Travis County Commssioners Court
February 24, 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 30
Number 30 is to consider and take appropriate action on options for proceeding with the physical plant analysis of the jail operations study.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> with regards to the jail operation study and options for moving forward with the physical plant assessment, we were asked last week to gather some additional information for the court to consider as they look at the options. In your back June, I have a memo that -- backup, I have a memo that summarizes some of the additional information that we have, and I want to first of all say that we were trying to get the cost information from the consultant. I received an e-mail first thing this morning with their proposal so i've not in a chance to review it and make sure that we have any questions getting back to them and making sure we have apples to apples with what we're seeing versus what they proposed before. I just wanted to make that footnote too. Some of the things that we gathered in addition to what we presented last week is, first of all, some of the differences between what was originally in the proposal from the consultant and then also what was proposed from facilities management in their work to cover tc 1 in the scope of work. Facilities management had proposed to do a comprehensive inspection of the jail facilities, and that was -- that was what they had put in their work and that was going to take an additional six months. And they had also worked on the assumption they were going to have the jail -- existing facility staff, the mechanics out there to assist them in that work. That's what they were basing their time line on. The assessment is a more thorough than what was in the original scope of work. The original scope of work called for observation of the facilities and observation is a little more appropriate assessment building on what the existing records are on the conditions of the facilities and doing a visual observation of the facilities, inspection and I'm sure belinda and roger can talk more to this, but it's a little more thorough assessment especially when you are talking about mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Definitely more work and more staff resources involved with that. The consultant's original proposal was based on the observation of the facilities. And the cost of doing the additional or the more thorough inspection would be greater. Like I said, we do have some preliminary information to present on that. The question of facilities management involvement ou at the jail is one that I think definitely impacts the options in the fact that the gaining of institutional knowledge from facilities management being involved in doing option 1 under this and having the current jail facilities staff to work with them on doing the inspection, obviously they are going to be impacted by any future decisions on their involvement out there and also what those benefits would be. And also lay out a comparison on page 2 in the memo. Just kind of putting together what we had discussed last week with regards to some of the differences in the time extensions and some of the work involved. I do want to make another point on this. As you kind of look that over, with regards to the staff resources, for the option 2, if it was to be contracted with to do section 2 c 1, the facilities manager has indicated he could provide some type of internal oversight to any work that was done. Also there is -- again, I received some information first thing this morning with regards to the costs of a revised estimate from the consultant for what their work would be. For the observation level work, their revised estimate was $15,000. That's including travel. For the more thorough inspection, they are proposing a cost of 34,000, and that also includes travel. And again, we have not had a chance to review thoroughly the proposal and make sure that everything is being considered in there. I know there were some questions about some of the assumptions they were basing this cost on so we need to do some additional work and verify that is indeed the final cost when all is said and done with that. And the recommendation we have at this point based on the additional information that we have is that, if indeed some of the potential time line extension and benefits from having facilities management do additional work, since that is so tied to the decision on their involvement with the jail facilities in a more expanded role, if that decision is possible, then -- can be reached as soon as possible, we can determine whether option 1 makes more sense to do. If it's not, it might make more sense to proceed with option 2, contracting with the consultant if it's going to be on a longer time frame because otherwise we're just having a delay pretty much on a day for day basis the longer it takes to make a decision.
>> okay. So do we have -- you proposed to talk with the sheriff about --
>> I asked, judge, and she will get a proposal within a couple of weeks, and then I don't know how long it will take her to make her decision, and if she wants to meet with alicia and roger and sit down with them, she hasn't made that known to me. The only thing she instructed me to do was put a draft paper together to give her options to say this is what they would look like, without really going interest tie tph eu type of negotiations. It's hard to say when the sheriff will make her final decision on where she wants to go. She hasn't given me any indication as to what she would like to pursue in the matter. She just instructed me to do the draft and I should have that done within a week and a half or so for her to review, and then I don't know how long it will take her to make her decision, judge. So if I had to guess, I would say, you know, even if she did want to even just think about pursuing something like facilities management taking over, then we would have to get with roger and alicia and basically negotiate what that would look like. So I'm thinking that's a couple of months down the road.
>> as far as [indiscernible] we left with the consultant?
>> I'm sorry, judge?
>> and the only active option at this time then the consultant?
>> if it's going to be a more significant than the other one, I would say so. Also just another note on what the consultant proposed to us is that they could start their work as early as mid-march if we decided to go ahead forward with using them. Their subcontractor is available in that time frame. We thought it mate take longer.
>> that doesn't preclude indeed what we're talking about here a transition over to facilities can't still occur. There may be an opportunity three, four months down the road in terms of being able to piggyback on this knowledge being gained, the outside consultant company. So -- but it does to me sound like we don't have an option here. The only option is going to be to contract out because we're just not at a place to commit that kind of time and energy with facilities. Facilities cannot do it without the resources of the sheriff's office. Period. And it's just -- they just can't strip it out of their department and do this very important work. They've got work to do that they've already committed to, work plans, capital improvement projects that have to be completed. Not to be put to the side for this. It's not [inaudible].
>> it will be good to --
>> I was going to say the question is can we get -- I mean, are we looking at more of an observationevel review or are we really needing more of an inspection level review, and then the question that we just don't know today is can we work to get those numbers down in terms of whatever it is in terms of negotiation with c.j.i. Which can be helpful in that sense getting those numbers.
>> absolutely. And we'll work to get some of those answers. We wanted to present the [indiscernible] for the inspection just to make sure it was more of a apples to apples comparison with what roger was proposing to do. Just for what was originally in the scope of work that we were using, it was the observation level, that's really kind of what's initially needed for t.c. 1 under the scope of work right now.
>> we're talking about laying the ground work for concept planning and getting ranges of costs, not -- not having something planned and packaged that's suitable for discussion of funding. So we're talking about the very highest level. There would be another level of planning. So you do have a choice. The issue is going to be whether or not the cost that they've presented for the inspection really is a apples to apples. I have some concern that there may not be enough man-hours listed on their proposal, but we just got it this morning to look at. And whether or not then we would have a discuss with you whether or not you think that's beneficial given transition or given someone new coming into the sheriff's office having that available. Those are kind of the outstanding issues. The original level of work, observation work because it would suffice for the concept level of work we're talking about, not for detailed planning work.
>> if you all decided to go with the consultant, i'll be glad to look over the consultant, you know, the technical review of what he's doing or her doing, and either on observation level or on inspection level. So i'll offer that help, sure.
>> we reduced to write or did we reduce to writing exactly what we expected mr. Tushard to do with the consultant?
>> yes, I believe so. I believe that's included in the scope of work as far as what the work entailed. And that's what the consultant was going off of when they presented their estimate.
>> that was put together before mr. Fushard's departure?
>> yes.
>> and there's a matching summary, a very detailed summary of what they were proposing to do that was included in their response to our request for proposals. And when we say the count will assume this responsibility, we assumed that level of work that they had proposed. So we've been speaking apples to apples on the observation level. What we need to verify is on the inspection level are we talking apples to apples.
>> no matter who does this, it seems to me that some of those mechanics need to be available to assist. And is the sheriff's office on board on that?
>> yes, sir.
>> because if -- whether it's roger or somebody from this shop or somebody from the outside, 15 mechanics will have been working in these facilities all the time are the ones with the hands-on experience and knowledge and -- this is her decision basically except for getting this study done. As to how that responsibility is covered in the sheriff's office permanently, that's the sheriff's call. But after getting this study done, I mean it's something that we need. And this is a critical part of it. That's why I think we have no choice but to go with [indiscernible] and try to figure out how to get it done, what the cost will be and the source of funding. It does seem to me to be fair salary savings that are generated by not filling mr. Fushard's position ought to be made available for us to pay for the consultant. That would seem the fair thing to do. What that amount is really we can't determine at this time. Yes, sir.
>> I guess really I kind of want to see something reduced to writing if possible. If not, that's all right, i'll just listen to what you say publicly, and that is the workload that facilities management has now [indiscernible] the number of resources, staff requirements and everything else because I know you've got a lot on your plate, roger, in your department as far as getting a lot of things done that we need done. And of course why did you outsource this [indiscernible] in-house. My justifiable reason is your workload and a lot of other things you have to do. I was kind of maybe wanting to see that reduced to some kind of writing, per se, if possible. But, again, I'm pretty much satisfied that the answer you gave is taking a look at and maybe bouncing off them or using them and assisting them as much as possible, but we shouldn't think moving in the direction where those projects taken things that you are working on right now will end up having to suffer because of this project. So that's -- that was my concern.
>> Commissioner?
>> I'm not sure that I understood that this thing was going to come down to that we had to wait for two months to find out what the sheriff is thinking about -- I mean I guess if I would have known that from the get-go, we should have just gone to the sheriff and said, sheriff, are you interested at all in facilities taking on this position. Maybe how -- I mean how long has the sheriff known that joe was leaving? I mean is this --
>> when we got the letter, I mean we had two weeks' notice. We had no indications that he was leaving our employment. So it's pretty much a surprise and shock to us. We had no advance notice from --
>> well, I guess, you know, I would be interested in saying if we could expedite -- because I really -- I mean if roger can work this thing out to where he has the time to do it, and if he can't, that's a simple deal of I can't do that which is what I told you last week, roger.
>> that's correct.
>> but if he can, I don't know why we can't expedite a meeting between roger and the sheriff and say let me see if I can bring you something where you can get comfortable. Because I think that -- I know I would be more comfortable with doing this in-house. I'm a little shaky about -- it's not as close-ended as I would like for it to be about well, we think it's going to be this and it should be around this amount, and that always fightens me. Because if we hit an amount where they think, okay, if they go beyond that number, then what happens with consultants. I think what happens with consultants, they go we're going to wrap this thing up and give it to you. And you all do the best that you can. I mean unless you want us to continue on and say, well, you know what, you need a little more and you need a little more. Given that we have a department that has the capabilities of doing this, now, if roger has the meeting with the sheriff and, david, I mean I guess maybe we can ask the sheriff are you interested in sitting down with, you know, the facilities manager and saying can I get you comfortable with me be able to take this on, if that's what roger is going to say. If that's not, well then if that's not the case, I agree with the judge, I mean we don't really have another choice. I mean it's sort of like let's get on with getting on and work with the consultant and see if we can get a more definitive number. I just think we're going to be better off in this organization the more that we know, and especially since we've got, what, 15, david? We've got 14 or 15 people that already work in this arena. I mean ong with roger's professional credentials. We obviously have somebody that can do this. But -- and maybe the sheriff won't be comfortable on expediting it and saying, well, maybe I can make this call in the next 30 days. But I would like to at least run that by her and --
>> well, you know, to answer that question, I have. I've briefed her a couple times on this. She knows how I feel about it, she knows how the chief feels about it, she knows how a bunch of other people feel about it. Commissioner she she has just not given us any indication whatsoever that she feels strongly one way or the other. She listens very attentively and then repeats the same thing. Put tonight writing, let me see. And so I -- you know, I don't know what else to do. I just have absolutely no indication on how she's leaning. You know, yes or no. And so until I can give her some numbers and, you know, outline advantages and disadvantages and benefits and the like, I just --
>> so she needs that from you versus what the committee has put together? I mean the -- the list the committee has put together doesn't have any meaning or weight to the sheriff?
>> no, she understands that, but it's really a couple of separate issues here. The scope of work, like belinda says just goes along into the planning process, and she thinks that's very important. But she also understands the difference between the cursory review and then the, you know, really detailed kind of investigation, you know, inspection that roger is speaking of. And those are two totally different things. She absolutely agrees that if in fact the decision was that facilities management would take over maintenance, that type of review would be very beneficial to roger and his staff to know, you know, for future planning where we need to go with our facilities and the like. She understands that. But for what we're trying to accomplish in the scope of work, the cursory review, she just doesn't believe that that type of, you know, inspection is needed at this time. And we agree with that.
>> well, I guess the other issue that I have is that by the time this thing gets done, we're going to have another sheriff. And --
>> we'll finish before then.
>> well, I mean we're a six month -- if we're a month away from -- we're into the third -- yes, I guess we could -- she may be able to have 60 or 90 days left. I mean -- and that's if everything works well. You know, I'm just -- I mean I'm so much more comfortable doi this thing in-house than going outside, but is it out of -- is all of this out of her budget?
>> pardon me?
>> is this 50,000 that we're talking about, is this out of sheriff's budget or is this out of the general fund budget.
>> the 15 will be out of our budget.
>> and the follow-up with the 35 or --
>> well, that's the option. Yeah, the 15 is for the observation level which is what's required. 34 would be the more thorough inspection. Again, that was just to compare with what roger was initially proposing.
>> [inaudible].
>> it would seem to me if you have a new sheriff or a new whatever title mr. Fushard had, it would help to give that person an inspection report that really is meaty more than observations. See what I'm saying?
>> I agree.
>> in the long run, I think that we benefit from doing on more serious project. The other thing, though, is one question is what would the sheriff like to do. The other thing is what is facilities capable of adding to its current plate.
>> right.
>> roger can help out. That can be done. But in terms of just stepping in and covering this full-time position as mr. Tushard did and carrying on the other duties and responsibilities, it's a bit more serious. I'm not just discarding the possibility of facilities taking it over, it may be be something we need to take a look at. Then when the permanent move is made, we will make it knowingly fully aware of all the circumstances, consequences, et cetera. It's a kind of big deal, I think.
>> yes, sir.
>> what's clear to me too is that even if facilities were to take it over, we really need a tushard type person, right?
>> that's correct.
>> maybe roger would be in a supervising -- would supervise that person if facilities takes over. And that would cost a little bit more than it's cost the last seven years unless we reduce the number of mechanics. Whether we can do that depends in part on the workload and some other factors that may take a while for us to look at. I mean so I'm thinking that in order for us to keep the study moving, the consultant approach is the one that we ought to proceed on. But the specifics that we are lacking today, we ought to have before we take action. And so what I have in mind really is us making sure we understand the difference between the scope of work for the observation compared to the scope of work for the inspection. And cost that out. We ought to be convinced that the inspection will get us what we need. I mean, I don't know that we ought to try to save 10 or 15 dollars. More important to me would be us getting what we need, determining what that will cost, and then identifying a source of funding. Which I'm hoping we can do in a week. And then when the sheriff decides whether she wants facilities to look at pursuing that responsibility, I think we ought to just set aside whatever time we need to make the determination.
>> make that in the form of a motion.
>> yes, ma'am, that was a long motion.
>> I'm with you because it sounds like you are heading into move forward with the direction of going with a subcontract we are an outside consultant and we need to move forward in terms of locking down a contract modification and specific scope of work and cost to bring back to the Commissioners court to approve. And sounds like we are going to take up roger on his kind request to assist in whatever oversight he can contribute to this task. We take up the sheriff's very kind opportunity to throw some salary savings from mr. Tushard's departure from cost of this, but we very specifically lock down whether we need an objection level or inspection level review or a blending of those in terms of the benefits and results. And to bring that back to Commissioners court. The motion I think was seconded.
>> it was seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. The action is proceed in a certain direction that we will later be able to take action on.
>> I don't have any problem with that. Roger, I just want to make sure that we know the intent of overseeing this and making sure everything is going right, I do not want to see whereby your department is overwhelmed with something that's going to be able to carry out with all the other things I know you've got going. My concern is that that doesn't happen. So I want to make sure that everybody is up front with that and when we come back through the process. Because if you have too much to handle on one plate, that means something else will become lacking on the other end which is not going to benefit us at all. We need to know all that. That's it.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:44 AM