Travis County Commissioners Court
August 10, 2004
Item 4
4, consider and take appropriate action on options regarding various Travis County facilities. A is phase 2 options at 5501 airport, pw-rbgs, renovation and okay pan teu of 1101 nueces street building. C, counseling and education services lease at 205 west 9th street. My understanding is these options will be laid out and discussed and back on the agenda at some point in the future for action.
>> I think if we can get a decision from the court or direction from the court today, that would be a good thing, judge. And we have briefed each of the court members on the option and would like to go through them and discuss them and if we need to bring them back of course we're ready to do that. If not, then, we'll --
>> I will need at least another week. > okay.
>> I know that now. I have not been able to spend enough time on this because of other issues basically.
>> sure. Alicia perez, executive manager for the administrative operations. Good morning. We last may, I believe it was, we bought a building at 5501 airport boulevard. And completed phase 1 of that particular project. Phase 1 included the tax office, the county clerk elections, clerk administration and then the court voted a couple weeks ago to move the print shop and imaging into the building. Today we're here to talk to you about the phase 2. And phase 2 we have been working with the different departments looking at different scenarios of what offices, operations. We've looked at parking. We have spoken not only to the departments that would be located there but also to the departments that are already there about the different scenarios. We've been working with p.b.o. And belinda powell is here also to talk to the court or answer any questions you may have on the fiscal side of this project. I知 going to go ahead and turn it over to roger and jim barr that will go through each of the options. Some of them you have heard before. Others are as part of your feedback, the feedback from the Commissioners court and the occupants or the would-be occupants of the facility in developing the different scenarios.
>> thank you. Good morning. Roger, facilities management department. We have today to present to you three options for phase 2. And I would like to talk to you first about the parking situation at the airport boulevard and then turn it over to jim barr for presentation for the options. First on the parking situation, that the parking around the building has been renovated right now, redesigned, and we'll confront -- conform to the city of Austin in both dimensions and number of required space for option number 2 and option number 3. I want to emphasize that option number 2 and number 3 are within the city of Austin code, you know, as far as the space and dimension. Option number 1 was we could [indiscernible] the compliance and that would be a board of adjustment discussion with them and request a waiver. Option number 1, option number 2 and option number 3 I have listed the number of parking space on the spread sheet. The colored spread sheet at the bottom. And what I mention right there that we're going to provide 344 parking spaces. For option number 1 and the current tenant and visitors, we have 440, so that's outside the compliance. Then for option number 2 and the -- it's 281 or within the compliance we have about 134 -- 151 parking spaces for visitors and we also for option number 3 is 311 parking space required and we provide 344. And we have 210 employee, so this will be in compliance also for the parking situation. Just let me remind you that the parking is very critical here at the downtown area. The tax office, for instance, before the sheriff moved out of the [indiscernible] building, the tax office used to have only about 10 parking space their their visitors. When the sheriff moved out and facility management and the rest of the current tenant, we provided 25 parking space for the tax office in the downtown area. Now the visitors in the tax office right now arizona phase 1 before the phase 2 starts has 165 parking spaces for visitors also. I want to emphasize also the number of employees right here in the downtown area for the tax office also they did not have all parking space. Right now at the new location or the existing location at the airport, all of them have parking spaces. We got into county clerk, visitors, zero space allocated in the downtown area. Right now they have -- the visitors have the parking space. Also everybody in the tax -- in the county clerk employee, they have the parking space they can park, some of them they do not have right here. 70 parking space for employee who has the parking space in downtown area move to the airport so that relieved the parking situation for about 70 parking space in the downtown area. So I would say the parking situation is improved tremendously. It is not, you know, that we are -- sure, we would like more parking, more parking, but really we provided the parking within the city criteria.
>> roger, at the u.s.b. Building, would the tax office -- how many -- you said that there were how many parking spaces for employees?
>> at the --
>> whenever they were across the street downtown.
>> when I say it's for visitors right here, the tax office --
>> not visitors. I want to know employees -- I mean how many employees have we accommodated because of the move? Because everybody has a parking space out at airport.
>> that's correct.
>> how many people didn't have parking spaces?
>> 109.
>> so we've -- 109 people have been accommodated -- because I would suppose they were paying something.
>> that's right.
>> either meters or parking garages.
>> and let me just a caveat that that includes both the county clerk and the tax office.
>> okay. So 109 total.
>> yeah. We had 179 employees that relocated to the airport. Facilities 70. Of those employees had downtown parking and 109 did not.
>> and then also the drive-through right here, we only had the three lanes for drive-through right now on airport boulevard we have four lanes. So it's -- the parking situation improved tremendously, but also the busy guess has increased a lot, you know, at the -- at the site. I would like also to tell you that not only this, we saved about -- about $700,000 from lease savings last year by moving the tenant from the tax office and the county clerk to airport boulevard. That came from about $450,000 -- $553,000 from the lease and move them from the fifth street to u.s.b. Building and also the election moved out to airport boulevard, that saved annually about $261,000. So it's quite a improve on that and at this time I will -- quite an improvement on that and at this time I will turn the presentation to jim barr on the options 1, 2 and 3. I just want to make one comment here that I [indiscernible] either option number 2 or number 3.
>> roger, in terms of parking, though, last time we had this discussion in open court, we did identify four or five parking-related issues. Will we get to those during today's discussion?
>> that's right. Yeah, I mean that's fine. We can go ahead --
>> I thought that was why we were coming back basically.
>> sure. And roger has covered some of them, but we can update you on some of the improvements that the court approved that would also help with the parking. The fencing, the lighting, so employees could park in back of the building. Those sorts of things.
>> I can wait. I want to know weather to aoegly anticipate answers or -- [laughter]
>> okay, please --
>> go ahead.
>> I think the issue that alicia was just referring to was the security improvements, and by moving the parking -- by moving employee parking out to the back which is currently being underutilized, we can provide a whole lot more spaces in the front that would accommodate customers. The last few times i've been out there there have been maybe less than half the spaces utilized by customers, so it's real -- it's a real moving target on parking issues. But we've also significantly increased the security of the area which we think will make it a lot more comfortable for employees to park in the back which leaves more spaces in the front. The three options we've identified, option 1 is the thing that you all saw before which basically moves most of -- it moves c.e.s. From both the service center out on ih-35 and moves the intake center from 205 west 9th street. It moves the fire marshal, the emergency management services and the criminal justice planning offices, which basically fills up the metal building portion of the -- what's left at airport boulevard, which is almost 21,000 square feet. The decision that the Commissioners court made on July 20th to move the print shop and imaging has slightly modified our floor plan. We've switched the i.t.s. Disaster recovery center to -- which was originally in the concrete portion of the building, we're now putting print shop and imaging in that portion. So the i.t.s. Disaster recovery center will be in the metal building under scenario for option 1.
>> are we done with parking at the airport? Are we done with parking at airport?
>> uh-huh.
>> let me get my questions out then.
>> okay, yes.
>> the idea of designating employee parking at the back makes sense if we do several other things. So we did approve that security fencing. So are we still working on that or what?
>> yes, as a matter of fact, the three issues, the security fence, it's about seven feet tall and right now it was purchasing -- it's with purchasing. First we had one quote from the --
>> we're still working on that.
>> we're working on that right now.
>> I can accept that. What about the lighting?
>> the lighting is under construction as we speak. We're trenching and putting light poles in there. Going to be about five light poles in the back area.
>> all right. We can assign all we want to, but do we think employees will be comfortable parking in the back if these changes are made? Okay. And so if we are saying the parking, that means basically we make these improvements, we assign the parking, and employees have to park back there period.
>> that's correct.
>> because this is a significant financial investment that we're making to make this back parking appropriate.
>> that's correct. Let me mention that also, judge, that the parking in the back can have some distress in the pavement and at this time we are trying to repair that and I talked to mr. Don wheeler from d.n.r. And I think he will pit us into his schedule in October. So okayed we'll go ahead and do the -- October we'll go ahead and do the parking lot repair in the back.
>> okay.
>> thank you. [inaudible].
>> one of the things that roger and I have talked about about doing the repaving, the restriping, the installation of the security fence and the pass card to get in and the rain awning is that their construction schedule calls for them to work during October. Now, that creates a bit of an issue with elections. We think we can cope with the construction schedule during October for the early voting period, and what I mean by that is that's when our 27 to 30 locations, probably 30 locations for the presidential election will be loading up every morning very early with sheriff and law enforcement to transport back out to the locations. Typically they open at 7:00 a.m. And then back in at night. Most of them close at 7:00. A couple of them close at 9:00 p.m. Once again, law enforcement brings the ballot boxes in and locks them up for the night. So we've got this supply pickup to get things started and then we've got the daily run back and forth for the security for the ballot boxes. If we're under construction in the loading area, that's problematic for us. We think in terms of trying to cooperate, we think we can cope with early voting. Supply pickup and then the exchange for ballot boxes while we're under construction in the back. But when it comes time for the election day supply pickup where we have all of those 261 or so election judges driving in over a one- to two-daytime period to pick up their supplies, it's not going to work. Now, that's approximately October 30th that that will occur. So what i've told roger is if you can't be finished and create a safe path way for those judges, hopefully with rain cover by supply pickup day, then don't do it because we can cope with the parking lot the way it is, but we're not going to be able to get supplies to the judges if we're under construction back there. So we've got a critical part right here. We can cope with early voting, but election day will be a problem if we're not ready with that back parking lot by supply pickup time. And we've talked about that.
>> why even attempt it? I mean just -- what's the liability of just staying away from it with how it exists, and if how it exists is precluding anybody from using the spot, well then it's doable now, I mean -- we've got so many more parking spaces today even if we didn't use them, but why don't we make your life easier and probably scheduling because you never know from a construction stance whether you are going to get rain, whatever, all of a sudden you could get up there and get upside down. [multiple voices]
>> it's only just two days, right? Stop working those two days and --
>> well, we have to be cleared, I mean we've got, you know, a lot of people in big cars and, you know, I don't know if you have ever seen supply pickup, but it's quite the traffic jam. There are a couple reasons why I知 willing to take the risk. One of them is I desperately need that rain awning. I request not tell you, it -- I cannot tell you, it rains on us every supply pickup. It's unbelievable how the rain will hit us the day we're supposed to be outside. So I知 willing to take that risk because we really need the rain awning. The second thing is it's so much safer back there once this construction is done that my guys who are doing the unloading and the sheriffs that are doing the unloading and loading and all that kind of stuff are in a more protected area if we do take the risk on the construction. So that's why I知 willing to take the risk. I知 just saying that we've got to be mindful of that supply pickup day.
>> you know about these issues already.
>> sure, I知 coordinating all of that. I think we'll be done by that time.
>> moving to the front parking hrofplt, there was an issue with the size of the parking spaces. That -fps brought to our attention. What's the fix of that?
>> we're going to go ahead and restripe the parking lot in the front. You know, right now it's not -- we're going to go ahead and restripe it and in the front we're going to put some signs for visitors, and then also signs on the back, you know, to go traffic like for way finding for employees and the visitors. There's going to be a lot of signs, restriping.
>> there was an issue with the water standing at the front of the building.
>> there's one spot right there is going to be taken care of when we do the overlay on the asphalt and then we're going to put some kind of drainage structure in there to take care of that standing water. It's only one spot in front of --
>> one real big spot.
>> yeah, I mean that's what I知 saying. One spot is in the area in front of the tax office. We'll take care of that.
>> okay.
>> now, restriping, I think the real question was, as most retailers, which is what this establishment was at one time, they won't put in -- they will put in compact because that allows you to get the number of space. Are we allowing spaces in front to be regular as well as compact?
>> Commissioner, all the parking in the front and back of the building will be regular space. There's no compact. The compact cars, there's only a few along [indiscernible] which we have to do that way because the [indiscernible] in between the front and the back. But that does not cause any problems.
>> county clerk and tax assessor know about these recommendations?
>> sure. Absolutely.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> you are welcome.
>> were you done with 1?
>> yeah, I知 -- i'll move on to options 2 and 3. The significant thing about options 2 and 3, and this is perhaps a larger question for the Commissioners court, is the decision to establish a records management center. Both options 2 and options 3 incorporate a records management center in the large metal building area. Back in f.y. 2002, you all considered doing that in the -- during the budget cycle and it was determined not to be advisable at that time. That was the facility that was to be constructed new out at the starflight hangar area. This large metal building, is approximately 23 feet tall. Its dimensions lend it beautifully to the incorporation of a records center by incorporating an entire structure, which you can see in these areas, it's in essence a two-level rack system that would be independently installed within this structure and would not depend on this structure for its own subpoena pofrplt it would go from the floor, then to a mezzanine area, and then all the way up to the ceiling. It can store anywhere from -- we're thinking approximately 105,000 boxes in option 2 and about 90,000 boxes in option 3. We think that if we do this, it will allow the county at least 10 years of usage and perhaps more depending on how we utilize this space within the next -- within the coming 10 years.
>> jim, multiple times use used the expression metal building. I知 sure those not familiar with that building will think in their minds it's a lean-to, some kind of like a tool shed. Will you please just say a little about the structural integrity of this extension which is different from the main part of the building.
>> yes. It's -- it's what's called in the industry a pre-engineered metal building. It has very large steel columns. It's approximately 27 feet tall on the high end, slopes down to about 22 feet on the low end. It's sheathed in a metal skin. Our intention would be to insulate the building, to completely seal it up and to provide air conditioning and climate control for the storage of records as well as adding a topping slab on the lower floor so that whether we convert it to office space, which part of it would be, or whether we use it for a records management center, it would be climate controlled, it would be very secure. We would probably run up about eight feet along the perimeter walls a reinforced wall section to make it resistant to instraogs. So it would -- what we would intend to do would be to make this thing, you know, habitable space. And -- habitable space. There are examples all over the country. They are frequently used for office buildings and warehouses and other industrial sites.
>> thanks, that's plenty.
>> from the structure perspective, it's very sound and very safe.
>> thank you.
>> you have in your packet a blue sheet that is a cost analysis on the savings that we would have for the records center. Also some of the costs. I知 going to ask steven, head of the records management and communication resources, take talk a little bit more about the benefits of locating the records center and having a records center for active files.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Steven browburg, director of communication management resources. In 1989 we established a program to store county records off site using a commercial vendor. Since that time, we have had two major studies that we have forwarded to Commissioners court regarding the advisability of the county building and maintaining their own records center. Both of those studies showed from our point of view as well as from planning and budget's point of view that the cost was not viable. Although we could improve service levels to build and operate the center, it was not cost effective. We agreed with those findings at the time. Until now. We are -- and I would like to remind everyone that we are the only major county in Texas that has -- does not have a county-operated records center. In the past, we have had a contract that has been so advantageous that we couldn't come close to operating a center at the same costs. Our current contract ended at the end of jewel. . We are now part of a larger state contract and it has been the best contract that we could find. And as a result, the costs have risen significantly to the point that with this potential building, the costs are now in line with what it would be for us to actually operate it at a lower cost than what the contract will be.
>> was the thinking that we would move our files from the rental storage into this facility?
>> yes, judge, this is actually a hybrid solution. In the past, the costs for storage has been a flat fee. Now it is pay as you go and it's access charges per record. Every time that we ask for a record, we now have to pay to get that record. We have more records in storage or we will have more records in storage within the next couple of years than even this facility will hold. The new contract has such an outstanding feature that storage costs itself without the access charge is incredibly hroefplt it's 12 cents per box per month. That's an exceptionly low cost. For those records that are not referenced, we would like to leave a portion of those in the old facility and just move those records that are more active to this facility.
>> explain to me what an access charge is literally. Does that mean that we go over to our mountain and if we go in there and retrieve something that we need, that we have to pay a fee tore that?
>> the answer to that is yes, although the more frequent option that we would forward would be that they would access it and they would deliver it to us. But that's -- both of those options are available to us.
>> they are not charging us for going into the building.
>> the iron mountain -- you see them all the time around county buildings. And if you think about court cases, appeals.
>> it's important to emphasize that this structure at this record management center would be for the records that are indeed most active and are pulled most often. So that's where you see some of the savings. If you look at the analysis that we've provided, the first year or in f.y. '06, you would not see a savings n fact, there's a $253,000 negative for that because of one-time costs to establish the center. After that is when you start seeing the savings. So we talk about the pros to this particular option as annual record storage savings of approximately 225,000 average over a 10-year period. All we took is 10 years of savings and divided it by the 10 to give you approximately 225,000 is an average annual cost savings. This is the least parking impact.
>> I知 sorry to interrupt you, but when you said 225,000 savings over a 10-year period, of course it's also going to have to house and accommodate three new f.t.e.s.
>> that's correct.
>> is that 225,000 minus the cost to pay the three new f.t.e.s or is that -- yes, sir, that's net.
>> included.
>> we included the f.y. '06 detail. The vehicle removal charge of the boxes even for just taking them out of iron mountain, it will cost us 2.50 a box. Salaries and operating for the three f.t.e.s and then the estimated iron mountain charges. So all that's included in that.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> your access -- on the iron mountain only, is that access fee included?
>> yes.
>> so the price that we have for Travis County or the f.t.e.s, are they our pullers? And our drivers and delivery people, yes. That's the staff, yes.
>> it does -- this option also moves record management administration there and they would -- are the same administration for the print shop and imaging center. So they would be co-located. It will allow county staff to access boxes for on-site processing without requiring transportation to another location. Improve records retrieval response time. We believe that we can do that by in this option. And compatible occupancy with county clerk and tax office for records handling. A lot of the records that they have there would go to the county clerk and tax officing. There are also the building lends itself really to a records center with the very high ceiling and would allow for record storage access system. The cons were that it's the least reduction -- a reduction in lease space of the three options. In other words, your savings on lease space would probably be among the least. The savings from the record storage would not be realized until the second year, as you saw on the analysis. And it would require three f.t.e. For operations.
>> now, I understand that this -- I mean if we do the records management on the airport boulevard location, that that will take care of us for, what, 10 years, straoef even? Is that what you said, roger? I mean given the space that we have.
>> that's right.
>> have we -- obviously iron mountain, are they aware that we are contemplating this?
>> this specific proposal, no.
>> are they aware that we may be vacating however many square feet we have?
>> no, although we have had general discussions with them over the past as to all of these options, and in fact we let a bid recently that would give us an alternative storage to iron mountain. So the overall answer to your question about whether or not they would be aware we are moving some records is yes. The actual number they do not know.
>> because it may be a time to deal with them. Given that we know we're going to need more space, I mean, you know, 10 years whether be before you -- will be before you know it. There maybe some leverage, there may be some opportunities where somebody says -- kind of like us leaving the downtown parking garage. Oh, you are going to leave, how about $10 if you are going to leave. So let's not leave anything on the table that we don't anticipate that at some point in time because I would imagine that this space unless somebody is just clamoring around to take however many square feet we have, which is obviously a great deal with iron mountain.
>> Commissioner, I am perfectly welg willing to talk with iron mountain about those issues. They have indicated to me in the past this state contract is the best deal that we can possibly expect on that. Their decisions get made on the corporate level as to prices.
>> and for clarification, before we did have our own contract with iron mountain and good leverage with them as a client, but now we are jumbled in there with the entire state of Texas as a contract. And that's probably about as good as leverage as anybody. Frankly, if we vacate, somebody else is going to be saying we'll take your space.
>> then you don't have any leverage.
>> yes.
>> get out here and we'll charge somebody more.
>> right.
>> the bottom line is that if you are looking at 2015, you are talking about if we thaeubg this transition, you are talking about saving 2 million bucks.
>> correct.
>> so of the three options, 2 is the west one; is that what I知 hearing?
>> well, we believe that -- depends on what the court is looking for. That's why our recommendation is not as solid as it usually would be. That 3 probably gets you the most bang for your buck in terms of the dollars, but 2 may be the most customer friendly in terms of your record center really not needing security, having minimum parking issuance.
>> [inaudible].
>> the difference between 2 and 3 is we're going to have -- we're going to go [indiscernible] for the master court located at the airport pwhr-f, and jim will present option number 2 to you.
>> yeah, option 3 differs from option 2 in that we are talking about the possibility of moving the a.g. 4-d. Masters court which was in lease space to a portion in the airport boulevard building. This would move the -- not only the court but the administration offices, the two associate judges, their staff. It would move the tcso courthouse security screening personnel which is presently three people. We've discussed with tco transportation the impact on their operation. It seems to be fairly minimum natural. It would -- minimal. It would involve taking prisoners from del valle or the downtown jail to airport boulevard, dropping them off in the back, putting them into holding cells which we would construct that would be essentially the same program that we have at 205 west 9th.
>> 205 west 9th, that is in a commercial downtown corridor that is pretty much already established for the courts. I wouldn't even entertain 4-d master moving to airport boulevard right next door to a neighborhood knowing what lively discussions we had with the regeny apartments over what already was next door. That just to me is one of incompatibility of, you know, yes, there is some leased space for the 4-ds, but it is an area that is equipped as best we like it for that kind of activity in terms of the comings and goings of sheriff's deputies, et cetera, et cetera.
>> it's 170 thaw dollars a year.
>> that's correct.
>> is what we presently pay.
>> that's correct.
>> and the difference between 2 and 3 is roughly 400 grand.
>> that's correct.
>> I mean in the total buildout. So --
>> less?
>> you get three years on that deal, you make that up. But like Karen said [inaudible] you put that out there, I mean if you look at it from a money standpoint -frbgs it's kind of like go out there and talk somebody into what you are going to do.
>> and judge, what I said in the beginning statement that facilities management do either option 2 or 3 and leave it up to the court which one would you like to go for.
>> one of the things -- and p.b.o. Is kind of in the same situation as facilities management. In looking at the different cost scenarios and the pending issues and the letter that's attached to the memo that we distributed yesterday from the transportation office, it's kind of unclear. They don't -- they don't know the operation would be that different than it is right now, but they are having some issues with their operation running into some overtime cost and we can't quantify that is correct we haven't been able to quantify that in the time we've had. So one of the things I did was assume that for some of these impacts for option number 3 and for option number 2, even if you had to spend an extra $100,000 a year in operating, which would be a -- another transportation unit or additional leased parking if you have pent up demand that is realized what happens with the tax office and you decide there's too much overflow parking, you need to do something about that, I just kind of picked a number that might handle some issues. All three of these is a tphoeur kwroes in a 20-year payback analysis come back -- they run closely together in terms of looking at what you actually save and spend. So we really felt like the issues between those three options are programmatic in nature and the court should really focus on the best programmatic solution for the facility, what the best tenant mix is, what has the least neighborhood impact. And we also felt like option 2 actually carries most of the cost -- I mean it is the most completely cost scenario we've been able to develop so far. This is one point steven and I were discussing and I wanted to clarify, option number 2 -- according to record management's analysis, is 15 years' worth of active records storage. Actually it's to 2019 so a little less than that. And opls number 3 is roughly 10 years. So 1 is a little bit longer and the question becomes do you move -- do you move the court out of the building at that time or perhaps there is an option for the Commissioners to say is there a different tenant you would like to see use part of that space for a short time period. But we also agree that the records center option, it is the first time that we've seen that be a viable option and it is a cost effective solution for active records storage for the county over an extended period of time. And so either one of these two cenarios, you tweak these models a little bit and they are so close together at this point that we really felt like the decision is yours to make on programmatic issues.
>> based on the programmatic, though, do the other large tenants there, and I知 thinking the spears and dana, do they have an option preference related to what they think will be the better mix given that they are the other co-has been tapbts out there?
>> thank you. Dana debouvier, county clerk. Yes, we have a preference. We're a little concerned about the parking with option 3, about what will happen to parking. However, there are a couple of advantages that we get by having the 4-d court move out there, along with the disadvantages which the court has already articulated. For one thing, we get an armed guard in the building. We like that. The other thing is that we -- the building because it becomes a court facilities, it also becomes illegal to carry any kind of weapon into the facility. We currently do not have a law that applies to us out at that building for that purpose. So we get a couple of advantages. Now -- and we were trying to think of it from your perspective that it's another $170,000 potentially a year even with, you know, I mean there's offsetting operational costs for putting 4-d out there, but we were trying to look from your perspective just from the money. Ideally we would go with option 2. If we had our preference and didn't think about anything else. But we're willing to work with you on option 3 because we understand you may be interested in the money and because there's a couple of advantages for us.
>> dana, with that comment, did you or anyone else, you or -- I guess let's -- does anyone else have anything to say? Because I need to say something. But I wanted to make sure when you made your assessment on that third option, did you all take into consideration how closure to a neighborhood? I mean right behind the location. You are talking about single-family dwellings right behind you. And I mean -- that may be something I know the neighborhood will wave a red flag at.
>> absolutely. We considered that.
>> let me hear --
>> we just agree with you that's on the con side. That's sort of a -- you know, a bad part.
>> no pun intended.
>> right, but that is disastrous for that community. And I know it may be a benefit internally, but it's not -- but you've made your comment. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> it is also -- i'll need another week, as I mentioned earlier. The second thing is and I need to at these memos we got kind of at the last minute providing the other information. But I think we need to know how option 2 compares with the financial analysis that we were presented at the time that we made the decision to purchase the airport building.
>> and judge, that -- I apologize you got this information lately, but it is summarized in that-in the memo you got from p.b.o. It is option number 1. That is your baseline. What we did working with facilities is go back to assume that all of the tenants that were originally represented to move into this building would be in the building. That he had -- that they had the construction costs that would be required to put the second floor in the building to accommodate all of that square footage. That the security improvements, the capitol side of those improvements that you had already approved were included in all of the analyses and also you will see a breakout, one that also shows what it would look like with additional operating overhead for security, and it's kind of a hybrid approach that lieutenant page discussed with m and how to cost to get some armed presence, use the building you currently have and use after hours security coverage. It's spelled out in that memo, so if you have questions, please --
>> the comparison of the financial analysis I just asked for has been done already?
>> it's summarized in this table and I have like 18 memos -- pages of memos. This is the one from p.b.o.
>> additional backup.
>> that's from you?
>> yes.
>> we'll take it up this time next week. Anything else today?
>> yes, sir, just one comment. It's important to note both option 2 and 3 does include a training room for hrmd that's interchangeable with the i.t.s. Recover center.
>> that's in which one now?
>> in 2 and 3. So that that would be the i.t.s. Recover center, when they are not using it, hrmd would be using it.
>> a lot of people related to meetings. Orientation and a bunch of other stuff.
>> there's a portion number b.
>> b and c.
>> we still have this next week.
>> can we take it up next week? Am I the only one a little behind so i'll make sure [indiscernible] next week.
>> that's fine.
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.
Last Modified:
Friday, October 28, 2005 9:13 AM