Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Station Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Performance Services pitches design-build plans for Prairie View police station; board to review funding at follow-up meeting
Summary
Performance Services presented two concept designs for a Prairie View police station (about $1.5M for ~3,000 sq ft and about $3M for ~6,000 sq ft), described a design-build, open-book process and a guaranteed no-change-order policy. The board discussed evidence/IT security needs (CJIS), possible P3 or grant funding, and deferred a final allocation decision to a follow-up meeting.
Performance Services representatives presented preliminary design-build concepts and procurement options for a proposed Prairie View Police Department station and the board discussed potential funding paths but did not approve final allocations during the meeting.
Brooke McFarland, introduced as Performance Services’ business development manager in Houston, and Bob Weedy, the company’s national design-build director, described two concept options: a roughly 3,000-square-foot facility budgeted at about $1.5 million and a 6,000-square-foot option budgeted at about $3 million. McFarland said design-build offers a single point of accountability, faster delivery and open-book pricing; she also described a “guaranteed no-change-order policy” to limit designer/constructability misses once the scope is agreed.
Detective Mendillo and other police staff emphasized program needs that drove the designs: an evidence room sized for growing caseloads, a climate-controlled IT room to protect databases and meet NCIC/TCIC/CJIS security requirements, enclosed offices for supervisors and investigators, locker rooms and the potential for showers so officers can stay on site in emergencies. Staff repeatedly noted the evidence and IT rooms as critical to compliance and operational integrity.
On funding, Performance Services and staff said the main source being considered is money already held in the city’s crime control and prevention district; presenters also said they would pursue grants and could advise on P3 (public-private partnership) options but are not a P3 developer. Staff told the board they will prepare detailed allocation recommendations (figures and proposed percentages) for a follow-up meeting (staff referenced preparation of materials for Tuesday). No final authorization to expend the funds was recorded in the transcript; the board asked staff to return with specific funding proposals.
The presenters showed a tentative schedule: contract into design by October of this year with a target building completion around October–November of the following year, describing the construction period as about 12 months from a firm 'go,' with some flexibility for bottlenecks. Presenters and staff noted risks including rising costs and the need to align program requirements with the chosen budget.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will compile recommended allocations and grant opportunities and return at a scheduled follow-up meeting to seek formal approval; no final vote on funding occurred in this session.
Representative quotes in the meeting included McFarland saying of the procurement approach, “we have a guaranteed no change order policy,” and Detective Mendillo explaining operational needs for separate cubicles so officers can maintain case histories and avoid crowding. The meeting adjourned after a motion to close.
