Travis County Commissioners Court
October 12, 2004
Item 5
5. Approve contract to provide security upgrades at the Travis County domestic
relations office and the county clerk/tax office building, ifb no. B040132si,
to the low bidder, ebm security, inc.
>> judge, a couple of questions that I had. Do we think that
-- that the -- that the bid complies with the sheriff's findings and recommendation
with regards to what we are going to do with dro, I mean, are those consistent,
cyd? Did you read -- in the backup you read the sheriff's backup that says
here are the things that we really think need to be done, you know, recommendation-wise,
I just wanted to make sure that, you know, the company that got this is actually
-- that the sheriff's office actually after it's done will say, you know,
you all at least followed our recommendations with regards to the safety --
can you answer that?
>> commission, I don't have a copy of the letter you are
referring to. And I was not involved in the executive session discussions
on the security issues.
>> okay.
>> I do know that judge Biscoe asked some questions if this
was approved by the Commissioners court and I believe alicia answered that
it was. So I would assume that we are in this bid meeting some of the requirements
that the sheriff put in place, but I really cannot answer your question. I
suppose alicia or roger should be on his way over here perhaps they could
answer it. Or perhaps the judge knows.
>> the court approved the security measurements via a budget
amendment approved on July 27th, 2004. That memo dated July 19th, 2004, sent
to the Commissioners court from jessica rio, p.b.o. Analyst, the memo listed
the items to be purchased and the request from facilities management for a
$61,135 transfer to cover the security recommendations from the sheriff's
office.
>> right.
>> so this basically not only says that this was part of
the recommendations from the sheriff, but we basically approved those back
in July.
>> okay.
>> I guess we are just getting it done.
>> we are just getting the bids. Now, there was a fence that's
not included in this bid that we have already awarded and it's in -- I don't
know if it's installed yet or not. But there was also a perimeter fence it
was involved, but it was not included in this bid, it was an earlier bid.
>> roger?
>> good morning, I’m roger el khoury facilities management
department. The airport items for security [indiscernible] it's -- have been
discussed, you know, in executive session and it's been approved the funding
and the -- the plan and those -- those plan has been assessed by the sheriff's
office. And some of the -- some of the -- the security items we are doing
with this -- with this package right now, [indiscernible] camera station,
new card reader, key pad, additional camera and recorders for the tax office
and the county clerk buildings, airport boulevard buildings at this time.
And we went through the process and got the --
>> the question was is this in accordance with what the sheriff
recommended?
>> oh, yes. [multiple voices]
>> dro, it's not the tax office --
>> it's both. It's dro and the tax office.
>> I understand that, but my particular question is about
-- about dro and the lavaca location.
>> yes, sir. The dro and lavaca, the sheriff did make the
assessment of the buildings and recommended also a key pad for the building
and also a card reader and camera on the inside and outside. Those are digital
cameras out there, connected directly to the sheriff. So the card reader will
not be controlled any more by facility management department. Will be controlled
directly by the sheriff because of the domestic relation issues regarding
security. It's been assessed by the sheriff and has been six clailted back
-- circulated back then in July. It was approved based on, as I remember,
it was a -- it was a $50,000 in -- in earmarked on security county-wide and
that's what the money probably counts from [indiscernible], p.b.o. Will change
it to a [indiscernible] reserve at that time, but it's been approved by the
court.
>> I understand. I just wanted to make sure that what we
are spending 100 grand on, that we were getting all of the things that the
sheriff says because I don't want us to come back later, somebody said you
know that wasn't part of that. But if you are saying -- you are in compliance
with that it's being handled totally and properly and that dro is -- is happy
with what --
>> absolutely.
>> then I move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
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: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:38 PM