Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 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 5
Thank you very much. Now, on item no. 5, can it wait until April 6th?
>> no, sir. We have -- we are [inaudible - no mic] 5. A. Consider and take appropriate action on options for completion of the 5501 airport boulevard building project phase two; and b. Consider and take appropriate on contract, contract modification and making of contract for base bid or alternate no. 1 to barecky construction company for the airport boulevard building - phase 2 renovations, ifb no. B040056-mb.
>> [indiscernible] roger el khoury. Facility management recommends to approve option number 1, option number 1 is to construct a portion of phase 2. Print shop [indiscernible] [indiscernible] construct a new second floor structure. The new structure will not be a [indiscernible] ready for future buildup. Finally, [indiscernible] south side of the building that will shade the windows and complete the facade. I知 looking at option number 1. Recommend option number 1 at this time. Because it has all of this -- this steel structure right now. Because of the -- because of the columns and the joists and [indiscernible] for option number 1. The second page, the third table, it shows that the bid is about $1.1 million. The value engineering is about 63,972. It costs of the option number 1 million-36. $760,000. We supplement the funding from savings realized on facility management project, which is on table number -- the [indiscernible] the majority of that coming from the savings that we have on [indiscernible] community center. The total savings from the project is 228,583 collars. $228,583. [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic] I知 asking the court to approve the transfer with the fund from the project that have a saving to the airport project. I知 not asking for an additional fund from the court. Option number 2, we will -- we will complete the project to the budgeting process and [indiscernible] request to fib the project. To physical therapy the project. Just a brief -- to finish the project. Just a briefing on that, we have -- we have -- we have the option number 1 -- I知 sorry, right, the option -- option number 1, again as I said, required no additional funding, but rired that the court -- required that the court approve a budget transfer savings from project about 328,583. For an fy '05 budget request would then be made to complete the project for option number 2. Application for funding only option number 1 are that -- that the [indiscernible] education service will remain at the 4920 i-35 location at the lease building until the lease expired in August of 2005. And the [indiscernible] education service will also remain at the west 9th street lease space until March 2005. Jps, e.m.s., Will remain at west 9th street lease -- at the lease space until March 2005. I met yesterday with dan [indiscernible] and michael, and both of them are on board with this schedule. So I ask for approval to transfer the money and move forward with the project.
>> I want to be clear, even though it would not cost the court any more money for this year, we will be looking at fy '05, continued lease costs of 369. 369,000.
>> so if we don't do this, who stays where they are mow?
>> see -- ces, the counseling education services center stays out there at ih 5 and is it 51st? 49th street. And then danny hobby's, the emergency management and the justice in the public safety also stays on 9th street.
>> when the requirements are building -- the building initially planned it, we expected certain departments to be there.
>> that's correct.
>> what departments are there now that were not intended to be there initially?
>> all of the department will be there. 7.
>> did we plan the second floor from the beginning?
>> no. [multiple voices]
>> did we plan to do the second floor from the beginning.
>> no, sir, at the beginning no. It was brought in later to save more --
>> that's what I知 having a hard time understanding. Why is it that we have a second -- we need a second floor now.
>> go ahead.
>> thank you. During the phase 1 project when we constructed the tax office, the tax office required a drive through. When we built the building, we have about 70,000 square feet air conditioned space area and the rest of it which is about like 30,000, plus, is not air conditioned area. There is an -- where we have the nursery, right now phase 2 when we are going to construct this used to be a lumber yard. Those two were not air conditioned, so that's the makeup of 104,000 square feet. When we planned the project, we thought that we could do the drive through different location now, but it's not feasible, it's not constructable except the way it is right now. So we [indiscernible] that space about 14 to 16,000 square feet for the drive through, so we have to make it up somewhere. So we make it up in a second level and the -- and the -- the whole structure. The ceiling on that is about 25,000 -- 25 feet high ceiling. So we can put second floor with no problem.
>> so the drive-through part was not anticipated initially.
>> that's right. The drive through was, but not at that particular location site.
>> the drive through necessitates the second floor --
>> that's correct.
>> and when we approved the drive through, we knew that.
>> the drive through was also a part of -- was always a part of the plans just like it is here. I believe --
>> what would really help, I think what you have to do with this, you have to go back to those sheets, judge. When they brought the first time they showed us the airport project. Go all the way back to that because that's where they had here's what's coming out of this lease space, here's what's coming out of this lease space, here's what's coming out of all of this. That -- that's something that I mean all of us probably have I mean in the 7,000 pieces of paper in my office. But if we can see that I think it would clear your question up, judge. I think you are on the same page with me. I知 looking at this, going what was it that we okayed auto the airport -- on the airport when we did the bonds and co, all of the combination of things that we did buying this building and moving out all of this lease space. The bottom line is in order to get all of the things I think that we -- that are on that page right there that we had back at budget time last year, we are really showing that we are going to have to get additional dollars to build a second floor and to get all of those things in this building, which is the reason why we are going to have to come back for the '04 '05 budget here to do this. If you boil this down, that's what you are really asking for.
>> that's right.
>> the fire marshal [indiscernible] and those other departments, hav an issue -- have an issue with moving into a building with a -- [indiscernible] have access to parts of the building stay and night. Do you know that or do you? They told me. Have we been able to address those concerns and allay them. What they are saying is that it's not a good mix in their view. They point to scientific rooms and evidence and this, that, already there are security issues and they see those compounding when all of ces, counseling education services participants move out there. If I may say, back before 2003, when we brought this program, this design to the court, we discussed all this issue with danny hobs and the fire marshal and the rest of the folks, you know, to see -- that was not an issue at that time. They signed on the plan and everything, there was no no issue on that security. Yesterday I met with them.
>> they didn't mention it because they mentioned it last week Thursday.
>> they mentioned to me about the security issues right now. We have a problem if we can get the sheriff to have a security personnel right there. But it was never an issue before, we had the courts right here, discuss this issue. We -- we carry on the direction that we did the design, finished the design and everything and based on that assumption. They signed on the project.
>> I知 -- [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> what I知 saying is a little bit like where somebody signs off on something now is kind of like uh, --
>> they are also located in the building sharing space with other clientele moving through that building, moving to criminal issues, there obviously needs to be a security plan in terms of the people just unfettered do not get to wander around a building in areas that you have no business in. I would say you shouldn't be able to get into county clerk's space if you are not authorized to be there, or the tax assessor's space unless you are authorized to be there. Same thing in this new third section, you would ought not to be able to wander around into areas you are not authorized to go in. We need to make sure that that is thought through thoughtfully and we have a plan in terms of at gets time locked down. We have got that issue just in this building alone in terms of there are floors and office that's get time locked. You can't get into them.
>> it sounds like we are going to have to, before we spend any money whatsoever, that we go back to the parties again and have them recheck, you know, the plans to see what's going on and see if they still agree with the original plan that they signed off on. Because those are change orders, those are what caused the increase in prices. And we talked about that in the past. That you know trying to avoid those change orders so that projects come in on time and under budget in possible.
>> what's the deal on the steel prices? If we take two more weeks, what happens?
>> well the -- on the market right now the steel price is going up, about like 2 or 3% per week on that. It might have a little bit more dollar to it. That's all. I don't know how much dollar it would be because it's a contractor controlling the price right now.
>> I don't think we ought to spend a million if the people that go there are not going to be happy with it. I think that these are issues that we need to work through.
>> okay.
>> we can bring them with us next week and go back to what you originally approved when you bought the building and list the exact differences.
>> not only that, but -- but the apartments there now have security issues. We had a meeting about that.
>> yes, sir.
>> did we put in place a temporary solution or a permanent one.
>> we put together a temporary solution and addressed some of the permanent issues like the alarm system, make sure that that was functioning. But if you recall, overall what they are looking for was a -- was a -- an armed deputy and that has not been addressed.
>> I just think we ought to take our time and try to do the right thing. Get back with them, find out, if they don't want to go here, what's the alternative. On the security issues, if they go there, what additional security costs are we looking at. At some point we have got to annualize security costs out there, to see exactly what they are. I mean, I don't know that it makes sense for us to force people to go to a certain location where the lighting is questionable, we think fencing is needed, the cameras -- the rest of that stuff, we ought to put that in place. We have enough people there I think to justify them being comfortable that they are safe. During the election time, you have got people out there kind of late at night, also.
>> uh-huh. Seniors as well as retirees who are working for a little bit of nothing. So I would think if nothing else we owe them probably a better working environment.
>> I recall now that the court also asked the sheriff to take a look at the property and develop a plan, check with her to see where the -- what the status is.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> any additional comments that you must give today?
>> no, sir.
>> that you would like to give then? [ laughter ]
>> okay. Roger met with us yesterday, and I think y'all have already laid out the issues. And I think that if y'all are comfortable with us discussing that or things can work out better, that's fine. But I think he has a good plan that he's working on.
>> let's get with the sheriff and get those security recommendations back and put a price tag on them also. Know where we're going. Is that okay on this item? Got it back on on April 13th? Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:40 PM