of Architecture, University of
LEED AP+ Certified Colorado School of Architecture and
nhall@ncsc.org Planning, 2003
Bachelor of Arts, History, Lewis and Clark
College, Portland, Oregon, 1998
Project Highlights
• Multnomah County, OR: Downtown Courthouse
Architectural Program and Concept Development
• Cherokee County, GA: Architectural Program and
Concept Development
• Idaho: State Facility Guidelines and Professional
Training
• Houston, TX: Municipal Court (Multiple Projects):
Facilities Master Plan, Program and Concept Site
planning Alternatives
Work Experience • New Orleans, LA: Civil District Court
Mr. Hall is a registered Architect and Senior Architectural Program and New Courthouse
Court Consultant for the National Center for Concept Development
State Courts. Since joining the National • New Orleans, LA: Criminal District Court Security
Center in 2008, he has been involved in over Assessment
50 court facility projects for state and local • Oklahoma City, OK: New Municipal Court
courts across the nation. Schematic Design and Design Implementation
Consultation
At the National Center, Mr. Hall provides • Polk County, IA: (Multiple Projects): Judicial
expert consultation and technical assistance to Facilities Needs Assessment, Facility Utilization
state and local courts, local and county Analysis, Design Programming, Schematic Design
governments, and private industry design Development
firms on facility planning and design projects. • Wayne County, MI (Detroit): Court Facilities
Areas of expertise include operational Assessment
assessment and strategic pre-design planning • Mohave, AZ: Courthouse Concept Design and Site
analysis, conceptual and schematic design Feasibility Assessment
development, architectural design peer review, • Maricopa County, AZ: Downtown Criminal Court
court security a, and court technology Tower, Arizona: Building Design Review
requirements analysis. • California: State Security Plan Assessment
• State of Hawai'i: System Wide Facilities Master
Mr. Hall provides training to professionals Plan
regarding courthouse planning and design as • State of Hawai'i: Security Assessment of the 2nd
well as security design and has published Judicial Circuit
multiple articles on the subject of innovation • US Virgin Islands: Supreme Court Site Assessment
in courthouse planning appearing in Courts and Space Program
Today and in the NCSC Future Trends series.
11lI agc
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 13 of 20
Jy
:::;:s
fit'ft hal Center for State Courts
• Trinidad and Tobago: Court Facility Design and • Retrospective of Courthouse Design: 2001
Planning Training —2010 NCSC, 2010. Staff Editor.
• Republic of Kosovo: Court Facilities Design • "Green Courthouse Planning and Design"
Requirement Consulting Courts Today, April/May 2010, Vol. 8 #2.
• "Implementing Collegial Chambers as a
Selected Publications Means for Courtroom Sharing"Future
Trends in State Courts, NCSC. 2010.
DAVID SAYLES • Multnomah County, OR Circuit Court
Project Analyst Facility Planning Study, Portland, OR
dsayles@ncsc.org • Waukesha County Circuit Court Facility
Master Plan, Waukesha, WI
• Albemarle County Circuit Court Facility
alkPlan, Charlottesville, VA
• Orleans Civil District Court Requirement
and Space Program,New Orleans, LA
• Court Facility Feasibility Study, Benton
County, AR
• Oklahoma City, OK: New Municipal Court
Space Program, Schematic Design, and
Design Implementation Consultation
• Judicial Facility Needs Assessment and
Space Planning for the City of Scottsdale
(AZ)Municipal Court
• Phase II Conducting Architectural Peer
Reviews and Consulting Services to Superior
Work Experience Court of Maricopa County(AZ) for the
Mr. Sayles joined the National Center for State Downtown Criminal Court Tower
Courts in October 2006 and he assists in the • Multnomah County Circuit Court Facility
delivery of consulting services in the area of Planning Study, Portland, OR
facilities planning and assessing court facility • Benton County, AR Court Facility
needs. He is experienced in a variety of data Feasibility Study
collection methodologies including interviews, • Springfield MO, Municipal Court
surveys, and research. Mr. Sayles assists with Conceptual Design and Site Planning
conducting analysis on court workload Feasibility Study
projections and compiles, organizes, analyzes, • Municipal Court Space Programming,
and summarizes data and research for court Austin, TX
management consultants. • Develop a Statewide Judicial Facilities
Master Plan for the Hawaii Administrative
Education Office of the Courts
Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design with • Facility Consulting for the Kona(HI)
an Emphasis in Architecture, University Judicial Site Selection(subcontractor to
of Colorado Group 70 International, Inc.)
• Courthouse Facility Consulting Services to
Project Highlights the 23rd Judicial District, Livingston Parish
(LA) (subcontractor to Grace&
Hebert/Labarre Architects)
12IPage
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 14 of 20
•
. •
SC
''r aiiAal Center for State Courts
• Police and Courts Consolidated Study for
Lansing(MI) (subcontractor to Capital
Consultants)
• Police Headquarters and Court Complex
Renovation Study for Oklahoma City
(subcontractor to Architectural Design
Group)
• Preliminary Planning for Construction of a
New Courthouse in Union County(OR)
• Overview Assessment of Facilities, Records
Management and Information Technologies
for Chatham County(GA)
• Court Facility Master Planning for Franklin
County(PA)
• Snohomish County, WA Court facility
Master Plan, Everett, WA
• Space Utilization Study for Adams County
(PA) (subcontractor to C.S. Davidson)
• Update of Master Plan for the Houston (TX)
Municipal Court (subcontractor to Gensler)
• Phase I-Consulting and Design Review for
the Downtown Criminal Court Tower for
Superior Court of Maricopa County(AZ)
• Facility Needs Assessment for First Judicial
District(NM) (Santa Fe) Courthouse
• Court Planning for the Franklin County(OH)
Court of Common Pleas (subcontractor to
Pizzuti Solutions)
• Mohave County(AZ) Justice Facility Needs
Assessment
Selected Publications
• Retrospective of Courthouse Design: 2001 —
2010 NCSC, 2010. Staff Editor.
13IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 15 of 20
Sample Project References
14 Page
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 16 of 20
Polk County Criminal District Court Polk County Civil District Court
Old Main Jail Adaptive Reuse Historic Courthouse Renovation
Ta
M
IA
'' ` 1Stiii''"--5 •-,"",:-,,,, ',:' }"� +M fit.
NV
tif
gt 7
I s
IiIr i 4-,,,,,,z,, ,. gN�n p }ir' .q fit. ; ...,-r'7"h
a ' k y r' , a i _ • *
Hoy,' 1 t 3 ' Berr4n" :.
R.-Purpo.d avid Wt*"Ronovatud Old Mild JNi.,,.-,
{Criminal Court) _ .ry+'� -`r yr r +aspstt‘‘ t ."1f'a-.-
Rend@nng ty 0.1.1ArcAtact.Des Moms IA
l .
F°1-11
t
._ ..
I— I am .• ' -r I 1
I
•
-,
gcr3 ,,
Fifth Judicial District Strategic Planning and
Polk County Juvenile and Magistrate Courts Schematic Design
Convention Center Adaptive Reuse Polk County, Iowa(Des Moines)
'II6 The NCSC developed a comprehensive facilities utilization
strategy and schematic designs for the Fifth Judicial District
a --1----- - - 'k i,_.-- of Iowa: the study identified strategic directions for the
t g f County and Court to undertake in an effort to resolve the
I ,,.4 ;. . Court's egregious space problems with best practices in
'14-15*, both urban trial court operations and courthouse design.
,. Included were the County s Cnminal,Civil,Family. Juvenile,
and Magistrate courts The resulting implementation plan
includes 46 courtrooms and 362,000 square feet of building
inventory spread across three court sites
For.Of Conveenen Center
/dweMe
and Mybtrei.CNntai
Project Activities Included
• Court Operations Planning
,„„ "-- ■ Court System Growth Analysis and Projections
�i, 'I ■ Court Decentralization Feasibility Analysis
+s • Building Adaptive Reuse Assessment
� _
■ Historic Building Assessment
AJ , , _ • Court Space Programming
> , az..v
%..,5 ■ Schematic Design
Schematic designs developed in collaboration with OPN
Architects,Des Moines IA
NCSC
<,.,ter(.'.r\t ..
15IP4 L
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 17 of 20
t -
orcrxw vox , it„
h
u �
+''" :� �. - ems.
I.ABBri s .>. y1 - t #it
:..
WAITING �� ,,. e^*
cT -- .rE srA
..,,..i.0.4.17:‘GRIM. u I. ; 3
\�� txIST�' CR ;9 _ _ C1RI •�' '`z=
A f
411114
Pus(tc Iwo
.`.s ♦ WAITING ' l"i4.~ Nom.
FF
Y
3
fL v.... a arai' -n. fir.
Preferred Renovation and Expansion Concept First Level Test Plan
r
*fi *r „„`". Scottsdale City Court Master Planning
'? ��' � -i',-' } Scottsdale.Arizona
'
— rS I
;R °r ` Completed master plan and long-term facility needs
t I t' t assessment for the Scottsdale City Court The project
Polka Buddin
} -"` involved the following tasks
f `�ikt,. • Project Data Review
• Operation Survey and Interview
■ Building Functional Needs Assessment
ir _ City Cowl Building 1 ■ Building Infrastructure Assessment
a �.... 1 itt
• Long Term Facility Needs Assessment
iii
• Service Delivery Improvement Analysis
■ Space Programming
.00P o9 9
II Site
Existing Building end Analysis
"�, • Implementation Concept Development
�� Concept massing study illustrations prepared by Durrant
." Architects.Phoenix.AZ
fre z
s
,F. : -
Al
. ,�'� ! CSC
titles Val Ion,.iConcept Attente
16IP age
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 18 of 20
•
IR—
It .r)
:►Z=1 X.X
*: El CELTS 1
. ..
1,4440/400
tet,
COLN*04(te 4.00
VI, . S
wrt*tS5
L I :__ __ _ J
r t Multnomah County Circuit Court Master Plan
#:#40*-
Portland,Oregon
The NCSC developed a comprehensive long-term 50 year system
growth profile for the Multnomah County Circuit Court and
*_ + ,
4, determined approximate space requirements for the Courts,
. f6F
/ District Attorney's Office and Sheriff operations that are
currently housed in the central courthouse. The study identified
✓ strategic directions for the County and Court to undertake in an
Z y effort to efficiently plan for future court system growth. Project
�' \\\� tasks included:
:' 40, 4 Court Operations Planning
t• 10 ,
J 0 Court System Growth Analysis and Projections
•V' 0 Decentralization Feasibility Analysis
Tti•'i7" 0 Court Space Programming
4. r 0 Conceptual Design Stacking and Blocking
II
xi
NCSC
.for State Cnw*%
17IPage
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 19 of 20
18IPage
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 20 of 20
Sample form for:
Payment Request
COMPLETE PROJECT NAME Revised 07/27/00
Project No. XXX (
Invoice No. 12345
Invoice Date:
Total Amount Previous Total Percent - -
Basic Services: Contract Amd No. 1 Amd No. 2 Contract Invoiced Invoice Invoice Complete
Preliminary Phase $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 100% . .
Design Phase 2,000 1,000 0 3,000 1,000 500 1,500 50%
Bid Phase 500 0 250 750 0 0 0 0%
Construction Phase 2,500 0 1,000 3,500 0 0 0 0%
Subtotal Basic Services $6,000 $1,000 $1,250 $8,250 $750 $1,500 $2,500 30%
Additional Services:
Permitting $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $500 $0 $500 25%
Warranty Phase 0 1,120 0 1,120 0 0 0 0%
Inspection 0 0 1,627 1,627 0 0 0 0%
Platting Survey TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 0%
O & M Manuals TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 0%
SCADA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 0%
Subtotal Additional Services $2,000 $1,120 $1,627 $4,747 $500 $0 $500 11%
Summary of Fees
Basic Services Fees $6,000 $1,000 $1,250 $8,250 $750 $1,500 $2,500 30%
Additional Services Fees 2,000 1,120 1,627 4,747 500 0 500 11%
Total of Fees $8,000 $2,120 $2,877 $12,997 $1,250 $1,500 $3,000 23%
P .
cC I
a) W .
c
,
•
•
Exhibit "C"
Mandatory Requirements
INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant shall fully indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of
Corpus Christi and its officials, officers, agents, employees,
volunteers, directors and representatives ("Indemnitee") from and
against any and all claims, damages, liabilities or costs, including
reasonable attorney fees and defense costs, caused by or resulting
from an act of negligence, intentional tort, intellectual property
infringement, or failure to pay a subcontractor or supplier committed
by Consultant or its agent, consultant under contract or another entity
over which Consultant exercises control while in the exercise of rights
or performance of the duties under this agreement. This
Indemnification does not apply to any liability resulting from the
negligent acts or omissions of the City of Corpus Christi or its
employees, to the extent of such negligence.
Consultant must, at City's option, defend Indemnitee and with counsel
satisfactory to the City Attorney.
Consultant must advise City in writing within 24 hours of any claim or
demand against City or Consultant known to Consultant related to or
arising out of Consultant's activities under this Agreement.
EXHIBIT "C"
Page 1 of 1
SUPPLIER NUMBER
TO BE ASSIGNED BY CITY
= PURCHASING DIVISION
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Corpus
City
of DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Christi
City of Corpus Christi Ordinance 17112, as amended, requires all persons or firms seeking to do
business with the City to provide the following information. Every question must be answered.
If the question is not applicable, answer with `NA". See reverse side for Filing Requirements,
Certifications and definitions.
COMPANY NAME: National Center for State Courts
P.O.BOX:
STREET ADDRESS: 707 Seventeenth Street CITY: Denver,CO ZIP: 80202-3429
FIRM IS: 1. Corporation M. 2. Partnership 3. Sole Owner ❑
4. Association 5. Other ❑
DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS
additional space is necessary,please use the reverse side of this page or attach separate sheet.
State the names of each `employee" of the City of Corpus Christi having an "ownership
interest"constituting 3%or more of the ownership in the above named"firm.'
Name Job Title and City Department(if known)
i; State the names of each"official" of the City of Corpus Christi having an"ownership interest"
constituting 3%or more of the ownership in the above named"firm."
Name AlA Title
1$. State the names of each "board member" of the City of Corpus Christi having an "ownership
interest"constituting 3%or more of the ownership in the above named"firm."
Name N 4' Board,Commission or Committee
4. State the names of each employee or officer of a "consultant" for the City of Corpus Christi
who worked on any matter related to the subject of this contract and has an ownership
interest"constituting 3%or more of the ownership in the above named"firm."
Name A Consultant
. . .
.
FILING REQUIREMENTS
If a person who requests official action on a matter knows that the requested action will confer an
economic benefit on any City official or employee that is distinguishable from the effect that the
action will have on members of the public in general or a substantial segment thereof, you shall
disclose that fact in a signed writing to the City official, employee or body that has been
requested to act in the matter, unless the interest of the City official or employee in the matter is
apparent. The disclosure shall also be made in a signed writing filed with the City Secretary.
[Ethics Ordinance Section 2-349(d)]
CERTIFICATION
I certify that all information provided is true and correct as of the date of this statement,that I
have not knowingly withheld disclosure of any information requested; and that supplemental
statements will be promptly submitted to the City of Corpus Christi,Texas as changes occur.
Certifying Person: bah1Qt S Q`� Melt. ` ‘C
Vi�� QS �e��
(Type or Print
Signature of Certifying f/ �- / �; Date:
Person: Lam✓
DEFINITIONS
a. "Board member." A member of any board, commission, or committee appointed by the
City Council of the City of Corpus Christi,Texas.
b. "Economic benefit". An action that is likely to affect an economic interest if it is likely to
have an effect on that interest that is distinguishable from its effect on members of the public
in general or a substantial segment thereof.
c. "Employee." Any person employed by the City of Corpus Christi, Texas either on a full or
part-time basis,but not as an independent contractor.
d. "Firm." Any entity operated for economic gain, whether professional, industrial or
commercial, and whether established to produce or deal with a product or service, including
but not limited to, entities operated in the form of sole proprietorship, as self-employed
person, partnership, corporation,joint stock company,joint venture, receivership or trust, and
entities which for purposes of taxation are treated as non-profit organizations.
e. "Official." The Mayor, members of the City Council, City Manager, Deputy City
Manager, Assistant City Managers, Department and Division Heads, and Municipal Court
Judges of the City of Corpus Christi,Texas.
f. "Ownership Interest." Legal or equitable interest, whether actually or constructively held,
in a firm, including when such interest is held through an agent, trust, estate, or holding
entity. "Constructively held" refers to holdings or control established through voting trusts,
proxies,or special terms of venture or partnership agreements."
g. "Consultant."Any person or firm, such as engineers and architects, hired by the City of
Corpus Christi for the purpose of professional consultation and recommendation.