Travis County Commssioners Court
April 1, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 17
Now, facilities, are you headed this way? Because number 17 is up next. Is alicia on the way down and roger? Roger is here. 17 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding schematic design approval for the precinct 1 justice of the peace and constable office building.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> catch your breath.
>> we're here today to ask for your approval of the preliminary design for precinct 1 office building, and this project is going to be going under renovation, expansion of about 2,000 square feet. And the court has approved this budget and the renovation and back in August, and I believe we are on track. We're going to finish this project by end of September of f.y. '03. Now, as you can see, the justice of peace, their space is moved up to 3,599 square feet, and the constable moved up to 2,549. Total, the building will be 6,148. We have the signatures approval of judge scott and constable mercer about the layout of the building, and they are happy with it. So the budget, we have a total budget and we think that we can do it within those budget, you know, should be no problem. And this is regarding the building. The other issues, you know, came out with -- it's addition of a satellite office in that building. And this is a -- issues that i've been sorting back and forth with judge scott, americas and Davis and we tried to come out to a compromise how we're going to do it right there. Finally we came up with a compromise with judge scott and constable mercer that we will add about 200 -- between 200 and 250 square feet of a satellite there, but it's going to have a separate entrance right there. So this way will not do anything to the existing renovated space we promise to do give them. So with this kind of a compromise they approve to have a facility for the tax office there. As far as ms. Spears and [inaudible], they also approve to have one in that area. And from the budget perspective, I have a contingency, but I thinkic do it within my contingency and I知 not asking for any additional funds. But it's going to be very tight because our contingency is only about 10% of what we asked for which is about like 120, 155 thousand dollars we have to construct the project including contingency. So we feel that we will do it within our budget.
>> the issue with that particular item was [inaudible] and I think ms. Spears just walked in. On the tax office at precinct 1.
>> I spoke with ms. Spears this morning. Is she here? Okay. Go ahead.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> we've reviewed -- revivid the staffing issue -- revisited the staffing issue, and since the precinct 1 facility for tax office is scheduled to be completed around the September time frame, that would be the first remote tax office and we will be doing staffing with our current -- our current staff. And we would like to have the opportunity to come back to you at a later time, when the other remote sites are ready, to discuss staffing. Both staffing for this particular -- though staffing for this particular office is not an issue.
>> where are you proposing on this layout as to where ms. Spears' office will go?
>> it's either on the -- we have two alternatives. One of them would be at the north -- at the southwest corner. It's -- of the southwest corner or at the southeast corner. Our preferred location would be at the southwest corner. Let me -- can I show it to you?
>> yeah, you can just kind of -- I知 just trying to get a sense of --
>> we did no draw before we have the -- we did not draw the detail on that before we had the approval of the court should we have a tax office there, but at this time the preliminary is going to be at the southwest corner of the build. You see where the women and men's restrooms? Right next to it.
>> okay. Got it. Thank you.
>> I see numbers on mine, the schematic design. So it will be close to 127, 126. Do you have those numbers?
>> yes, correct she it's going to be close to 126 and 127.
>> okay.
>> and when you say it's going to have its own entrance, is it still going to be a part of the building? I also have security issues in terms of making sure these folks are connected even though they may have their own separate entrance. Are they still going to be --
>> yeah, it's connected to the build and it has its window and also the doors, separate doors from the main build.
>> okay, there's a separate outdoor.
>> that's right.
>> but are there doors that lead into the interior of this building as well?
>> no. They have to come from the front door and go to the front of the building and if they want to use a restroom or such. But which is not that much, you know, space, you know, like walking distance. It's very small. And in the -- I think it will work. We have a sidewalk in the front, you know, when you enter -- when you exit the proposed satellite, you go to the sidewalk and go into the building and use the restroom. The restroom is in the lobby.
>> is that a covered walkway? I知 thinking in terms of --
>> it's not covered walkway.
>> for them to have to go to the bathroom to have to dart outside in the rain to go inside, we need to think through some of this stuff for our own employees let alone the public.
>> what is the reason for doing it this way? Security?
>> to do what?
>> to do it this way, have it outside and go in.
>> well, I not only security, it's kind of the -- judge scott and constable mercer, they feel that the traffic from the tax office going through their building would be too much. So they want to have it separate right there from -- crowd the lobby right there and as you can see, there's a conference a, 1 or 2. We first proposed to have it there, but they objected because this conference right there would be used by lawyers, you know, come to meet with the clients, and also for a public meets right there. So which is understandable. And that's the only place we can put it right there without really touch their space as configured is to put it on the outside.
>> why don't we move the restrooms over, you walk in, turn right, you see the tax assessor's office. There's another door where you go to the restrooms. So you walk in, turn right instead of turning into restrooms, turn into the tax assess or's office.
>> those restrooms are already there.
>> you move 126 and 127, move them --
>> down at the bottom. The current restrooms are at the bottom of the sheet, right?
>> no, there's -- on the top.
>> I知 looking at the existing plan.
>> on the sheet there's a number 127 and 126 as you enter the buildings. Those are public restrooms.
>> those aren't there now.
>> no, they are.
>> yeah, those are there.
>> they are. What you see the existing -- have you two sheets, judge. You have two sheets in front of you. One of them says existing, one says proposed. The proposed has black, thick lines. Those are what we're proposing.
>> I agree. I think where they are situated needs a little more work.
>> that's right.
>> but now am I hearing the commitment to make this work with or without additional f.t.e.s? Because that's what it boils down to, I think. In the years to come, I see adding folk. I知 not sure I see it next year, though.
>> the reason I bring that up is an issue with txdot. They are changing to a point of sale computer system. And that may cause us to have to bring more of the work that's now done in -- by the private sector back into the tax office. So if that happens, then we will have no additional staff to move around. We'll need those staff to cover the main tax office to handle vehicle registration and titles. And the state does fund the county for each transaction. For every transaction that we do, they pay $1.90, which in the last several years has been 2 to $2.6 million a year into the county general revenue fund.
>> that may pay for itself.
>> it could. It could pay for itself.
>> and I guess looking at that, especially with the point of sale, the equipment that goes with the point of sale, right now I know that we have several private relationships that do a lot of things as far as tax services are concerned. However, an example, at the h.e.b. Springdale, I mean, you go in there and you always see a lot of activity as far as doing things as far as some of the services that your office offers. However, if that is discontinued, of course, that means that all of those things that they were doing, the h.e.b.s and the others, will end up having to come to your shop totally.
>> yes, sir.
>> and of course this is when I think it's going to be very critical that we disburse out appropriately to ensure that if your f.t.e., Which is going to pay for itself, is disbursed properly; then again those services will not be, I guess, reduced to the point that those persons can still use it in the area. So this is one of the reasons the j.p. Office and constable office at springdale road, mlk, was very critical because it will be one of the first to come on line as far as the modifications and renovations as far as what we're doing this morning. I would like to still look at this as far as the original schematic design. However, with the inclusion of the necessary square footage that the tax office will immediate along with their two f.t.e.s that will be coming on board to handle this operation, and we bring this back. But I would like to approve it as is, but with some additional work I think we'll need to maybe canopy or maybe extra design or thought given to this area to make sure those folks have excess. So I would really like to move approval of the basic schematic design, but with the contingent on the extra work that roger will have to go through as far as accommodating adequately the f.t.e.s as far as the tax office within we move forward with this. I would like to move approval with this.
>> how long would it take to address the office issue?
>> pardon me?
>> we need to approve what they are going to -- what they plan to construct at some point.
>> yeah.
>> and if we're adding a tax office, don't we need to see that and approve it?
>> yes.
>> yes, we'll bring back the tax office if you wish.
>> how long will that take?
>> it doesn't take much. I already have it here, so --
>> you've already got it, right.
>> here's the deal. I am not -- I知 always love to go play architect, but I知 not satisfied with having these folks have an ex toor year entrance only and could be cut off, that's one of the joys of having them located in this complex is for them them to have the well-being that there are folks close at hand and easily accessible, and so I would like to see this redone. I don't want to take away the conference room, but I think the conference room is the better place to stick the tax office as that public entrance if you are coming in and you have their area, and we work in terms of relocating a conference room into the area we just talked about for the tax office with the entrance being off of that staff work area. Since we're already doing construction on that side of the building, we can do it for both. But have I a great deal of concern about her being disconnected and the idea that their employees have to go out into the elements to take care of the basic -- services. [multiple voices]
>> it's an additional service to add to that area.
>> I don't feel good having them disconnected like that.
>> I don't either.
>> take a one week --
>> I think we can do it in a week.
>> I am concerned about the cost. A canopy will be more cost you, so let us take a look at it and bring it back in one week.
>> I agree with alicia. But for today, I would like approval of the plan as submitted and then we come back next week for the addition of the tax office.
>> I would like to do it all at once. And that's me. If we're going to do it, we ought to do it.
>> okay.
>> I have no qualms with any of that. I have no qualms with any of that, what's just been discussed. When I look at this other area that you were referring to earlier, roger, as far as the connectivity, there was some discussion about a door, an entrance door that may be made available. See, my whole point is at what point would that entry door be made available where folks would not actually have to go out in the elements? And again, the conference room is going to be looked at, which is to the right of the front entryway into the building. Then -- it appears to be the most accommodate part which is a part of the actual first proposal when I looked at it as far as adding the tax office out there. That was the actual location that I agree with. However, there was some disagreement with some of the folks out there on this, and so that brought an issue up as far as that conference room.
>> sure.
>> and so that was the whole deal. We have judge scott and constable mercer suggesting that the conference room was not a part -- or wouldn't be of this [inaudible] for us to use. So after looking at that, then we said, well, if that -- you know, one reason why it was entering this and a lot of other stuff going on, and after that was discussed, then we sent roger back out there again to find out if we can come up with a compromise. And the compromise was just as roger depicted, however, even if the time we discuss it I said these folks have to have entryway into the building some way, shape, fashion or form. That has not been done yet. However, the basic design have I no problem with it. I really feel that the conference room when you first get there is the best place for it, Commissioner. [inaudible] that you are arguing, which is a great idea. We can get the 200 square foot or whatever necessary square footage in that particular conference room. I知 still having a little problem with that.
>> the problem I have with it is we need the agreement of the constable and the j.p.
>> right.
>> I don't see overriding their position. But I do see the need to sit down with them, probably work out a way to factor in all of the comments we've made today. It makes sense. But I think what we approve ought to be what we're looking at.
>> the final thing.
>> I agree. I will go back and talk to judge scott and constable mercer to see how to incorporate this building into the area.
>> if this is not available, I would see if there are other options. Bring back the best we can do.
>> all right.
>> I would like to go ahead and approve this basic schematic design as far as without the deal and I guess you come back in a week, roger, or do you want to come back in a week with the whole total package?
>> let me add one thing. Before we approve on what the existing schematic, give me one week. I need to sort it out with judge scott and constable mercer and come back next week with the final layout of the tax office, incorporate it into the building, and one entry.
>> right. And the question would be to me, would still be the same question that I posed before, and that is having entry into the building and not let it be a separate-type situation.
>> exactly.
>> that was my concern then and still my concern this morning.
>> let's take a serious look at the budget also.
>> thank you.
>> you expressed several reservations.
>> yes.
>> now, if ms. Spears' position is correct, we may want to discuss a little bit the likelihood of moving out the state function, getting reimbursed. If really we're looking at the ability to get reimbursed, f.t.e.s and space or just f.t.e.s?
>> f.t.e.s.
>> f.t.e.s.
>> but no space?
>> right.
>> I mean, there's no reason to half do it. And if you are just a few dollars short, we need to know what that amount is. And you need to have some contingency, I don't know whether it needs to be 15%, but I would keep some reasonable contingency. If the likelihood is you will need a few more dollars, we need to know what they are.
>> okay, i'll bring that with me next week to the table.
>> and I知 going to be, you know, open-minded in terms of assigning of financial solution to this as well because quite frankly when we first approved this dollar amount, it was based on the fact that we were doing this for judge scott and constable mercer. We didn't have the tax office in the mix, and therefore I think it's kind of illogical to think that we could have done it if we're talking about extra square footage, that somehow we could spread the dollars that much further. Perhaps we can, but there may need to be a little bit of an adjustment and we're very creative people, you find all sorts of dollars on under the cushions. If we're going to try to accommodate ms. Spears here, the same way we have done at the precinct 2 building, precinct 4 building, and what's coming at the precinct 3 building, we need to do the same thing for the precinct 1 building, and this was not part of our discussions last budget. And we need to just take a second look at it and put the pencil to paper and figure it out.
>> okay.
>> the people necessary for that meeting we just mentioned just walked in. Our position basically is that you all need to put your heads together, look at this tax assess or's case again, try to reach agreement on a better option than we were presented today. Basically to take no action today, but to have that included in the schematic design that we actually consider and approve. Over the next week.
>> you are asking us to get together --
>> with roger.
>> yeah.
>> and the problem, really, judge; that excess for the -- judge, is the excess for the f.t.e.s that will have access to the building without having to go out in the elements and stuff like that. In other words, they need way into the building. That's the crux of the matter right now. I know we will discuss that the conference room, that first conference room that -- in the front of the building as you come in to the left, is not available because of its use, whether it's attorneys and other things that -- and that's what I understood it to be, so that was kind of out of the picture because that was disclosed to me during the series of meetings that we've had. So looking at this, that would basically be an entry way for the folks in the tax office that would be working there into the building where they can have access to the facilities such as restrooms. That's the crux of the matter.
>> again, we would look again on this scenario and see what else we could do, you know, next to the conference room or whatever. We'll have to come up with another scenario. Right now the scenario, judge, it was that the separate entry for the tax office as you and I discussed right there, that -- kind of like is objectionable at this time because if folks, you know, have to go outside and come back into the building if they want to use the restroom. So we'll try to see if we can be do it on the north -- at the southwest or the southeast, you know, location. So I need to go back and draw the layout to make sure that, you know, those folks, they have connected to the building rather than come to the outside of the build and come into the building. That's what the issue is.
>> the consideration would still be they would be two separate offices. Our employees would not go through that office, nor would they go through ours, just an entrance to the -- access to the facilities.
>> that's correct. What I知 understanding here, we should have only one entry to the building for everybody, but we have to come up with a plan that the entry goes into the building, it goes from inside the main entry. You know, to the tax office. So if you can give me about one week again --
>> you've got a week.
>> -- let me sort this out with constable americas r and judge scott.
>> consider the same amount of money, no increase in moneys?
>> well, there's going to be increase in moneys because we have to look at the whole thing again one more time because, as I understood it, you would like to keep the contingency as is for your renovation and probably we'll have to come up with additional fund to construct the tax office. That's my understanding. Am I correct?
>> thank you.
>> well, if you come up with an option that it is better than what we represented today and everybody agrees to it and the additional cost is reasonable --
>> that's correct.
>> -- then I would think we would to be reasonable in our response. So our goal really is to try to achieve a better option that everybody agrees to that's affordable also.
>> and without any reduction of the approved space for constable mercer and judge scott.
>> right.
>> the intention was not to say we're going to carve up the same pie and you guys get a smaller piece. No. We need to be creative here, but it's not just a matter of access to restrooms. This is an office that will have monetary functions, and I would feel much better having our wonderful law enforcement folks close at hand, everybody in the same building, I just think it's a much better situation for everybody.
>> there's no reason to do something we're unhappy with from the beginning.
>> we don't want to create security issues, we want to resolve them.
>> it's an additional service to constituents in that area, a very important service. Paying taxes and -- so we can have the money for projects.
>> [inaudible].
>> we agree with what's going on. We had already talked with the facilities engineer here and we just want to make sure it's done properly. The only thing is that we didn't want to lose any space.
>> we understand.
>> and we understand that. And that's our concern. And then to do it the proper way so that we do have enough space and room for everybody.
>> if we do it that way, I think we can all live with it.
>> what's the plan for parking?
>> we're going to add additional 15 parking space, and it's part of approved plan, you know, in the budget.
>> we just acquired some property adjacent to this.
>> that's right.
>> right now that particular tract where the precinct 1 office build comprises of 4.3 acres currently with the addition of the tract that we just acquired behind it. So, you know, that's for future use and future potential and future room for goat.
>> do you have a budget for parking?.
>> that's correct.
>> when do you plan to show us the schematic design for parking?
>> next week. I already have something --
>> it will be east of the current building.
>> that's correct. We're going to extend the parking lot for additional 15 and make a nice turn circle right there. So they are going to like it that way.
>> okay.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> is this how this is done? I mean, we spent 30 minutes on this this morning. I mean, you for -- more about building than I know, and if you are going to come to me as Commissioner and ask how to do a build, do we not generally [inaudible] after you've discussed it with all the people that have the needs for this building? Or is this something that I expect to go through with the southwest --
>> you'll get to sign off on your stuff as well.
>> so we do it this way.
>> absolutely. And --
>> i'll visit with the Commissioner, you know. [laughter]
>> there's no way to get around it. [laughter]
>> and also add ms. Spears out to the precinct 2 community center as well. It was one of those things it was a laid add, but it was worthwhile to do it right from the beginning as opposed to its a add-on and it feels that way.
>> precinct 1 is unique because you already have a building there and it's built out.
>> of course, we can be as problematic with new buildings.
>> beg pardon? [laughter].
>> new buildings, judge.
>> we love to have long discussions about new projects.
>> I understand that. [laughter].
>> but in terms of this meeting the goals of ms. Spears related to getting her services out into the community, this will allow us to be in precincts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that's a good thing eye can hardly wait until next week.
>> all right.
>> thanks for coming down.
>> we can get this fixed quick.
>> thanks for coming down.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:25 PM