Travis County Commssioners Court
July 22, 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 11
Number 11. Discuss and take appropriate action on the proposed relocation of the domestic relations office to the university savings building locate at 101010 lavaca. And we will take number 22 next. We probably will discuss it today and give some direction. Number 11.
>> roger from the management department. This is -- we as a result of moving the tax office to the airport buildings, usb in the first floor is going to be relocated to the first floor and the basement. And our proposal is to bring dfo from the leased facility to a county owned facility. And since we're paying lots of dollars in the lease, it won't be able for us to bring (indiscernible) into the building. We worked on a preliminary plan with dro and they approved -- they are satisfied with our layout sheet. I think we can address that issue if you have any question of moving from the airport location to the existing location at the usb. What I知 asking is for the relocate to the usb and provide some of the tax office space because they are on the first floor and some of the basement. Then also I知 asking the court to approve the dro staff with assigned parking and assigned in the downtown campus area. The dfo visitors to park in the usb parking lot is now assigned to the tax office. And also for the dfo to use one line of the drive-through window. Also, I知 asking the court to use the existing drive-through lane. We don't want to do anything with them at this time. -- [ inaudible ]. So more metered parking will basically be available for county business. And now, the last two bullets right here, I discussed this with ppo in e-mails and pbo recommend that they ask for a consider reserved -- (indiscernible).
>> the question that was posed to pb and o was there originally was a budget request and a budget process for a project for fy '04. Obviously we are supporting that project. It's something that the court has already discussed. It is to renovate the space for dro, and it was part of the information presented to you from our office. The worksheet when we discussed the airport boulevard building. We added some preliminary questions for facilities management on the costs, because the costs was slightly higher, well, $48,000 higher than what was presented during the airport boulevard building discussion. Those issues were discussed and I believe it's because of private offices, correct me if I知 wrong.
>> also there's an -- (indiscernible).
>> I was about to get to that.
>> and I think russell from its did a more defined number, and that number dropped to 36. 236,000?
>> right. What I was going from was 150 to 198 and then from that to 236. The latest increase that we were increasing is the ips increase. Now that we have all the figures ready, pbo would have been supportive of it for fy '04. The question that was posed to pbo was in order to address inefficiencies to get this done sooner, how could we get this accomplished in fy '03. Obviously this project is not funded in fy '03. The question was can we borrow from the airport boulevard project in the co. And the answer to that was no, however, let me talk to david and let's see what creative ways we can figure out to get you where you want to be to present some options to Commissioner's court. The options that I presented to roger were based on some assumptions that I知 assuming are no longer valid. Let me go over those real quick. The 236, what I discussed with david and would be allowable under the co is to use $236,000 from the fy '03 co for this usb project. Then in fy '04 if those funds are needed for airport, to finish out the airport project, whatever capital funding the Commissioners fund would like to do at that time for the airport building. However, my assumption was that it would not be needed until fy '04 for the airport boulevard building. And I知 assuming that that was not possible, and that both the airport boulevard building and the usb building are needed in fy '03. And if that is the case, the only option I know of is easy and reachable is car. And I can tell you what's in car right now and I can also tell you that we have assumed an additional $200,000 will be spent from car for the remainder of the year. Right now car has a balance of 461,000. That was a very long answer to a short question, and it might have been somewhat confusing. If you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them.
>> let me understand this. Right now we have a balance in the car reserve of (indiscernible).
>> that's correct.
>> the whole expenditure for the usb move-in for dro is a total of 236,500.
>> that is correct.
>> is that correct? Okay. So instead of getting -- borrowing money from the airport project, what you're suggesting is that this particular money be gone from the pbo position and this particular money be drawn from the car reserve, the $236,000, since that's the balance that's greater than the 236,000-dollar.
>> that's correct. We have possible future expenses against car, which are termed ear marks. And after those expenditures, we would still have a remaining balance projected at this time of 301,000. And my only additional comment that I was making is of that 461,000, we have assumed that an additional 200,000 will be spent this year for car expenditures in general, for the entire county.
>> and see, my concern, though, was prior to you making that statement, was how the $236,500 would be paid back. And so it appears that that is an avenue -- in order, if we had to go to the deal as far as what's been dedicated and appropriated to the airport building project, since you've answered that way, the way you've answered it, it means that we don't necessarily have to touch the airport project monies.
>> with this option you would not touch the airport boulevard building project, suffer, you wouldn't be paying back anything. It would be an additional expense in fy '03, just like it would have been an additional expense in fy '04 to get the project completed.
>> let me ask Commissioner Davis' question in a different way. The preliminary budget is coming out tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. What amount due have put in there on car or any other place related to dro? We have nothing there?
>> there was nothing there, and the reason for that is when we did first draft recommendation, there was something we were trying to figure out with facilities and we got those questions answered. Second after that is we knew that it might come forward in fy '03 and it needed to be addressed by Commissioners court now. We have however -- it was not addressed for an fy '03 issue we would be supportive of it and the likely place would be fy '04 co's.
>> that was my next question. Is it already sitting there in an allocation for co's, so it would be whatever amount, we don't know, until we see the budget ourselves.
>> I believe we have right now in the preliminary budget for fy '04, 5.3 million, so it would be 5.5 million.
>> that's a five-year co?
>> that's five years.
>> it's a very small number compared to other years in the past related to what we do in co's, which we dealt with depend willing on what the circumstances are.
>> can I make a clarification? When the airport boulevard building was -- (indiscernible). We did say they were going to stay for six months in the current location. And that's what percentage is a model based on six-month or really more than $200,000. What's happened is after we know a little bit more about the project and the results of seeing it and we know that there's going to be private offices, not like an open office, so this adds the dollars up to about 193. Then we have more discussion following with the ip guys and they would like to renovate that building and bring it up to speed, and that's added another $38,000. So this is what the clarification is on the 1050, 193, and now 236. What we did in our fy '04 budget, we realized that we can speed up the project as of six months -- (indiscernible). That was budgeted for a two month in fy '04. We move it forward with the project on airport boulevard so fast to get everything -- the tax office there. So this creates a vacancy in the usb in September. So if I renovate the tax office in September, that will move the dro in October 11, that means an additional savings of fy '04 for the lease of about five months and a half than what we budgeted. So why we move it to fy '03.
>> correct me if I知 wrong, roger, because an additional savings on above what we already projected was about 60,000 in round numbers?
>> yeah, you're right about that, $54,000.
>> can I put joe harlow on the spot? Could you come forward? The last budget year we gave you a pot of money to go to good things. And we're now about six months into this budget year. Where are we in terms of your tool bag, in terms of the spending down of those dollars and is it possible that this project might come out of that pot or not knowing what your timetables are and what you've got on your plate? I don't know the answer.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> just thought i'd ask. It's okay. You're spending it down and you don't have room, that is a sufficient answer for me. I had to ask.
>> 236 is what we need to spend no matter what we do the work.
>> minus $10,000. (indiscernible) right now it's 226.
>> 226?
>> yes.
>> the answer to my question is yes? This is based on what needs to be done. Underline needs. This is what need to be done?
>> that's right. That's right. All right. So there's a recommendation on funding the car reserve?
>> I believe it's a recommendation, if this is the project that would go forward in fy '03 with the car reserve would be the most forward.
>> that's a hole lot better than trying to borrow -- [overlapping speakers].
>> move approval of the religious? Ion.
>> I second that.
>> in the amount of 226,500. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion? Any other good words before we vote?
>> well, I would just like to say that we at dro look forward to moving back to the courthouse complex. 34 out of 52 of our employees spend most of their times in the district courts, so I think for our office, we'll see a lot of operational efficiency. Our employees can now walk back and forth across the street to the courthouse and save a lot of time and a lot of driving and parking, etcetera, for part of our employees. So we'll be happy to be back near the courthouse.
>> okay. We'll let you know how we feel about it on Thursday after you move back over here. [ laughter ]
>> could pbo get some additional direction? Do you want me to bring this back or do you want to direct pbo to do that budget adjustment as an automatic? I don't have a preference, I just want to know.
>> my motion included that. [ laughter ] it's as automatic as it gets. That was part of the second.
>> yes, it is.
>> did we bite another bullet on space? [ laughter ]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, one clarification. Does the approval mean what we asked for for -- (indiscernible)?
>> funding from car.
>> car reserve.
>> and dro staff and dro visitors park at -- (indiscernible).
>> we're approving all of it.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, roger.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:52 PM