Travis County Commssioners Court
April 27, 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
Number 5 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding options for completion of the 5501 airport boulevard building, project, phase 2.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> about the -- about a couple of weeks ago, we present to you all the phase 2 of -- of airport boulevard and we would have a direction to go back and -- and the design -- the design, the area for option number 4. Option number 4 is -- it's to construct phase 2 as one single story. This is the metal building again. This metal building -- now it works.
>> are you the engineer? [laughter]
>> I am. [laughter] I am, big time.
>> let me help you with that microphone.
>> this is the media type, you know. All right. You see right here we have -- this is the entry of the building. This is a metal building right here that's 35 story high. And we work with the users, they agree with us about the layout and here is the existing county clerk area. And the green area shows the -- the criminal justice plan and the emergency services. This is the area right here with the offices, conference room and entry from here, also. Now the orange area is the fire marshal. The fire marshal in the hallway, go right here, enter this space -- also this orange area right here for the fire marshal. The blue area still has design for the imaging and print shop. Saying again the small story, what we are going to do is -- going to cut the columns and bring down the roof from 35 feet, so this is a -- so it can put a drop ceiling, you can put all of the air conditioning units, and all. The -- the yellow area right here is like about 4,000 square feet at this time. At this time it's an -- at this time they are going to go ahead and block it. We are going -- we are not going to do anything, later on, when we identify somebody can -- can be in that space, go ahead and partition it if need for the future department, we don't know at this time who is going to go there. So this is the option number 4. As -- as --
>> because it's more -- this is -- the record -- it is 22,000 square feet, the footprint of this building. About 11,000 square feet, 7,000 square feet, what's left -- I believe that it's a -- I'm sorry, that's about 11,000, this is 7,000, this is what's left about like 4,000 plus, I'm talking either front of -- about 21, 22,000 square feet footprint. So the yellow area here about this -- [indiscernible] can take this space at this time. We are going to block it until later on. We have planned that the entry for this would come from here, from the main intreef the building, also from here, open a door, have all of this space right here.
>> what does that do in our financial analysis that in my view causes us to [indiscernible] this project.
>> financial analysis in terms of lease or what --
>> ces was a major part.
>> yes, uh-huh.
>> because we got ces now leasing at two locations.
>> that's correct.
>> with the real big lease and with one that -- that I guess would be -- would be medium sized. Ces would stay at these two locations.
>> that's correct.
>> ces --
>> what does that do to our financial analysis.
>> we are going to have -- we are going to stay with the area for the building on -- for i-35, there is -- the lease will expire in August of '05, the lease -- so we are going to stay -- we are going to stay in the lease for the ces and also on 9th street they are going to stay where they are until we find a home for them.
>> those two leases are half a million annually.
>> that's correct, 449.
>> our financial analysis had us -- redirecting lease payments into that service and paying for this building in full for how many years.
>> [indiscernible] 10 years?
>> 10 years.
>> it was a 10-year financial analysis. We haven't rerun the numbers because we wanted to make sure to get guidance from the court that he wanted us to rerun the numbers, but with all of these -- these changes we weren't sure where you were going to land as far as which way you wanted to go. With the rest of the building.
>> and the cost -- the different costs of the options that you are looking at will also have an impact on that number. Now, because that lease savings for -- for ces is not going to be, would not be factored in in this option, it is going to extend that, but I can't tell you how long without knowing what your construction element is as well. Once you give some guidance on which options that you want --
>> why don't I give directions today for facilities to meet with p.b.o., Belinda, we need to know that, we need to know I guess impact on parking.
>> there would be an impact on security, too. I think that the security numbers get seen earlier.
>> money. Might be everything, but certainly number one in my view, based on discussion that's I now recollect, it mattered to everybody. So I mean we -- if we are backing away from that, then we need to know all of the facts I think. So I would think parking, security, it could be that -- that although we lose on the money, maybe there are positives for security and parking. Last time we chatted, though, the security issue had been recommendations but it really had not been resolved and -- and it -- the price tag for that was pretty hefty.
>> that's correct. And I don't know -- I don't know [indiscernible] trying to refine the numbers, the only thing on security on the outside is for the fencing and also the light on the outside. I think this -- this would come to the court in about two weeks for the security of the airport boulevard.
>> well, don't we need to see all of that before we make a decision I guess is --
>> okay.
>> I don't know -- we are sort of boxed in, but the urgency is kind of phone because we are -- kind of gone because we are in an occupied building. The question is what do we do for what three or four departments that we a few months ago were hoping would go there. So this would cost how much?
>> this costs about -- about $998,000.
>> that's already budgeted?
>> not really. It's already half -- it's about 760,000 total, including i.t.s. And [indiscernible] but I have a construction dollars left on it, it's $628,000. I have another savings from other f.m. Projects for about $150,000 can be transferred to this project.
>> this would cost less than the other option that's we have been looking at?
>> absolutely, absolutely. And the impact on parking judge is much less because you've got the ces is not going to be there, there's lots and lots of reduction in parking requirement.
>> I know it's a disappointment -- it's a change, I'm not going to call it a disappointment anymore, because I think it's appropriate that ces did not go into this building based on what we learned, unfortunately we couldn't learn until we saw what the parking use was going to be in the front. But we still have departments in leased space that we would be moving over to this building, all of those positives, we have been talking for a long time and finally got secured for joe harlow having our disaster recovery center, which is extraordinarily important, that is still a piece of this. Unless we get the print shop moved over here, there are some other related trickle down moves that unless you get them out of [indiscernible] you can't move the constable 5 in there, if you can't move him there, you can't move [indiscernible] down from 3 to 1. There's a lot of things that it is still important that we figure out ways to get at least the fire marshal, at least the emergency services folks, at least the disaster recovery, and at least the -- the -- the -- um the print shop out of there because there are a lot of other things in the very expensive downtown property that we were trying to get rearranged and resecured that are also funded by the Commissioners court.
>> but I think we need to make an informed decision. In order to make an informed decision, we need additional facts. And we certainly need the analysis to be done by the appropriate staff. I think we acted on too many generalities last time. We are in a little hole here. My recommendation, though, is not to dig it deeper and go deeper. We have -- we ought to do what we ought to do. But we ought to know what the facts are, too. So i've asked about three or four areas that I think need to be done. If I think of additional stuff I will send you an e-mail. Members of the court, I did the same thing and share the same thing with the other court members. But the county attorney will tell us we should not respond to these e-mails right, john? We would never do that now.
>> can this be done in a week?
>> I have concern also on this. I did speak with you yesterday on this, roger. And of course [indiscernible] I think it's something that we need to really put my arms around, figure out how we're going to do that, as far as giving it to p.b.o., I guess maybe resolve some of this stuff. But when I have visited out at the airport site, there is still, in my opinion, a parking problem during the daytime hours especially. There isn't enough parking. We to really strive to find a parking slot. These particular, with the additional parking that will be made available, what we are doing here, I think, will be probably part of the answer that I'm looking for, but still again need to be a little more specific for me. So from our conversation yesterday, I know you know what the specifics things that are requested. So I'm really -- I really don't mind dealing with it, but dealing with it on a -- contingent on those things because I think we need to -- we need to be more specific and not as generalized judgment as stated earlier on this stuff. So i'll be more happy when I get more [indiscernible] in this stuff and we go from there.
>> may I address one comment.
>> go ahead.
>> we have a parking in back, once we finish the reconstruction of the parking lot in the back, we have enough parking for our employees to park in the back, this would relieve some of the parking up front for our visitors. Now, we -- [indiscernible] we are short about $318,000. To complete this project right here of -- of option number 4. And just -- we will try to -- we need to go back into the dine right here. This is -- the design right here. This is not the final design. This is the schematic. [indiscernible] we need to have about two or three months to redesign this schematic and finish it up, then we have about two months for bid and then can be about five months for construction. So I will be finished from this until February of '05, or March '05. Therefore the $218,000 we are asking for -- for the 10% contingency, it's -- you can put this for that item, [indiscernible] budget item for this coming year. We are not asking for the money right now.
>> I understand that.
>> this is the source of money that I think p.b.o. Will [indiscernible] will come from.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> john, you don't have to worry about an e-mail coming from me because I'm fixing to give you a voice mail. I am not happy with this. I mean, I agree with the judge 100%. My decision on buying this facility was predicated on the number that's we were give -- number that's we were giving and the facilities that were going in there. Now we're $300,000 short on this, we -- we are going to have to continue to lease space that we did not think that we were going to have to lease. We're in conversation about buying more space. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Again, we're back to planning, we're back to a deal where all of a sudden we didn't think about how. How do we not think about parking. Parking is a huge, I'm not throwing rocks at you, roger, I'm just saying how this thing is presented to the court. It makes me nervous whenever I am presented with something, it looks like that it is a good deal on paper. I mean I can look at a paper deal and say, yeah, it's a good deal. But it's predicated on whenever somebody brings me information saying these are the things that's going to take place and they are going to happen. Now, some of those things have not happened. I'm -- I'm not happy with it. For us to have 4,000 square feet here, we don't really know what's going to happen with it, it's not acceptable to people in the community, these are mistakes that we cannot make. I mean somebody needs to be in that space, needs to be somebody that was told to be in that space from the get-go. We figure out a way. If parking is a situation with --
>> parking is a problem.
>> because apparently the parking is a problem.
>> yeah, it is.
>> there is no doubt about it. For us not to have recognized that with having, you know, a large department out there that -- that pays a lot of parking, maybe some of our parking woes will go away once we secure the building more and we can move more by our employees in spots where now they don't want to go because by god you get molested going to your car. I'm totally supportive of that. But I -- I don't want this -- this swept under the rug, I mean, this is very disturbing to me. To find out if we have got a gap, that we have somebody that's not coming, that we have to stay in rental space and for one want to be fully briefed as to how we are going to deal with this and that this stuff is not going to continue to have -- this is not the first time that we have said oops the design doesn't work for us. That basically is what we have got. We had people that were going to come into this building, I think everybody knew who was going to be in that building. All of a sudden there are issues with it. So I'm -- so I will wait for the numbers and for the information that the judge has asked. But I think that he is right on point with this because had I known this was going take place, I would have much different opinion about buying this building. And doing the things that -- that we are doing. I mean I think consolidation is great. But, you know, something is amiss in this particular situation for sure.
>> I will wait for the estimates. I think that it's a good deal, should go back and redo the -- but I think this is based on the space committee of -- and the work that we did for several months trying to -- to determine a long-term vision of where we wanted to be and what we needed to do. In order to -- in order to achieve those long-term goals. And for the downtown area, because of the -- because of the problems with parking and then other things. But experience tells me, though, that -- whether it's personal at home or whether it's here with public business, is that you have to kind of wait and see what you -- you can kind of envision things and until you see reality, and people move in, it doesn't make sense and I think what we need to do in the future is obviously make room for the changes that are going to have to be made in order to fit into the area that you have, it happens when you buy a house, too. It happens when you build a house. And it's just parted -- part of the experience of envisioning something, but it doesn't make sense until reality sets in, you begin to put things where you think they belong. And oops it's -- it wasn't enough space because you bought something a little bigger. But parking is just something that we have to deal with. No matter where we are. But one of the main reasons we have been looking at some of the -- some of this -- is so that we can deal with the parking downtown, which is a major problem. And so -- so but Commissioner it's not it's not something that we are just doing on a whim. It comes from the space committee work that we did for several years. And so we are just trying to -- take it one step at a time. But I think you know nothing is lost by going back and now trying to see, to have p.b.o. And belinda and others work the numbers so we will know exactly where we are.
>> shortage of parking, we have been told there's a wrong kind that too many small, too many spaces for small cars.
>> I agree.
>> if you need to enlarge some of the spaces, we teed to know what number we are left with after that, don't we?
>> that's right.
>> and that space behind the building if we can make safe to use, we can have employee parking back there.
>> yeah.
>> > but this right here, we end up with empty space and with us in lease space that doesn't make sense.
>> we don't have anybody in the [indiscernible]
>> empty space here, we need another $300,000, and then half a million dollar in lease payments that we anticipated we would use toward that service we are told we may not be able to use. So -- so seems to me there are too many shortcomings here for us to act on today, that was just my point. It does seem to me that we ought to have these issues addressed in a memo that would enable us to make an informed decision. The other thing is -- is that if we cannot move all of ces out here, my question would be what part of it can we move? Now, there is ces downtown. Right? That is smaller than out on 51st and 35. If we just move that part, we save those lease payments. I don't know whether this space is sufficient to cover space needs for the downtown people or not, but I think we ought to at least look at that. If they cannot do it, the question is who do we have in lease space that can move out here? And I guess a lot depends on how much space that you need.
>> that's correct.
>> I'm looking for a memo that sets that out.
>> that's correct, judge. We are looking on the lease facility who can take up about 4,000 we don't have anybody that can take up 4,000. But anyway we will go back and research a little bit about union probably the plan, try -- about, you know, probably the plan, try to fit the ces right here in the downtown area, they are on 6,000 square feet of rent of lease space. We need to look at the program again with the -- with -- with the ces to see if they can fit right here on this space. Reprogram this area right here to make it happen. Just as you mentioned one thing about the parking. The parking we went into depth, into detail on the parking, who bought the buildings. I believe dusty can -- dusty can -- can speak to the fact that, you know, it's double -- double the number of cars, the people coming to the tax office than there was right here. I believe right there that's -- we are experiencing so many people coming and going to those buildings. It was not anticipated before. We woe took the numbers, what the county clerk has, what the c.s. Has, all of the parking, other analysis, how much mark parking they have, how much --
>> we counted the parking in the back of the building right?
>> yes. Except several people we need to fix park in this the back so we can get more parking in the back. Issued about -- okay, there's compact cars, only like about seven or eight feet, versus a regular car which is nine to 10 feet. That's true. We have this type of situation.
>> five or six issues, though. May view is -- we are here. And now we -- how we got here is pretty important, more important than that is where do we go from here.
>> that's right.
>> should we figure out okay what is the fix. What would it cost. The fix should cover five or six issues, in my view. I'm thinking we may as well go ahead and do it right this time. Doing it right is utilizing whatever space there is there. And whatever parking spaces we got making sure that they are safe. And that they don't promote collisions, which is what we're -- if you squeeze a big car into a space too small, you have a whole lot more accidents than you want to. That's what I'm hearing. I have observed these, but I have heard it from people who have used the building. The one or two times that I was out there, parking was a problem.
>> it's a problem, it's a big deal. So little a big deal. So it is a big deal.
>> from my perspective is how do we fix these, what's the worst. But there are five or six of them.
>> five or six issues.
>> sounds like we use less compact cars than what's lined out there. That's an unforeseen thing as well that we need to adjust for it.
>> when people can't fit into a small space, they are going to take two small spaces that's inappropriately using it. Whereas if you actually evened it for s.u.v. Style you could probably have more useful space. I think what roger is touching on there, what we have seen here is pent up demand a lot of people who knows where they were parking to try to access either the tax office or last time that I was out at dana's shop to drop off a document, there were people that hang out there all day. You know in terms of these researchers, who knows where those folks were parking or getting dropped off or whatever. But now they have a situation where they can bring their vehicle. We have employees who never had parking places that all of a sudden have a free place to park as well. There's a lot of things going on here. What I want to make sure happens in the yellow is that we find an appropriate fit for that. If we think -- if ces is not a good fit, big ces, I'm not sure small ces is not a good fit. Because it had to do with client mix. What we found out after the fact is we thought they were going to be afternoon evening folk. Turns out there's a lot of daytime use, it was a collision course we didn't anticipate.
>> all we had to do was ask and she would have told us [multiple voices] this happened yesterday.
>> I think there was a miscommunication on that.
>> the difference between pent up demand and planning and planning errors, there are planning errors here. A lot of euphemisms that you can use for that, but there were calculation problems, planning errors, and in five or six major categories. And it seems to me that if we don't accept that and figure out a way to deal with it, we are inclined to dig a deeper hole. And that's how I see it. I mean, parking lots have been built forever. With spaces the right size. I don't know what the answer is. I didn't know -- I didn't know to ask that question, but I will next time. We concentrated on the number of spaces, I just assumed the spaces were dealing with the public out there. And we advertised that this would be free park fongt public and county staff. Free parking for the public and county staff. Another reason to go out there. So ...
>> look at all of these options, look at all of these factors and come back --
>> you need a week or two?
>> we come back two -- two more weeks, we can get everything back into the -- into another presentation for helping all of this factors that you mentioned, judge.
>> that's may 11, right? Now to expedite the court proceeding, if we could get that Thursday/friday before.
>> okay.
>> judge, the other action that -- [indiscernible] to reject [inaudible - no mic] let them know that we will be rebidding this project in the future. If you all could take that action today, I would appreciate that.
>> we want to reject them because we are not ready if.
>> we are changing, substantially changing the scope of the work. We need to after the redesign rebid it.
>> because we are -- we are not ready?
>> the bids are expiring, aren't they?
>> I know. Seems to me like we shouldn't go out for bid until after we saw say the -- until after we say the project is ready now to go out for bids, so we don't get into a real bad habit of constantly rejecting bids after people have really gone to a lot of work to put those bids together.
>> any issue from the county attorney on that?
>> no, they are in agreement with us.
>> they said you could take that action under this --
>> to reject all bids.
>> reject all bids and --
>> that's my motion.
>> second.
>> by doing this you will notify the parties that submitted bid.
>> yes.
>> any discussion of that motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Abstaining Commissioner Gomez. And we will have this back on the agenda on may 11th.
>> I had one question.
>> two weeks from today.
>> related to the financial analysis. I know on the security issues that you were presented with both operating options and capital options that you did go ahead and give direction to look at costing for the capital operations, do you want me to consider the operating operations or leave that out of the boat or all three scenarios at this time?
>> I think that we ought to be able to see both of them.
>> have an option with the operating and one without.
>> don't you think? We need to see that.
>> sure.
>> that way we get the full picture. Back off option.
>> okay.
>> in my view.
>> thank, belinda. I would err on the side of providing more information than we need rather than too little.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:46 AM