Travis County Commissioners Court
August 17, 2004
Item 28
Now regarding facilities, that's item no. 28. 28. Consider and take appropriate action on options regarding various Travis County facilities: a. Phase 2 options at 5501 airport; b. Renovation and occupancy of the 1101 nueces street building; and c. Counseling and education services lease at 205 w. 9th street.
>> alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. A couple of weeks ago, we brought to you several options for what we call phase 2 construction. At the -- at the Travis County owned facility at 5501 airport boulevard. Since you've had opportunity to look at the material. We are back today with a recommendation. Since the last time that we were here, we had an opportunity to visit with the neighborhood association, which is something that the court had us do and it was also suggested by the county clerk. That we visit with -- with them. We do have an e-mail from the morningside rim top neighborhood -- ridgetop neighborhood association on their feedback. Their preference is to have option 2 and they quote the -- the -- their ropes for that is increased traffic with having magistrates there. They also are concerned for the safety of the residents and do not feel that -- that bringing prisoners in, even if it is in a caned -- in a contained environment would be something that would be acceptable to their particular neighborhood. So we took that recommendation and then also since I think belinda you stated that there was not that much difference in terms of long-term cost savings between options 2 and options 3, we come back to you with a firm recommendation on option 2. And that option included having a records management center there, that would cut our costs with -- with iron mountain. It included the administration from records management and communication resources. I.t.s. Disaster recovery and an hrmd training center. We quoted the annual record storage savings costs, this is a 10 year average, at about 225,000. It has the least parking impact. Print shop and imaging can also share administrative space with records, with the records center, and would be there with their administration, which is [indiscernible] improve records retrieval response time over outsourced storage and then compatible occupancy with the county clerk and the tax office for records. There are cons, also, to this propose and that would be the least re-- the reduction in lease space of the three options, savings from the records management storage, from the records storage would really not be realized until year two. Then it would, you know, you would see more savings as the years go on. It would require three f.t.e. For operations, but that's an in f.y. '06, not in f.y. '05. So -- so --
>> I move approval of option 2.
>> I second that.
>> I remember all --
>> you did say option 2, right?
>> yes.
>> I知 just teasing.
>> motion and second.
>> financial impact is what you were going to ask?
>> I was about to get there, but that wasn't quite my first question. How much money on the end, how much more do we need and where do you recommend that it come from. Preferably in that order.
>> okay. Good afternoon, roger el khoury, director of facility management department. Option number 2 construction costs will be $1,930,000. On hand we have $476,000. What's needed is 1,454,556. The source of fund, [indiscernible],.
>> we have made the assumption that it would be part of the co package for '05, part of our five-year funding for c.s. So winter focusing in on option 2, last week I asked a question and was told that the answer was in my voluminous backup. A memo from one belinda power, right, the financial analysis. Is there only one memo from you or two.
>> dated August 2nd?
>> August 9th.
>> August 9th.
>> it was at the back of the bid thing with the blue sections. There it is. I was trying to compare where we were to -- to where we -- where we thought we were financially at the time of approval of the airport project.
>> okay. If you -- in order to do an apples to apples comparison, where we were when we approved the purchase of the building and where we are today, is the reason that option, one of the reasons that option 1 is included because you weren't considering some of these other tenants when you were looking back at purchasing the building. So you really have to go back and look at option 1 and option 1 was, as it was presented, earlier, represented an 11 year pay back on the building. Option 1 with the new construction values and the delay in some of the lease savings, because time has Marched on, and you are incurring expenses to date on phase 1 that has already opened, so option 1 updated for today and updated with the new construction costs represents a 15-year pay back. So there was a four-year change in -- in the analysis. From -- from what was proposed to -- to what you could have today if you wanted the same tenant mix in there. Recognizing the costs for today, the debt that you are already incurring, the operating expenses that you are already incurring and the fact that you are not savings some of the money on the leases yet because phase 2 has not been completed. So that -- that is as close as I can get to an apples to apples comparison of the analysis.
>> okay. Well, if I look on the -- on the exhibit 1, page 0, and compare option 1 to option 2 over on the cost amount, .6 million, 2.466, to 1.9, we get to 2.4 because of the tenant mix here and we have expanded it basically.
>> we -- I think the difference between option number 1 and option number 2, because option number 1 is going to have a second storm all over the phase 2 project, so -- then you have to have the finishing fit to have offices, they are good be for the c.s., Also for the jps and the e.m.s., And the fire marshal, so that costs [indiscernible] the differential costs.
>> okay. After two -- after -- option 1 costs more than option 2, half million more total.
>> yes.
>> the difference there is what now?
>> the difference is for option number 1, we have c.s., You know, counselor education services are going to be on the second level. And also we have the fire marshal, the cjp, the e.m.s. And they are going to be on the second level. We are going to construct it on the second level. Will you show. The second level is going to be constructed, that's going to have added cost. Then the offices are going to build for all of the departments are going to have the costs. That's a difference. Option 2, only two day [indiscernible], second inventory, second level, the other just storage, so we are not going to build a second level, second story and make a lots of offices and bring mechanical engineering into the structure. That's the cost differential.
>> okay. In terms of the total costs, acquisition, renovation, et cetera, how does option 2 compare to what we approved and budgeted when we made the decision I guess a couple of years back?
>> okay. I think the difference is going to be about $1,450,000 differential from what we are approval for and what we are going to do now the second --
>> including these savings or taking out lease savings or anticipated lease savings.
>> well, I would say this is from the construction costs, initial costs, the lease savings, we realize on that election saving for $236,000 and we realize also a saving from the dro moving from the fifth street to lavaca, about [indiscernible], additional $20,000 for parking, we realize about --
>> $684,396 from the move of phase 1.
>> beg your pardon.
>> you realize in terms of annual savings, in phase 1, $684,396 a year. That included the dro lease, dro parking and the election at 209 west 9th.
>> correct.
>> so the net after this hams -- after this happens is what?
>> I guess the issue is was it all funded? I think it was only phase 1 or was the initial allocation for all phases?
>> the whole thing.
>> the whole facilities management perspective, we have a phase 2, when we get the budget, we got about $30 per square foot originally on the budget just for renovation costs. So far we did -- we did spend about like -- at this time about $38 per square foot. What's left, what's left is about $476,000 to do a -- to do a -- a 21,000 square feet of a space. And in the [indiscernible] buildings is not enough, that's why we are asking for additional fund.
>> let me ask the question a sitely different way. Because I知 with the judge on this one. What we need to see on a one page sheet of paper is what are all of the sunk costs that we have put into phase 1.
>> then put a little dash, dash, dash, put what are the proposeds sunk costs for phase 2 presuming that we go with option 2. Then you would have to legitimately throw in that little bit of renovation cost to get dro moved into usb. So anything associated with usb. Then to have below that what are things that we can net out of that in terms of leased savings because of elections, leased savings off of dro, leased savings off of parking, and if we indeed go with option number 2, we would have some things not in year one, but starting in year 2 related to iron mountain. I think we are trying to get the big picture. If you are not asking this, this is what I知 asking, what did we put in for one and two, and what are we seeing as deducts back out in terms of pay back on one and two to get the big picture.
>> I have that.
>> great.
>> I have that for all of the current options. What I don't have to be able to tell you is for the past option because I don't have that in front of me. But I can provide you with these spread sheets. There's about 18 pages of figures on these spread sheets. So I can give you a little bit more of a summary if you would like, which is what I try to do in the middle, but it may be too abbreviated because it doesn't have like the first five year picture of what your costs really are. I can tell you that you begin on option 2, which -- which option 2 with -- with -- with five-year financing, without any additional decisions on operating security, that you -- that you begin to see -- you begin to see a positive cash flow between 20-10 and 20-15. But to recoup all of the costs that you have sunk in is -- is what we call your break-even or your pay-back, that's -- that occurs at 20-19. You begin to see positive cash flow before that, but you don't actually recoup all of your sunk costs until 20-19. That factors in the fact that you are going to continue to lease for inactive storage at iron mountain and that that contract will exist and will have -- will have escalations in that. It accounts for dro, accounts for the increase in the construction costs. It assumes debt service on five-year funding. And assumes the lease savings for -- for elections, which you are already realizing today. So it factors all of those thing. The dro savings plus the dro costs to renovate the usb, election savings and the iron mountain changes in the iron mountain contract. It also accounts for the fact, as alicia stated earlier, move-in expenses on that contract to get all of the boxes moved into the records center. As well as the increase in construction value.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> they do support -- they actually mentioned option 2, which is the family resource deal, but actually, they're in opposition to that, so when we say option 2, it's not really that. It's not really the court setting that would be situated there. The option 2 we're talking about here is the reference management and proposals that go with that. I think they may just need to be notified that even though they're related to the second option, it's not -- when they look at this, they say Commissioner Davis seconded Commissioner Gomez's motion for option 2 and we just said specifically we don't want option 2. Well, it's not. They just refer to two options in this particular neighborhood letter, and it's really three options. The option they refer to is option 2 here in their letter is really option 3. So I need to publicly say that so when they review this tape, I don't want them getting mixed up thinking that I知 seconding a motion that the neighborhood association really is opposed. So the motion that's been made is the motion that the neighborhood is supporting. Which is option 2, which is the record management. So that needs to be brought to the public since the letter was directed on what I just spoke on. I just wanted to let them know that.
>> yes, Commissioner.
>> the its disaster center, hrmd. Hrmd stands for what?
>> it's a training center that human resources has requested permission from the court to establish. And I believe the court's direction on that was for facilities to identify a space within a county building that we could put something like this, and it seemed to be a really good fit to be able to put it into the records -- the its disaster recovery space which would be vacant nearly the entire time. So in meetings between its and human resources there was mutual benefit about occupying that space in that way.
>> so it's dual use. Making the most of that particular space.
>> okay.
>> and others could use it as well. It's not just for hrmd, which we're desperately short on meeting space. It's not predetermined what the seating setup is.
>> sure.
>> are we convinced that if we do go with option 2 here that the tenants out there will find adequate parking, security?
>> the parking, yes, sir. The security, this particular option would be the minimal impact on security. I don't know that we could say that the tenants out there still would not have some security issues, but this particular option would have the minimum impact on that because of the contents, the records and the disaster recovery nature wouldn't have the same security needs that you would have with csc or the image straits. -- magistrates.
>> any more discussion?
>> I just had the answer to the question. The difference in lease savings, what you would have expected to see in lease savings from the original proposal and what you would see under option 2 is about $363,000. That's an estimate because these are projected numbers and we would need to scrub that. But this proposal for the lease line items, including the contract with iron mountain, is projecting to save $927,950. The original was 1.2 million.
>> okay. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> option number b -- item number b deals with 1101 nueces building. This building, it has a problem with the mold, and at this time we would like to go ahead and move the court approval to go ahead and do a remediation and restoration and do a minimum restoration to house the counselor education services that are located at west ninth street, and this will be a lease saving cost associated with that of about $108,000 per year on an annual basis. And I think we're requesting from the court a funding of $94,000 -- 94,712, out of which $65,203,000 would come from risk management because of the mold, assessment remediation restoration. And the rest of the balance would be about 29,509 for facility management to replace some hvac unit and remove the mold and for special testing. And also for the sump drainage improvement around the house. I did talk to the ces and they're on board with us, and to move their folks from west ninth street to 1101 nueces. They have about 18 people in the 1101 nueces -- I mean, at the west ninth street. 11 of those folks they would move to 1101 nueces, while the rest will go to (indiscernible) because they have two functions here at west ninth. One function is the intake that deals directly with the court. The other function is a service, which is exactly what they do at 4920 i-35 location. So I would recommend that approval of the fund and the program to move forward with the renovation and reallocation of space on 1101 nueces to cs.
>> I知 extraordinarily sensitive to the word m, the m word. And to make sure that whatever happens is properly done so that we never have the m word ever come up again because I知 sensitive after having to deal with this with enough folks, people who might need to rework in that building and whether they would still have a sensitivity of working in that building, whether carol and her folks have thoroughly discussed this, again, remediation should take care of the trick, but I just don't want anybody six months after the fact say I didn't really understand that's what you really meant here. And that we have unhappy folks as opposed to happy folks moving into that facility. So what assurances can you give me that when we say the mold is going away, that it is going away forever and that we will -- how do we continue to monitor? I guess that's probably a chuck watt question -- to make sure that it's gone and it really is gone and we haven't done the minimal to make this a safe workplace.
>> chuck watt, Travis County occupational health and safety engineer. We did an extensive survey of the building to identify the extent of the mold. And the remediation is going to take care of all the existing mold that we know about. And we're going to remove all the interior walls around the perimeter of the building. At that time we'll be able to identify the mechanism that caused the mold, where the water was coming into the building. That's the area that is a little bit of a concern. We could identify some of those issues, but we couldn't identify the amount they gave us, the concentration of mold around the building. But once we remove those interior walls, we should be able to identify where that water intrusion is and correct that.
>> so we think that this should be adequate for your needs?
>> carol colburn, director of counseling education services. Well, the location of the nueces house is perfect for ces intake because we do provide the assessments for the courts. It's right across the street. I have the same concern that Commissioner Sonleitner said about the mold, but I have talked with dan mansour about that, and he said that, you know, it would be certified that there's no mold. And I guess I have trust in that that it would, but it would be an excellent spot for us as long as it has -- all the mold is gone. So I do want to see some kind of certification that it is healthy and meets whatever guidelines it needs to meet.
>> this would be administrative office space for you?
>> yes, sir.
>> it's not where the assessments are done?
>> it is where the assessments are done. Our phone center would be there, but we would do some assessments since we are right across the street from the courthouse, as well as easy access to the defense attorneys. We kind of look at it -- we would be looking at it as kind of like a downtown little satellite office, and then the larger one would be where the service center is, but we would be doing assessments because the location is so convenient to the courts.
>> I forget what promise we made to the regency residents.
>> is it possible to check it out with -- what was her name? Kelly?
>> kelly just left. She's over in criminal justice. She just transferred as the liaison.
>> many of the residents are still there because every time I try to ease by I see one or two.
>> we might try to check just to make sure they know the services that are going in there.
>> for them to understand what it is, but it's an office building, it was used as an office building before and what we're talking about is an office building now.
>> but if we're doing assessments there now, it's more than an office building.
>> the clients would be-- the convenience of it is that they're probably already downtown seeing either their defense attorney or in court, so we really wouldn't be bringing in a lot of extra people because they would be there already.
>> and you have pretrial there also in the [ inaudible ].
>> carol, can we get you to have a conversation with the folks since we don't have a kelly slot right now?
>> I can research that.
>> I知 sure your recollection is better than anybody else's. She's been with us since day one. Whatever commitments we made before we brought her on I知 sure she can confirm over the years. It may be that there concerns have gone over and I知 overly concerned, but I知 reluctant to invite going through what we went through last time. So I would touch that base. But if everything seems to be all right, then you think it would work, then fine with me.
>> i'd be more concerned that it's a boarded up, empty building that would probably attract more problems for the neighborhood in terms of no activity than daytime. And carol, would this be daytime use only?
>> yes, this would be 8:00 to 5:00 o'clock only.
>> and nothing on the weekends?
>> nothing on the weekends.
>> that's good information to have out.
>> okay?
>> so we're going to wait on that one, judge.
>> I would.
>> can we get answers in like a week?
>> sure.
>> that it for c?
>> that has to do with --
>> interconnected. If we make the move on b, we need to let the landlord know and plan to move?
>> absolutely.
>> that's correct. There is an option in respect to that lease and there is a 60-day notice requirement.
>> 60 days.
>> the csc employees who do not move from ninth street to nueces would go to the i-35 location?
>> that's correct, sir.
>> there's room out there for them?
>> yes, sir. It's about five -- we're going to have to do a little converting, but we do have a conference room that we think we can convert for five administrative. A couple of counselors and then administrative staff.
>> notwithstanding some of the issues that I have heard about at the i-35 location?
>> yes, sir. Some of us are getting better. [ laughter ] we're getting better.
>> I just want to make sure that's a lease building.
>> yes.
>> and how long -- if the remediation is the way we can, how long would that take?
>> on 1101 nueces? I think if we move forward now, we should be done by the end of christmas -- I mean by January first.
>> if we went that way that the renovation period would be concurrent with anything that we would need to let a landlord know about if indeed that's the way we went?
>> sure.
>> the tax assessor and county clerk know that they have more tenants coming?
>> yes, sir, they absolutely do. We spoke with both of them and we met with them before we brought the options to get their input.
>> they enthusiastically embraced?
>> they embraced these actions. Yes. [ laughter ]
>> coming home!
>> anything else on item 28-a, b or c?
>> item number b, if the court approved the 94,712, we would like to approve the 29,000 to come from our (indiscernible) reserve. Am I correct?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the only other thing is I was asked to remind you that there is a pending request related to 1101 nueces from the Austin young lawyers association for a children's waiting room. They are still interested in pursuing that and would need direction from the court. It's important you make a decision to allocate that space as to who should contact them and let them know the disposition of the issue. That's it.
>> well, roger has always been our bad news deliverer. [ laughter ]
>> i'd be glad to do it.
>> we'll have b and c back on next week. Same wording okay?
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all. Appreciate your dedication, etcetera. Number 30, consider and take appropriate action on process to fill position of executive manager of health and human services and veterans services.
>> Margaret and i, we discussed that one yesterday, judge. And we are meeting next Wednesday to go through the giant packet, and we thought that it would be more appropriate for the following Tuesday after that to present a time line and some recommendations because we do not know if we've got 10 people that catch our fancy and we need to bring in or it's three people. And we don't know if they're in-city people or out of state. So we thought it would be a much better use of the time line time if we wait until we see what's in the packets next Wednesday?
>> that would be August 30th.
>> yes. I would suggest a process, time line, etcetera.
>> I was about to ask this question.
>> yes, sir.
>> I know we looked at the job posting and tried to sweek it. Until light of the fact that the hospital district is being created and health is sorely needed, but I can't remember how much time we spent on that. Did we spend enough time you think where we have a pretty good idea of where the court wants to go on filling this position?
>> oh, yeah.
>> because I think we'll need to work with the hospital district some, but really I see human services being a much bigger driver than it's been in the past for direct county staff.
>> and when we tweak that job, judge, it basically said that there was a start-up of a new hospital district and there was the sense that there would at least be a liaison role of some sort for that first year, but it was really a health and human services gig.
>> okay.
>> so yeah, if we can have the 31st, that would be great. We'll report back to you.
>> that is the 31st.
>> yeah. If we meet next Wednesday, the 25th.
>> number 22 consider and take appropriate action concerning community advocates for teens and parents to approve the acceptance of the agency audit report for the period ending December 31, 2003 as being the compliance with the intent of the the existing contractual audit report requirement and b is authorize payment of the June 2004 invoice. And I move approval. Ms. Fleming told me she didn't know of any issue with the audit office and nobody mentioned anything to me today. That's why I held off on it. Otherwise I would have put it on consent this morning. Any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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 8:36 AM