Travis County Commssioners Court
February 17, 2004
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 1
1. Consider and take appropriate action on options for proceeding with the physical plant analysis of the jail operations study. I'm not sure that we are ready for action today. I thought it would be a good idea for us to lay it out. Make related decisions between now and next Tuesday so next Tuesday we will be ready for action. Good morning.
>> good morning. Under section 2 c 1 of the existing scope of work, Travis County is to conduct a -- an assessment of the condition of the facilities and update the existing life cycle of those facilities, that includes an analysis of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing for those jail facilities. Now, under the original plan, the facilities engineer, Travis County sheriff's office was to be the expertise to conduct that piece of this assessment. Due to a recent departure, the team is looking at ways to proceed in lieu of that. So the remaining members of the physical plant assessment team have come up with some options for moving forward on this. This is based on what they have come up with. There are two -- there are two main option that's we have at this time. And, again, the -- the pluses and minuses of this, of these options are really from a project management perspective. And there might be some additional impacts in other areas, but we are only speaking from the project management side of this. The first option is to elicit participation of Travis County facilities management to complete the physical plant assessment on this piece. We had some discussions with them and based on talking with them, there are a couple of benefits that come to mind. One is the -- the internal expertise is there. The existing director of facilities management has the expertise to conduct this component of the study. There are minimal lower project costs associated with this, that's not counting any cost of workload or any other cost for facilities management. That's just strictly for project costs. And this could also assist facilities management in building some institutional knowledge of the jail facilities as they do this assessment. Some of the potential impacts on this, this could potentially push the task completion date back six months according to discussions with the director of facilities management. This would probably take an additional six months to complete. Just based on the existing workload that that department has and also in consideration of the fact that they have taken on about 19 additional projects I know out at the jail. Also that will mean that for any other parts of the study that are impacted by the fiscal plant assessment, those also will be pushed back. You are also looking at parts of the financial impact analysis and then of course the final report would also be pushed back about six months. There are also additional impacts on facilities management workload considering that they do have a considerable workload at this time. That to take on this additional work, but again the time line that the -- that the director gave is what we are going on. It's six months and probably at least six months to do this. Also, the impact on facilities management staff resources to complete this physical plant assessment and consideration of any compensation for that staff to take on the workload and another part might be because this piece is being moved out about six months, there might be some additional cos is that -- that might be incurred by the consultant to do some additional trips. I know that they were planning to get some efficiencies in doing a couple of different tasks per trip. So if we move the time line out there might be some additional trips included. Now we are anticipating those are going to be included in the existing costs, but there might be some additional, we are just saying there might be some additional travel costs associated with that. Option 2 is to ask the jail consultant to conduct a physical plant assessment. Now, in the original proposal, that they had submitted, they had submitted a -- a -- to do the piece of this and they had talked about using subconsultants or subcontractors to conduct this piece of the unless. And the -- those people have the expertise to do this. What the benefits of that would be is it would be a little bit shorter time-line compared to using the facilities management to complete this. And that would also mean a shorter time like for finishing up the final report, it's in the financial impact analysis. This would also mean that there would be needed additional negotiations with consultant to amend the scope of work. Also like I said it would be a shorter time line intention, but still would be a time line extension of probably three to four months, depending on when we actually get the contrac negotiations completed with the consultant. Based on this we are just anticipating this would be done by April first so we can go ahead and move forward get that completed by August/september of 2004. Again as I mentioned that will move the final impact and final report completed back about three or four months, based on the initial proposal that was done by the consultant for this piece of work, the estimated amount to do this would be $15,000.180. But again that's based on a -- 15,180. There are things that have changed. Again that was assuming that there would be a facilities engineer at the sheriff's office, there might be other factors that would change, we would have to go back to negotiation to figure out exactly where that cost would be, but that's a good estimate of where we're at. That's basically an outline of the different options.
>> two options?
>> yes. Facilities is goshting with the -- negotiating with the sheriff's office about a permanent responsibility for construction projects at -- in the sheriff's department and related matters. And do we think that we'll -- we'll bring that to a head this week, roger. Or do you know?
>> roger el khoury, facilities management department. If you want to answer the question, about six months of the studies, I think, for facilities management --
>> my question, though, is when we decide whether or not facilities assumes responsibility for del valle construction projects and other construction related matters this week or is that something that we think will take two or three weeks.
>> if I understand the question correctly, judge, that's already been decided. Roger and his staff has taken on the responsibility to sign-off on the documents to be the project manager of the -- of the projects ongoing right now.
>> that's for emergency projects that required immediate monitoring. That is not the -- the three or four pages that I saw. Of the three or four pages that I saw, there were six or seven projects that needed somebody out there immediately, right?
>> well, let me add to it.
>> I think that that decision would have to be approved by the Commissioners court.
>> absolutely. We took on the project just on a -- on a -- like a -- tell the court to make a decision on that, when the sheriff approval and all. We at the facility management, we -- we look at the project, that's really 16 projects, 19 projects construction and actually three of them is already finished. And the 16 project we look at the scope of work, we look at what that does involve and we -- we think that it's within our expertise, we can move on and just pick them up and tell the court -- until the court decide what they want to do with the construction for those projects. Some of them are under study right now, some of them are under review by the lawyers and some of them in the bid process. So -- so we -- with just facility management, we move in just to fill the gap until the court may make a decision.
>> maybe that question isn't important.
>> actually, it is important.
>> I have three or four others.
>> sorry.
>> my second request is that we feed to see the workload of -- we need to see the workload of facilities already. The four or five project that's have surfaced with various issues that have to be dealt with. Precinct 4 building, airport, including securities, and precinct 2 office.
>> sure.
>> the northeast metro park. Are you doing any work on east metro park?
>> yes.
>> that list has to be fairly long, so I -- I need to see exactly what facilities has on its plate. And try to figure out whether other stuff can be added. Now, the matter that we are looking at right now really involves two fairly doesn't responsibilities. One is the current project is an ongoing responsibility for them. The second one would be the study that we need to complete for our own good as well as for -- for you reporting back to the state jail commission as promised. Some time ago.
>> all right.
>> but it seems to me that we ought to look at what the facilities workload is right now. We will get alicia down and try to answer that first question. And if we need to post an item to give us an opportunity to address that next week, so be it. That is what we do with facilities in the current projects.
>> yeah.
>> Commissioner?
>> I was just going to say the point to the question is this: if facilities is going to be taking on the responsibilities for physical plant out at tcso on a permanent basis, then it seems to me that there is some -- some benefit for facilities to be actively involved in the assessment of everything out there because you are going to ha to do it anyway. So it's a wonderful not only learning experience but to kind of learn exactly what you have inherited because that is going to be a permanent task. But if we are not going to be transferring this over to them as an -- as a permanent task, then that gives us a different decision to make in terms of, well, is this a good use of their time and energy or we -- or are we better off spending the amount of money to get the results because that's what's really key here. But I think where I'm headed is facilities to permanently take over all duties and responsibilities. But that's a big deal because it involves the transfer of f.t.e.'s and the budget and I wouldn't do it unless there was a full transfer of f.t.e.'s in the budget. That would have to -- that would have to involve the consent of the elected official involved because we are in the middle of a budget year. So that's really -- do we have a sense that we are going to be bringing the big decision to the court related to physical plant, in which case I would say having facilities involved from day 1 in terms of the assessment in this report is extraordinarily important. But with if we are not headed in that direction, well then, you know, I can evaluate it in a different light.
>> I don't know if we are head understand that direction, I'm going to be making a proposal to the sheriff that will outline three different options that I believe we could, you know, that she and the chiefly be able to review. One of them includes turning everything over to facilities management. Of course one of them includes nothing ever changing. We just are hiring another engineer to fill his slot and, you know, continuing on as we had been. Those proposals should be made to the sheriff fairly quickly. Hopefully she will make a decision within a couple of weeks. So I don't know. You know, like I agree with you, Commissioner, it's her decision, i've had very, very brief conversations with her, but, you know, she hasn't been presented with a proposal.
>> well, we also have this is because we are outside of the window of this thing called budget. This Commissioners court has the right during every budgetary process to decide where its resources are best spent and that can be a decision that gets kicked to us.
>> sure.
>> come August/september. We can control where f.t.e.'s are placed because of the things that we need to get done.
>> I'm just -- I'm just saying I haven't sat down and had a long conversation with the sheriff. That's -- that's all.
>> do we have a -- is there a -- does that figure in the consultant's cost, taking on the additional responsibility pretty firm?
>> I would say not at this time. That's based on a prior estimate and prior proposal that they had done, it was done, that price was given for that specific task and the scope of work, so I would say that it's definitely in the ballpark, but I wouldn't say that it's --
>> can we get confirmation by next Tuesday.
>> possibly, but it was my understanding that we needed to figure out what option we were going to proceed with so that we could start those discussions with the consultant.
>> just ask the consultant if based on responsibility to this, describe it for them, what would the additional cost be. We need to know that. Because another question would be if we transfer this to facilities, what would the net cost, if any, be? Do we save money, do we -- you indicated that we may lose two or three months in terms of project completion. What's the good news of that. We can get that answer next Tuesday, also. But I investigation we ought to do just a side by side comparison of the two options excluding whether or not facilities really can take on this added responsibility. The other thing is somebody needs to figure out, try to quantify the responsibility. I mean, you are talking about a -- a manager in 15 -- and 15 mechanics there called I think, which seems to be a -- a fairly sizable workforce.
>> huge.
>> yes.
>> and that I didn't know there were that many buildings out at del valle as I -- as I learned from the report that I got I guess from the sheriff's office, but there are a lot of building out there. I guess there's a need for it, 15 or 16 people. That's a whole lot of additional responsibility to take on. And -- I don't know that we can accomplish a lot more today. But it seems to me that if we get answers to these questions, we will at least be able to make an informed decision next week.
>> okay. Anything further today?
>> I would like to make one comment. Roger, can -- to you in particular. You are -- you are a person that always comes to us and wants to -- wants to impress us and do a good job and you do a wonderful job. I mean, but -- but I'm really -- I really am going to rely on you telling us whether this workload is too much. Then on michael as to which way we should go with this thing. So do yourself some good and don't play the tune that -- that I want to hear. I mean just tell me the truth, I mean, because if you were to take the thing the way we are looking at it today -- if you believe what is before us, there's really a -- a matter of perhaps two or three months differential between what the consultant says that we can do versus what you think that you can do, and the dollars aren't great there. I mean, I think we all think this is probably going to be more than $15,000. But I probably -- I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner. I -- if it's something that you are going to take on, I like the fact that -- that we are the ones that are basically doing it from the get-go. But I don't want to put you in a spot where you don't really want to tell us I don't want to do that. So I'm really going to rely on you to be up front and honest with us on that thing. Don't put yourself in a bind.
>> as always.
>> you will be able to put together a list of current projects, their status.
>> I will.
>> and the status. Those that seem to be problematic may not be as serious as -- as it seems as first blush. Somebody has to do that in facilities, I know you have a huge staff but there's only so much that you all can do. Look forward to seeing you next week.
>> a quick question, judge, what's happening with the salary savings off of mr. Trouchad's salary.
>> it will fall to the [indiscernible] budgeting force and could be available for use, perhaps, for this study or whatever.
>> because that's something that I would like to at least have tossed into the blend of analysis is that if there are salary savings that comes off of this engineer's savings here and it has to be used to hire somebody, seems like that ought to be thrown into the mix in terms of helping purchase the expertise we need because that's the whole reason that we are having to -- to -- to reboot here. Because of an opening in the sheriff's --
>> put everything reality into this gumbo that we are working up. I do think that it would be important for you to try to put your heads together this week, facilities, sheriff.
>> is it okay by the court to keep on -- that you are keeping those 16 projects at this time, until the court make a final decision?
>> I think the ones that you were working on, yes. I was left with the impression that they were urgent. The category that -- we took an emergency step to deal with an emergency situation.
>> okay.
>> but my thinking was that -- that at some point later after we gathered all of the fact and done some analyzing, we would sit down and make a -- make a decision on the permanent solution. And my first question was trying to help me decide whether that permanent solution would come next week or into the future. But it seems to me that as to the jail operation study, we teed to land on it one way or the other. And so if we know how we are leaning as to -- as to facilities taking permanent responsibility, next week, then maybe we can make a decision based on that.
>> okay, thank you.
>> it will be back on.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 6:28 PM