Travis County Commissioners Court
September 14, 2004
Item 19
19 is consider and take appropriate action on the following items related
to the jail operations study. A, physical plant redevelopment concepts, and
b, next steps for implementation of study recommendations.
>> > good morning. Mike trimbl oh., Criminal justice planning
t court had asked us to look -- the jail study team, to look more closely
at content c-2 discussed in court August 31. So what i've done is brought,
as requested, the schematic and the kind of outline -- that kind of outlines
the concept c-2. I'll go over that real quick and grab the microphone. Just
to kind of refresh your memory on the concept c-2 and some of the differences
from c-1, if you remember with c-1 we talked about doing a lot of the replacement
on structures, especially temporary with where they lie. With c-2-move the
existing bed space from a lot of these residential grade structures and --
by the way, can you all see this? Okay. We h. We have moved a lot of bed sprays
from these residential grade structures into on more consolidated building
configure race. To do this there are a couple things that need to happen.
One is the existing chapel and building 4 would have to be demolished to make
way for this construction. But the chapel gets built into the concept design
here. Again, some of the buildings that are still going to be utilized, hsb,
building 1, you also have building 2 and building 3, 3-a, and a lot of the
ancillary service structures are still utilized in this configuration. In
other words, we still get some of the operational efficiencies we are seeking
as we move for more to that concept, but use some of the existing buildings
that have useful life cycle left. With that in mind, now that we've gone over
there, let me talk a little about -- let me get the microphone down.
>> are you prepared to chat with us about the -- whether
we can use part of the del valle c.j.c. Balances to fund a further study of
one of these actions?
>> we would need direction from court today to actually have
bond counsel look at what it is you would be purchasing. We have an outline
scope we're prepared to send to them, but because it is additional planning
work, it is not actually completing a design, we need to have that discussion
about whether or not it's eligible.
>> okay, well, if we have -- I guess my question would be,
last week we seemed to all focus on c-2. It would seem to me that the court
probably is not in a position to discuss the details of c-2 like we will have
to do at some point. At some time in fiscal '05, we will need outside expertise.
Which requires money. Seems to me that the most important question now is
will we be able to use part of the remaining balance or balances from the
c.j.c. Del valle project or projects?
>> unfortunately I don't have an answer for you. I have a
11:30 meeting scheduled to go over these issues and it's my understanding
you are looking for planning money. Is that correct?
>> anybody have any idea of how much we're talking about?
>> well, as per your backup, I think the [inaudible] talk
more to this, but I think they were talking about 500 who 800,000 for the
next phase initial planning work including going after the consultant. I'll
let you explain more.
>> I’m not sure if there's sufficient funds to cover that
amount, but I will look.
>> what we're actually talking about is going through preliminary
design. We look at outline specifications for your major systems for the site
so you know fully what it is to have cost designed and constructed. You look
at programmaticly how the facilities will lay out, updating the population
projections to make sure that we have the right mix of beds planned for the
design services. Constructability issues on the site. Logistics of constructing
on the site. And to begin to have a more detailed plan as to how the building
will have to be designed and constructed as it lays out on the site. And then
again taking you through at least preliminary design. We haven't costed in
schematic design at this point because we have a lot more architectural liability
that engages at that point. It also adds additional cost. So we're talking
about the first probably anywhere from 5 to 10 10% of the design contract
that we would actually be requesting funding and it really is what is called
pre-planning and preliminary planning in design terminology when you look
at architectural contracts. So that's where we need to get into the discussion
about whether or not this is eligible for the c.o. Funding or the bond funding.
>> how did we arrive at a half million dollars then?
>> you have an estimate at this point of $100 million worth
of construction, 8 to 10% of that is what you would expect to be looking at
for design services. The first 5 to 10% of that is what you are looking at
for pre-planning and preliminary design. So that's where I came up with those
figures. It's not -- it's not different than what you've seen in the past
except for the scale of the construction estimate that initially started that
operation.
>> so $100 million will get how many beds?
>> 1688, 1,688. Plus there's, I think, a prep kitchen in
there, the connecting corridors that are outlined on there, and again, those
are estimates based on very high-level planning. So our objective is to carry
enough planning work forward to to feel comfortable that you have a good construction
estimate going into design.
>> I don't know that I was at 1668 beds. I think that --
>> is that the right number?
>> I think we ought to identify as much money as we can for
planning/preliminary design, that ought to be the next step, and we ought
to plan to have a couple of work sessions where we try to land on a number
of beds and some sort of modification of c-2. That we think we can live with.
And today, though, I don't see -- are you from the sheriff's office? Today
it seems to me that the most important thing we can do is to express to legal
counsel, bond counsel and others that we need to participate in this decision
the urgency of coming up with money. And if that option is not available to
us, then -- I mean, it seems to me we may have some hard work to do between
October 1, -- between now and 1,but I guess we could always c. The planning
--
>> the numbers have been much smaller and we have paid cash.
We have not c.o. 'D. My present design background is not -- not as significant
as others.
>> judge, that 1600 figure is eye popping because you think,
well, we already have like 2500 and we're adding 16 on top of that and that's
not what is going on here. A good number of the beds are going to be taken
away because they are going to be taken out and replaced. They are replacement
beds. It's one to one. Take you a bed, we build a bed. We are sitting on standard
orders from jail standards saying we've been gracious in giving you variance
beds and we want to make the variance beds drop by about 500. So we have to
replace those variance beds as well. So that's what's frustrating here is
we're not talking about 1600 net. It gets us down to --
>> if you build -- if you are get rid of the 600 variance
beds and build 1,000 more, there's no doubt in my mind in a very short time
the thousand will be full. And there will be demands to build more. And that's
why I think, I mean we need to go through this and I do think that the little
campus approach we've used in the past has been detrimental. The question,
though, is which ones of those and which of those temporary units should we
eliminate, and if we build a structure that allows us to be a lot more efficient
in what history tells me is that we ought to build a project that allows us
to expand in the future. And we ought to plan to do that. You know, we do
next generation a favor by doing that. 1688 beds is a whole lot of them. I
mean I just -- I never even dreamed there would be a motion to consider, seriously
consider doing that, but I was thinking about 1,000. What that says, though,
is the conversations, serious conversations that we need to have about specifics
of the project need to take place, and I don't know that today is the time
to do that. Seems to me our time is much better spent by trying to locate
funding, and whatever that amount is, we need to know what we think we have
available and then what we think we need. And if there is a shortfall, how
we plan to get there. And if we let October 1 come and go, then it may be
that our options are a lot more limited. I think we are looking at balances
or issuing c.o.s.
>> the only thing to keep in mind is the date the jail commission
standards meets and we're going to have to at least present a plan that we
have thought about in order to replace all those variance beds, which I hear
are 6z hundred? -- 600? And so we need to at the very least present a plan
to address that. But I think once you get into a building program, I think
we need to at least have some common sense go into that because I remember
the last study that was made was 1993 and that's how we wound up with that
huge thing over there, and I don't think that we planned well enough, you
know, to do it. So I would really be concerned about the amount of money that
we find to do the right kind of planning. I don't want to wind up with another
big old thing out in precinct 4 again that looks like we didn't plan sufficiently.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> and whether or not it's eligible.
>> if it's not, let's go to the backup plan.
>> let's find an alternate plan if not. (indiscernible).
>> why don't we do this by the next week or two weeks from
today? We'll look at c-2 and determine generally how we would go about building
enough beds to cover the various beds that the state insists on getting back
and adding another 500, option 1. And option 2 would be returning the state
its variance pay and adding another thousand. So what changes we would make
at del valle and generally what the cost would be. Changes meaning put present,
temporary facilities, we would eliminate, how we would build it. And am I
the only one thinking that we would want to build one single structure that
promotes efficiency, at the same time allow for future expansion?
>> I think that's what c-2 does.
>> my point, though, is -- each has two pieces. One is to
return the state's beds. The state is committed to getting those back. And
after 10 years, I don't know that we can say, you know, you're moving too
quickly on us. But the second piece was whether above or beyond that we add
another 500 beds or another thousand. And at some point the court will need
to consider that. And this is sort of an up front determination. The other
question would be based on how you build this, how would you accommodate,
plan for future expansion? And the other thing is what we need is the sheriff's
input on how we would do this in such a way that we promote an efficient operating
facility. We've been told that we have just the opposite, but where we kind
of moved out what kind of additional beds in pieces. In the back of all this
too is trying to hold to our commitment that we would try to utilize the same
space that we are using now and not expand way beyond the current footprint.
And I would think that if we eliminate some of those temperature facilities
we could probably do that.
>> sure.
>> yeah.
>> because I think we need to admit that it's no longer a
minimum security facility. That time got past us way back when. It is now
a maximum security facility, and we need to plan for an appropriate facility
out there. But I really think that it's going to be incumbent on us as incumbents
to make sure that we show we learned from the past mistakes and that we're
really going to do the proper planning way ahead, and that we come in with
a facility on time and underbudget if possible. And I think we can do that,
and we'll have to answer to it in 2006.
>> I think we can do some work on packaging this so that
it's a little more clear for you. Because it does -- the dashed lines around
the buildings that are still in dark black show you where you would begin
to take down and replace a future beyond the 1688 that's represented on that.
So as we look at phasing options that you've talked about, we can perhaps
get the sheriff's office to identify which side would be expanded first.
>> the sheriff needs different kinds of beds too, so we ought
to factor that in. He wasn't sure he would be ready today, so they've requested
a postponement. My thing was we really ought to bring it up, if for no other
reason than to --
>> to give instructions.
>> these things take time. So my guess is kind of a short
visit, a lot of short visits probably is a lot better than one real big one
where maybe we question their decision.
>> to help with the discussion, I think we can also break
out next time with the replacement beds and kind of what's happening. That
also helps to kind of clear some of that up too for the baseline.
>> is this in conjunction with the sheriff's perspective?
>> two weeks, judge?
>> it's two weeks --
>> I mean, is two weeks enough to work on this?
>> and then we know that the county and pbo know that they're
going to look --
>> we ought to either get that out by e-mail or memo between
now and Friday. And if not, we'll put it on the agenda so ek embarrass somebody
in another meeting.
>> I know they have a meeting this morning at 11:30.
>> this is bad news that we can live with, but the sooner
the better and the sooner we know to start planning other options.
>> belinda, do you promise to be here in two weeks? [ laughter
]
>> anything further on this item today? We'll have it back
on in two weeks unless it's clear that we need it back on next week, okay?
Thank you very much.
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: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:27 AM