Travis County Commissioners Court
May 30, 2006
Item A2
A 2 a is to consider and take appropriate action on request to approve the proposed scope of work for the medical examiner forensic center renovation project and a 2 b is to authorize the funding approved for the medical examiner forensic center addition project to be used for the medical examiner forensic center renovation project.
>> as you know in the fall of 2005 the medical examiner facility project was suspended by a court vote for reevaluation in conjunction with the in depth study that was ongoing at that time concerning the operational long-range planning issues for the medical examiner's office. In the work session in February, the Commissioners court directed staff to redefine current facility needs to maximize functionality and to work towards meeting the named standards for accreditation. In April, the medical examiner's department approved a -- a redefined scope of building improvements. The redefined scope is based on the fact that this location can support a maximum of four pathologists, you may remember that from our work session. The redefined scope no longer requires building an addition, but instead requires more extensive interior upgrades and remodeling. The primary elements of the redefined scope which involves all three floors shown in the backup on the first floor, there will be multiple improvements to the autopsy and decomp areas to achieve three fully functional stations. Which can be used simultaneously. The -- the receiving area will be enlarged and -- as well as the tissue storage area. And private offices will be provided for the chief investigator in the nurse -- and the nurse investigator currently in the open office with the other investigators.
>> on the first floor we have always had two, but only used one?
>> there were two stations in the main autopsy space and there's a third station in the decomp suite. And --
>> we used more than one?
>> we have used both stations. Is awkward and somewhat difficult to maneuver around the way it's currently set up.
>> there's some -- some repairs that are needed on some of the fixtures.
>> this work is to improve that basically.
>> correct. Is to make it functional and -- and properly efficient. We are going to do things like move the x ray box, two doctors at two stations can see it at the same time and reconfigure the storage and move some of the features that the -- at the station so that the work can proceed more expeditiously.
>> okay.
>> any other questions about the first --
>> this is for the cosmetic work. This is basically work done to -- to make us a lot more efficient functionally?
>> yes, sir.
>> this was based on [indiscernible] showed that's area that needed, the storage as well.
>> yes and the scope was developed with detailed input from the medical examiner's staff from the people in each functional area and was -- was voted with -- vetted with medical examiner's staff in dallas to verify that we were on the right track concerning working towards standards. The specific improvements are listed in detail in the attachment to the backup memo.
>> moving on to the second floor, the --
>> quickly, noting the things about the garage is that going to eliminate the problem that I know we had difficulty from some of the hearses having enough space to be able to get in the garage. When it said adjusting the gate, enlarging that area, is that going to take care of that problem?
>> that's the goal, we will do as much as becan with the gate. There's a -- we can. There's a limit to how large we can make the gate, because west is an electrical vault underground, the galley sloping down, enlarging the gate you have to do regrading into the site. We run into a rock there. But appears there's room to enlarge it at least four or five feet which is one section of the fence coming up to the edge of the underground vault. That's our concept at this time.
>> okay. Thank you, leslie.
>> your weapon. Any other questions about the first floor? Second floor, the various remodels to different spaces in the second floor will increase our refrigeration capacity. For this specimens there. Increase lab functionality and safety, for the issue that's we are going to be taking care of. Large story and efficiency will be addressed, also an additional staff office provided. Are there any questions about the second floor scope? On the third floor, we will be doing several things to -- to achieve the primary objective of adding an office for the fourth pathologist. In order to do that we will be reducing the excessive lobby space and removing a duplicate set of restrooms, this gets us the real estate up there to -- to basically move the clerical area, if you are familiar with that space, move the clerical area towards the conference room, moving it north, that gives us that slot of space to make the fourth pathologists office.
>> we believe that staff in that building are in agreement that we can eliminate a set of restrooms.
>> yes.
>> there are four restrooms on that floor. There are two men restrooms and two women's restrooms on that floor.
>> no problem if we eliminate one set.
>> it does create some issues because the restrooms that are being eliminated are the ones that are available for the public. The ones that we will maintain are the ones that the staff uses. There it is security issue that's we are going to need to look at in allowing visitors access the restrooms, we have discussed those, planned for addressing that.
>> the design strategy includes adding another door in between the back hallway and the clerical area so that visitors who need to use the restrooms can -- can go down that hallway and we will add a security device on to the second elevator that accesses the lab floor that would prevent visitors using the restrooms from getting into that second elevator. That's an easy solution.
>> how many visitors do we get? Each day?
>> that would be hard to say. I would say at least five or six. People come from the -- from the funeral homes, from other institutions, families requesting death certificates, et cetera.
>> pretty small number, though? Less than 20?
>> yes, sir. That would be my guess.
>> okay.
>> visits tend to be short.
>> yes.
>> don't want them loitering around.
>> any other question abouts the third floor? The budget issues are that we expect to complete the -- this redefined scope and the associated ff and e and move activities within the current total funds remaining from the medical examiner's addition project. That funding amount is 312,380 according to records that I looked at on Friday. Plus the $63,000 worth of funding earmarks which were rolled over for -- for fiscal '06. We are currently have an estimated for the engineering services associated with the redesign which would be in the range of $23 to 25 -- $23,000 to $25,000, working with the plumbing, mechanical, electrical systems, we need that consultant assistance. But the specifics of the construction are -- are complex enough that -- that -- that we prefer to move into the design phase, work with the job order contractor, to develop specific construction cost estimates with their input, which would be real costs can come back to you and report as those develop. The other issues that we had that resulted in a lawsuit, I guess those have all been resolved.
>> yes, I would defer to barbara.
>> I?m not familiar with that.
>> do you know who was the attorney working on that.
>> I do recall an insurance company, working through other issues. If there is -- if they are still active I guess that sort of question goes whether this had been done --
>> good morning, roger el khoury. Yes, judge it had been resolved, and -- and is done.
>> that's the funding status, we are asking for court to approve reassigning the budget from the addition project to the renovation project to authorize us to move forward with procurement and contracting work with the job order contractor as the design develops.
>> so we approved $312,000.
>> the approve was for more than that. We have spent some of it this year already on some of the engineering services that were used for the addition project. Which was taken all the way through the design and bidding and also some advance work on some minor ff and e items.
>> if we approve b then.
>> yes, sir.
>> which is to approve funding for the -- for the addition project to be transferred to the renovation project. How much money is that?
>> yes.
>> or is that -- both of these amounts in your memo.
>> it's 312,380, plus or minus, subject to confirmation of p.b.o., whatever is the current balance in the hte system unencumbered plus the earmark, asking for reassignment of the earmark, it would remain an earmark, but we would like the pot of money that was promised and budgeted for the addition project to now be reblessed for use for the renovation project and for you to approve it for the renovation project.
>> my motion is to approve these two amounts, to ask p.b.o. To look at the hte surplus?
>> that might be --
>> whatever the hte amount will -- is would govern.
>> bring that back and -- and I guess maybe -- budget transfer, whatever it is. But 312, 380, 63,000 would be this motion. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez, discussion?
>> also approve the scope of work, judge, under a 2 a?
>> well, I was going to do a separate motion. That's fine, to get that scope of work done. Done. Is that friendly Commissioner Gomez? You have question for legal?
>> > I did hear that you all conferred with the dallas folk, that this is moving towards everything that would allow us to -- to -- to be, you know, in the name -- in the accreditation arena, that is the same as to say that -- that there's very little of this that is subjective. I mean, I don't want to again -- like I felt like about hiring somebody and then having -- the new me come in, say why did you do that? I mean, it -- let's just make sure that if we are getting signed off on, these numbers and moving towards all of this because of -- because we obviously are moving away from the idea of -- of a new -- you know building and a new whatever. Or does this just mean that we are going to spend this 4 or $500,000 to get us up to speed so that we can continue to do business and -- and -- move towards name accreditation.
>> this will allow us to hire that fourth pathologist, depending on the caseload there will have to be some decisions made down the road as to whether we are going to further reduce caseload or look at a fifth pathologist the building simply won't accommodate it. Could be a short term, three to five years, depending on growth factors, fixed for the caseloads that we have right now.
>> we are doing the best we can with what we have.
>> we have already approved and funded four patologists, if we had them today they would be cramped.
>> yes.
>> I just don't want us to get to a point where within a year these four pathologists say this doesn't work. They go well why did we spend $400,000? Is -- if this is a three to five year deal, people are coming in, here are the conditions, as a matter of fact before you sign up with us, let's show you working conditions, your -- here are the plans that we have, I just want to make sure when we have folks in here that we don't start having resistance from -- from, you know, this is just not a workable situation for us even though -- even though we spent the dough. If that's not the case I agree. The interim fix, we would like to do that, I would certainly like for everybody to understand that before they are willing to sign up with us about hey, here -- here some people may really be used to it, the way for me to work, I don't like to turn around and bump into somebody or --
>> we haven't gotten that sort of attitude at all in our interviews.
>> I think they know, they have seen the facilities.
>> they have been showing --
>> before or after the -- before or after the interview, yeah.
>> I would like to clarify that -- that the four pathologists based on current caseload anticipates approximately 350 cases a year. If we are looking at a reduction in that down to the 250, which is what name actually recommends for -- for the -- for the appropriate number of cases per pathologist, that -- if we look at that issue in a year's time, then we would be looking at either reducing caseload or a fifth pathologist. It may be in a year's time where we are having a discussion like this.
>> and the -- you are right. We do need to take into consideration the population growth heir in Travis County alone. And not in the region, but in Travis County. Then I think the way it's grown it's --
>> I think we just have to then we really may need to look at out of county and -- and then we start looking at did we do our own deal. I mean because -- this is what we really have the responsibility to do is to take care of -- maybe it's capcog. Plus, you know, the star flight but those are -- those --
>> okay.
>> coming up.
>> if there's going to be a new facility going to take three to five years to go through it on that. The appropriate planning time to get to whatever the next one is.
>> so the motion really covers a and b.
>> yes.
>> that's fine.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. [one moment please for change in captioners]
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, May 31, 2006 9:38 AM