Travis County Commissioners Court
August 8, 2006
Item 12
12. Consider and take appropriate action regarding the issuance of request for qualifications (rfq) no. Q060268-rv, professional consulting services for master plan development for a new Travis County civil courts building.
>> good morning, judge. Commissioners, cyd grimes, Travis County purchasing agent. We have got the draft rfq together. We are ready to go to issue it. I understand there was an e-mail late yesterday afternoon, I did receive this morning. I read belinda's comments. I believe that there's information in the rfq that speaks to reports that the county will be providing, so her comments were taken and there will be a lot of information coming from the district courts and the civil -- all of those courts over there. So we will be doing that. One of the I think so that we say in this document is that there will be a single point of contact for those district offices and that will be the civil administrative judge. So we feel like that judge dietz, along with roger's staff and all of the other staff, will be coordinating very closely all of the needs over there and communicating. Remember this document is to get us started to hire a consultant who is the most qualified to although at civil courthouses and to do this sort of work for us. So this is the first step in that planning process. So we think that we can cover belinda's comments in this document and that they don't need to delay it. If there's any other comments, we have not hired --
>> place that will avoid the -- the -- the confusion about -- about who is -- who has all of the -- all of the qualifications to -- to proceed with the project and we don't have to come back to court and -- and -- [laughter]
>> well, there's several of -- of us at this table that have been through this more than once. Roger and I talked about this yesterday, alicia and I talked about this. We all know the mistakes that were made in the past. We know some things that could be done a lot better. Hopefully with all of us working together, with that collective memory, we will avoid a lot of those problems. One of the things is having, like judge dietz, be the single point of contact. So all of those folks at the courthouse will need to communicate and judge dietz will know who has signed off, who hasn't signed off. Those were some of the issues in the past, people coming back after the documents or plan wanting to make changes. We are going to avoid that as much as we can. Going through this process. And again this first process is looking at the site, trying to find a site. Trying to -- trying to make sure that we -- that we have -- meet all of the regulatory issues that we've had downtown with -- with site distances and view corridors, all of those issues.
>> talking about the process in which we give points to the people who are presenting proposals so that there isn't any bad feeling at all among anybody, any -- any interested parties in trying to -- to present proposals to us on the -- on the points given in -- and by whom and -- -- there's on page 9 of the 65 in the proposal, there's evaluation criteria. And -- and it -- it assigns very specific points to experience, including planning and programming, site analysis, site design. Experience in urban site assessment, including evaluation of future and existing utilities and courthouse. We also included in there knowledge of city ordinances and the capital view corridor because that will be an issue that we'll have to deal with. Experience in design and construction, of projects in Austin. Because we do have a -- have a unique construction environment in dealing with the city. And the state. Capital view corridor is in the city ordinances. We also have then the familiarity, it's very important, with Texas historical commission, and historic preservation, because part of the rfp is also the historic preservation of the heman sweatt courthouse, we are asking for compliance with h.u.b. We are asking for very specific qualifications in land planning, historic preservation, in construction knowledge not only of -- of Austin, but also of central business district construction. On top of that having, you know, architectural and construct, some design experience.
>> in addition to that, is staff real clear about -- about what we are looking for and -- and -- how to avoid some of the issues that have been brought to our attention by people who -- who have submitted a proposal and then they don't feel like they were -- maybe the rules were changed in the middle of the stream of the process here.
>> we have never changed our rules in the middle of the process.
>> I just want us to make sure we don't leave that perception with anybody that we have or that we haven't thought it through or that we are not in complete agreement internally, before we go out with these projects.
>> we will treat this as carefully and as we did -- when we did the telephone inmate contract, which is also very politically charged, a lot of money, a lot of different -- of different competitive spirit and I think, you know, we did fine with that. So we will use that model that -- that I think was very, very difficult in terms of setting the standards, making sure we -- we document all of our comments and we communicate with the people that will present kind of what it was that we chose and with the court, what it is that we -- why it is that we chose one over the other.
>> of course the biggest lesson is having the project completed on time and in budget and if all -- if at all possible, under budget.
>> yeah. This is one of the things that -- that the that this rfp does, it asks for a time line from the proposers, a tentative time line. We have provided one for you, but it is at a very macro level. This says narrow it down some more. What do you think it will cost and the time that is needed to design the building to construct it, to bid it, design, bid, and construct the building. Not only that, we are also asking for site -- for siting of the building. This becomes even more difficult. So with all of those we are asking create a time line to see what that would take. We are -- we are taking those things very seriously. Because it's not -- this is probably one of the most difficult projects that we will undertake because you have the historic courthouse and then you are asking for a new one. So they will also be responsible to developing a time line.
>> then the other thing is making sure that.
>> budget.
>> everybody who is going to be a user of the building is involved from the very beginning, have signoffs. The thing that we saw in houston was that they had planned for a building that would be used for 50 years. Is this the case?
>> 50 years.
>> 50 years.
>> 50. High, low? Really calls for a lot of planning, a lot of participation by all of the people that have been interest in that facility. And I sure would like to see a project come in first time perfectly well the first time.
>> we have got another building that we have got to do that with first before we are going to get signoff with this community that is in our jail. Let me ask you this, what -- what do we anticipate once this firmrgpñk39&o;3ñiçóñi/s would have and where would those funds come from. The cost of -- once we identify the firm that -- the consultant that will be taking this thing forward, what kind of dollars are we talking about that that would necessitate? Because obviously we are going to have to pay somebody to get involved in that and where will those funds come from?
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, roger el khoury, director of facility management department. We have in our budget right now $150,000. For this particular task only. This task takes you to get the ball rolling, get the programmer, architect, who are specialized in first planning and programming, to get -- this limited scope that we have for this plan, to -- to program and that -- that building for us. And try to look -- try to look at what all [indiscernible] we have. That particular consultant was all elected officials involved with this civil court, the use of the court and the existing renovation of the masser plan for the he -- master man plan for the eman sweatt courthouse. I believe the limited scope we are there. It might be plus or minus this depending on negotiation once we have the contractor, the consultant on board. Remember that the consultant is only having limited scope, not extending to the [indiscernible] drawing, plan is showing what everything is supposed to be, give us a concept design of what this civil court looks like, which one is the best alternative that we have. 150,000 is the borderline, but we have the number, probably come a little bit higher, a little bit less, thus again depending on the negotiation. This qualification of the firm, sit down with a short list and sit down and negotiate with the most qualified firm according to the rfq. A lot of qualified firms might have qualified firm a, b. B is high lie qualified too. Submittal, based on the answer to the rfq, then we will engage with the highest -- you know, qualified firm. And before we do this --
>> let me ask you, though, is that the -- will that $150,000 cover once you identify who this is that you are going to use, or does that $150,000 just get us to the spot of where we are choosing, where we are identifying the consultant.
>> take this contract, resulting from this rfq to hire the consultant to be around 150, I would say maybe a little bit higher than that. I always want to -- costs are going up.
>> let me answer your question. No. What we would like to do is put together a package for a supplemental, call it a -- a reserve. Of that 50,000. The market lately has been so high, we are also asking for land developers, we are asking for specialists in preservation, historic preservation, staff feels very comfortable that the 150 is a good number. They have done the numbers in terms of having a team and the hours that will be spent and the costs per hour, you know, 150 for the principal, 100 for the architects, 75 for administration and others. So they feel comfortable with 150. I'm hesitant because of the land planner, historic preservationists, may be more on the expensive side. So we would like to hedge our bets and asking for about 50,000 reserve, come back and see where it is.
>> what's the deliverable? The deliverable, let me just point out to you, the -- the scope --
>> I have seen the scope of service. Before we hand over that check, what should we make sure that we have in hand? [indiscernible] to give us an alternative about this site, which best site we should concentrate on. It would give us also what this size of the building should be. What the footprint of the building should be, and supposed to go in those buildings and what -- how many courts, how many -- what is the projection for year 2040, that's what we have on the rfq right now. That at the end will have a solid base of product that we can take it from there, give it to the designer, the -- phase 2, a designer, architect and his team to build on that particular program with the understanding. Should we be able to review the scope of service and by each subpoint either see a document that adds each one of them or -- or a separate document for each some.
>> we can do that, judge. We can add a specific deliverable from each one of the services.
>> it's also very important to understand --
>> if you have seen the scope of service, that means we expect the consultant to do it.
>> yes.
>> if he does it we expect some results that we can see.
>> yes.
>> some -- where do we get the scope of service?
>> where? Do we get it?
>> we developed it. We developed it.
>> based on?
>> based on looking at standard scope of services, based on looking at the needs of the courts. For example, let me point outlet something to you that's in the scope of services that's very important. The -- the rfp or rfq calls sfor preplanning research analysis that will be required on the courts and the functions and their growth. It's important for you to know how the -- how the courts are growing, the number of cases that they are dealing with in order to project the number of judges and the support staff that you will have. So that is one of the areas that we said well you -- you need to know how many cases they are dealing with, how many people are -- are going to the courts and therefore be able to project how many judges and support staff that you will need to have. So -- so that's in here. As part of the scope of services. Again it's something that -- that I mean a reason and professional reason will tell you that you need to have in such a -- in such a scope.
>> okay. We basically put our heads together, try to come up with the best document that covers we think -- what we think our needs are.
>> that's correct.
>> but we hope to have this or these deliverables to a design team later on and have the civil courts building designed.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. And on the -- on the evaluation criteria, how do we decide what weight to assign each one of them?
>> on -- on section 3.4, on page number 9, it's already -- we have a total of 1,000, we brought down each item, a, b, c, d to a certain score. Let's say item no. A is 200, b 200, so collective a thousand points. The respondent will have the selection committee we are going to sit down and look at the proposals and evaluate them based on this document right here. We cannot go above and beyond what we are telling the -- the respondent on our rfq. So that's what will be set for us. This is our parameters, our lower boundary that we have, that's how we are going to score them.
>> this is our determination of what's important, what's more important than --
>> that's correct.
>> who is on the county evaluation committee?
>> it hasn't been decided yet.
>> we normally have --
>> determined later on.
>> pretty much determine ed now, jim bar, less lie strickland -- leslie strickland, roger.
>> I think the court needs to approve that. As far as who is on the committee, there needs to be some indication on who that person is -- what that person is bringing. Do not put the county judge on there.
>> the evaluation committee they talked about last week, be a smaller group of technical people who understand more of the technical aspects of this. Like my office usually we look at the documents, make sure that everything came in, everything is fair, everybody has been given equal opportunity, all of the things that Commissioner Gomez mentioned. Then we hand it off to the technical folks to do the scoring, then we sort of, you know, oversee that process. But don't actually score.
>> maybe we can bring that to you.
>> someone needs to be there to determine the accuracy of the projections. For instance in population, in costs. In -- so that's where we kind of get off track a lot of times and if we wait too long, the population has -- has grown out of proportion and costs have grown out of proportion and so that's where we kind of get caught in -- in not coming in on time and on budget and meeting everybody's needs. You know? I just --
>> that's why I think the evaluation committee ought to --
>> I can't think of anybody just this minute.
>> we ought to look at that, spend some time deciding. My last question, did we -- did we attempt to gather the -- the scopes of service that other successful civil courts building owners have used? Other than seeing it, we hope to use that as an exam hell in how to do it right. Have we seen their scope of service.
>> no, we have not. We discussed this with them, what we are asking in this first phase of work is fairly basic. We need a site identification, that's really critical to -- to kind of what folds out of the rest of this. Depending on which site we ultimately select, it's going to depend on how we are able to utilize heman marion sweatt courthouse. That's critical, we assigned a priority to that. We know that their's a limited amount of -- information that we need to find out in this phase of the rfq. The later is going to be in my view much more important in the regard that we are going to be hiring a design team that will then take the work that's done in this rfq and have to assimilate it and make it their own, you know, to the extent that they will be comfortable with the result, with the deliverables that we get them, they are going to verify it to their satisfaction. They are going to proceed with extensive interviews of user groups, with design sketches, with studies on the best form that this new facility is going to take. And so we are really -- this is a kickoff rfq that we are looking to -- to gain valuable information, kind of give us a map for going forward with this project.
>> and judge and Commissioner, this -- this particular consultant will -- will find out about -- about courthouses just, you know, in order to develop the -- to develop the -- the recommendation on the alternatives. That -- that they will be part of the -- to look at other courthouses, first have to look at what we have done in the past year. This is a starting point. There's a lot of information floating around here and -- in Travis County about -- about in the past. So we are going to take all of that data, we are going to analyze it, we are going to go ahead and evaluate it, come out with a -- with a -- along with their research, about the other courtroom data, they are going to put it together, that's how they come up with their final recommendation, they validate any information that we have here, they can use the information that we have here, so we can come up with the alternative. Those folks are not going to do planning, this is not the schematic design. This is only programming to get the information gathered and from there we can hire the other architect team as jim was mentioned to you.
>> so what you just described is then 2.46 the scope of service 2.4 of the scope of service.
>> the document that mentioned, this is an example, that we do have some information, we have plenty of other documents right here to get the strategic matter, also the documents ready, give this to the consultant, the consultant is going to come up to the certain -- I cannot stop. I'm not going to start from 00, we do have information. They are going to collect this information, from 1998 to right now 2006, going to 2007, and then they are going to add whatever they have currently, to come up with the best alternative for Travis County to use for the next phase for the plan and design of the civil court.
>> that's the section that's driving me crazy. Because when I read that section, again I think that we are talking about asking the questions up front to make sure that the $150,000 goes to get as much good work done as possible. When we use the statement like validation will be required of the September '98 report, that to me says that is a base document and it's already 8 years old, I see hours being spent to say everything in that document is correct and that's the base that we will build our assumptions on. What bothers me about that is that it is an 8-year-old document and I'm worried that -- that precious hours will be used to -- to bring that document up to date. Again, this is how I'm reading it if I were somebody looking at what am I being asked to do. I see a lot of time being used, spent on things that internally we ought to be best doing it. I am so glad that the judge is popping up here. It also is a document that has not been blessed by this Commissioners court. That document was brought to the Commissioners court back when it was finished, it was pulled by the civil district judges saying no. We are pulling this back, it needs more work. If that is being used as reference materials, that's cool. But I am troubled by how this is worded because worded it is giving more weight to that document, more officialty to that document than I think you had intended to do. I think there's no mention of the space master planning document which is an approved document of the Commissioners court. [one moment please for change in captioners] so I think there needs to be a better definition and it may be simply adding the word system. It also mentioned the things that are currently in the heman sweat building, but it didn't really talk about that the system might include things that are located in other buildings, some of which are located in the downtown area, like dro, but it didn't really speak to dro, the four d masters, the tax masters. When we say family court, do we intend for family court to be included into the new civil courthouse? I don't know the answer to that because we've had a lot of good discussion with the judges about whether family court is spun off either in a separate building downtown or in the new building that we just acquired down near gardner-betts. Another piece of interconnectivity is where do the jp five, constable five fit in. They are certainly part of the family of downtown. We certified about the interconnectivity and when we heard about that we're talking about judicial parking. Depending upon certain kinds of sites, we may be needing to look at all the parking needs, not as I rememberly ly what are the parking needs of the civil courts system. So I mean for all of these questions to be things that we talk about on the record, in the record, up front so that somebody doesn't say, well, I could have sworn you were doing that or you whenever, but I did not want the sentence, validation will be required of that plan to I am fly a consultant, because that's how it reads, that that is a face dhiewment has some legal weight and that you waste precious hours bring thg up to date as opposed to it is a reference material and we have volumes, hopefully electronically, available to help with this.
>> I agree with your comments, Commissioner, and what -- we could have left that particular sentence out of there, and what we would intend to provide to these consultants would be the full range of information that we have at our -- and are including the strategic capital facilities master plan. This document -- we understand that this document was not adopted by the Commissioners court and it sirply provides background reference material. I agree that we wouldn't want them getting wound up in the details of just a single document. We have the examples of the different things we would provide these folks, but what we're really after is finding the most qualified firm. One those people are on board we would anticipate sitting town with them and doing a complete data dump of what we know the kinds of derek that we've -- the kinds of direction we've received from the court, the kinds of direction and aspirations that we get from our users. You're right, it would be a comprehensive review of the county's court system, the entire -- as you pointed out, dro, the yp, all of the related --
>> judge dietz?
>> let me have if I can some of the col landfill qui that expresses our intent. Let me talk first about the 1998 study. I believe that was paid for by the office of district judges with the money that y'all appropriated us. There were three main findings in that study. The first one was that if you used commercially reasonable standards about office space that were typical of judicial offices, that the space occupied by district judges was one-third of what our then current needs were. The second implication, and this was again in 1998 that we would grow and need to expand dramatically out of the confined space of the historical courthouse. And the third finding was that the best place was in the lot directly -- just east of the courthouse bounded by 11th and 10th treat on guadalupe. But that there were problems with that site, that it was bound by -- limited by capital view corridors, at least a couple of the 20 some-odd capital view corridors. What's different now and what we mean or I mean by validation is that for one thing, we were in the midst of a decade of explosive growth within Travis County, in the 19 90's. As we got to the year 2000, at the present decade rngs we going to grow at the same pace that we did in the '90's. And I believe that the question is really one that as we're at the midpoint is we look like we're growing at about the same pace as we did during that decade where most planning documents say that you would assume that we were growing at half that pace. So in terms of validation, and so give you an exarm, I've -- an example, I've run these numbers. I've taken a ratio of courts to present paplation and then -- pooplation and then projected it out using the state demographers assumption that Travis County would grow at half the rate that we did during the 90's. And the court's needs come out to about 22 courts from the present 14 courts. If, however, you use the growth that we're really expressing, our numbers come out to 24 courts. I'm going to say there's a court about every 90,000 some-odd people. So when I talk about validation, we really do need to get a handle upon the growth because you don't want to wind up in a situation if this building is to have a useful lifetime of 50 to 55 years, you want to make sthawr it has the capacity to sustain that growth so that we don't wind up back here in 10, 12, 15 years saying we undershot it. The second thing about the validation, we want to make sure -- a couple of different things have happened since 1998. When you talk about a system, you're correct, Commissioner, because not only is it the office of district judges, but there are other types of implications, security being one of them. So we want to -- when I use the term validate, I want to make sure that we can simply go to the national center for state courts and get their log rhythym for how large do you make a court and a court system to accommodate all the people that are necessary, but I want to make sure that we're not overbuilding or underbuilding. And that that also takes care of thing like security the necessity as we saw in houston of having zones of security, that the further you get into the courthouse, the tougher it is to get in. So when I use the term validate, I want to make sure that those simple rules of thumb about how big a courthouse should be are still correct. I think jim and roger are also right. We need to take a look because a lot of this is driven by what's available to us for space and the site selection. And it is a finite as opposed to an infinite amount of space available to us, and each one will have its own requirements and I hadio sin accuracies that we would have to deal with. But that's going to drive not only the design, but everything in the guts of the building and everything else, and so it looks to be that's a problem too. The other type of stuff is, excuse the expression, but it's basically arithmetic. And you want to make sure it's careful and it's correct and it's comprehensive enough, but the site selection I believe will probably be the biggest determine gnattive of the courthouse that we build. Whether or not we pull in the 40 master's, whether the tax masters are included, and actually that would stay with the system. The two other things that I want to remind the court of, the first thing, the 150,000-dollar figure came about because two years ago I believe in budget process we asked facilities if they wouldn't include this in their planning dollars, and I believe it got included, but it was there and then it wasn't there and stuff. And so we're really working off of a two-year -- we really felt that the 150,000 was a good figure two years ago. Whether or not that's a good figure today, well, we'll find out by the response to the rfq's. We hope it is because we don't want to overspend. And the final thing is the district judges have proceeded on pace to try to urge the building of a district courthouse. We did this after judge murr and I met with the county officers, the county clerk, the two county judges, the probate judge, and judge evans, and we said that because we were trying to -- as we looked at that lot east of us and the possibility of restrictions by the view corridor, it did not appear to us that we would be able to build a full fledged courthouse that would take all of the offices that were in the historic heman sweat courthouse and transfer them to a new courthouse. It appeared to us at the time that we were going to have scale it down to a district courthouse. Be we did not want to proceed in urging this to the court if we were going to have push back or backlash by the other office hlders. I don't mind if y'all want to go back and validate that, but that's a choice that's really left to the Commissioners court as to whether or not we pull these other offices in. Right now it doesn't really affect our operation. Finally, to give you an idea about what we're doing, the numbers that you see on the cases disposed, which will be in your budget package, doesn't actually reflect the work of the office of the district judges. Since the implementation of facts, we have been able to collect statistics which mr accurately reflect the amount of work we do. Each year presently the district judges and the office of the district judges is conducting about 20,000 hearings a year, and that includes jury trials all the way down to detention hearings. Off site of those 20,000, approximately 10 to 12,000 of them are at juvenile, at gardner-betts, which is why judge murr is pressing to expand our presence there. But that leaves about 10 to 12,000 hearings presently occurring in the heman sweat historic courthouse. We only see that increasing. The biggest driver in our number of hearings is the child protective service cases and cases that are population driven. The more population you have, the more cases you have. So I've tried to explain what I've meant by validation, I've tried to give you an idea of how much we're doing and what we see the future is, and we really need y'all to move forward on this rfq. I don't mind -- I think it's a good suggestion, Commissioner --
>> I think we need another week.
>> I need another week on it.
>> it may be good to take this week trying to put together the evaluation committee. Do we expect this to cover an analysis of the parking situation also?
>> not in the scope of parkingment.
>> when is that done?
>> that will be in the second face when we know what the site is. We don't have a parking --
>> you don't factor in parking when you select a site?
>> well, sure, but at this time we don't know what the sites are and all of that stuff. We can include it, judge. That's fine. That's going to add additional covment.
>> I just asked the question. If you were doing a commercial building down here, you should factor in parking.
>> judge, I think it makes sense to include it. And if it going to cost a little bit more, then say so, but let's not cut corners and then find out later we should have done this to have a full, good picture of what we're looking for.
>> depending on what the site is, there may be implications. I'm just saying this out loud. Let's say the san antonio garage is figured out to be the best durn location because we own it and it doesn't have things. Then that will have implications if indeed that building had to be taken down to accommodate the siting of this thing. So there are multiple things that could be interconnected depending on if the site you -- a person picks might have implications for other departments and let us not forget the da is slowly being pushed out of the cjc, which was the planned thing in terms of being moved out of the tower. That's going to have to be dom dated in some way because it will be some reuse of the historic heman sweat courthouse as well.
>> on page 8 it talks about the immediate area around the campus and what they need look for. One of them is consideration for suitability for a parking structure. So that is included in this scope of work for them to look at.
>> all of this particular input that the court was given this morning, do you think you will have enough time to modify this particular phase of what we're doing within one week? And if so, how much additional costs, if any, would it be for to us move forward? I'd also like -- before you answer, I'd also like to suggest that wherever we see heman sweat Travis County courthouse in this document, it needs to be document to say heman marion sweat Travis County courthouse. Because there's even an example on page 6 --
>> we can do a dwloab al search. -- global search.
>> I've heard different ones say old historic courthouse and then I hear someone say heman sweat. No rkts man's name is he man marion sweat. Let's refer to that in the document. Please give it his proper name. Secondly, with the additional costs, there's a lot of stuff that's been put out here as far as what the Commissioners court has put out here today, there may be some significant change in the amount of money we're talking about. I don't know. But also thirdly, at some point we did indicate that we wanted the community involved in this process. You're looking at the heman marion sweat Travis County courthouse, as far as looking at protecting its integrity and protecting a lot of thing to make sure that we do that. At one point we mentioned about an outside community committee being put into position where we could oversee and look at a bufnlg of these things. And I wonder where in the process is that going to take place. I do know there are folks interested in that. Again, I think all of those things put on the table and I guess we'll have an answer sooner or later, but there's quite a few thing that have been said here today that may alter the costs of what we're talking about, and it may not. I don't know.
>> Commissioner, I think everything we've discussed today was anticipated and is in this dowvment certainly we can do a better job, take out the word validate, include a definition of the civil courts system, include a list of deliverables that go -- we normally do that in the contract negotiation phase when we start talking about money, we want x amount of noun this and this. We'll come up with those deliverables. But I don't think that -- I don't think we're adding anything we didn't anticipate. I think we can anticipate that 150 might not be enough just based on the fact that it is a two-year-old estimate and we've seen our estimates over the last six months get busted. So I would recommend that you go with alicia's recommendation to come one a 50,000-dollar reserve if we need it once we get the rfq's in and look at the pricing. The judge has asked for one week sork that will give us time to make these changes. It will push out the schedule a week, but we'll make those changes --
>> who is the person to contact with the suggestions?
>> me. Send the e-mail to me and if you would like, cc everyone else or I can send it and make sure everyone gets a copy. And if y'all have recommendations on who y'all would like to see on eat valuation committee, I'd appreciate that input too.
>> I'd like a list of all the specific things we want done, unless they're already in the scope of service. That will help determine who should be on the committee to help us get there.
>> we can do that.
>> and I can wait till two days to get it. If I get whatever additional comments you've got by late Thursday, I'll have my input back to you 5:00 Friday.
>> okay. Thank y'all. This will be on next week. You.
>> only thing I need next week, what I'm looking for is the number of what we are going to spend on this project up until 2008, 2009 because that's when the bond issuance is going to be. I'm not comfortable with you telling me that we're only going to spend $200,000 between now and 2008 or 2009. I'm looking for what dollar amount do we need to appropriate to get this thing are ready to go to bond. And I don't think that's $200,000.
>> no. Thierks the number I'm looking for. Give me that number next week.
>> let me make sure what you want, Commissioner. This one --
>> if you can have that number, give it to him. He's look at the total costs that we would go to the bonds for. If can you give that number or an estimate next week, we'd appreciate it.
>> judge, I'm not looking for the bond number. I want to know how many dollars we have to appropriate to get us to a spot where somebody says, now, y'all go and pass a 47-million-dollar bond for this.
>> would that include design?
>> we asked this consultant to do a preliminary estimate of the project costs. It will be preliminary project costs, but that will be a result of this, it might not come next week.
>> I'm not sure that we as sirply as possible set forth exactly what it is we want done for $150,000. What we hope to have in hand that we go out in search of a design professional with. If we do, fine. If not -- that's my goal. And I think the clearer we are on that, the better off we are in the long run.
>> okay.
>> thank y'all.
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:
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 8:14 PM