Travis County Commissioners Court
October 3, 2006
Item 34
34 is to consider and take appropriate action on scope of work for new civil courts building. And mr. Corey -- there he is. And judge dietz is here to give appropriate backup support.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. I would like to present to you the scope of services for site selection for the new civil court building. We believe that we need to land on specific site so we can move forward with the overall planning of the civil court. The site selection for the new building should consider the proximity of the historic herman marion sweatt courthouse and we have a scope of service we would like to package it within the r.f.q., which is request for qualification and this request would be required to identify and evaluate the finding for the site of the new building. I have the scope of service for the basic services listed under 2.1-a. The site option identified within the downtown area adjacent to or within the existing Travis County downtown campus. This information I'm trying to secure and the basic services. Ownership of the property, legal description, capital view corridor assessment, the utility easement and existing utility, roadway easement such as alley or access easement, building setback requirement, features that may require special attention such as a abandoned fuel storage tanks or culverts. Historic landmark feature or significance that are known. Site features that may present a challenge to construction and also topographical information. I have provided to you on the backup, it's a -- it's topographical sites showing the boundary. We are asking the court to approve the boundary or we can -- you can shrink it or expand. The site considered for the selection will be defined by this boundary. If you look at the lower left corner, you have the directional map. Then you have the north -- it's west 4th street and east lavaca street and the west is rio grande street. And I believe this is the site. If the site goes even beyond or expand then the proximity to the herman marion sweatt would not be strategical. We believe this area, we can find site within this area to provide our need. I would like to give you example, if you don't mind, regarding a specific site. The specific site, if you look at this, would be I call it the usb holt site. This is to the east of the herman marion sweatt courthouse is on the map right here, it's called usb and holt. What I'm trying to accomplish on this is tell you that we have the land on this site. But this site has an obstacle which is the capitol view corridor. The object take cal is on the -- it's wool ridge park. Also affected by the site is the capitol view corridors are la more bridge and the Barton Creek capitol corridor. Those two corridors can be maintained respectively. We have no problem with the height specified on those capitol view corridors which is about 60 feet high. But the wooldridye, we cannot do that unless we raise that requirement. Let me go over that example and I'll tell you how I came up with these numbers on this spread sheet. As you can see I -- usb holt site and we have a city block. And a city block is 276 by 276. So the footprint there as you can see in number 3 is 76,176 square feet. The height is 65 feet. This is -- this heat is established by the lamar bridge capitol view corridor. The courtroom space is 7,200. 7,200 came from the cjc, one of these on the tower. And those are very spacious courtroom with a suite so this one as an example for the courtroom. Then the courtroom floor to floor height is 16 feet. The lobby floor to floor height, the first floor at ground is 19 feet. With this kind of information, then I calculated that the number of floor above the lobby lovely, above the ground level is supposed to be three floors, and the total floor above ground level is four floors. And the number of courtrooms on each floor as divided by the numbers here is about like 10. 10 plus. So as you can see, we can't go over the number of courtroom on lobby level would be six. Then you have the rest of it is for the lobby. The number of courtroom on the second level would be 10. The number of courtroom on the third level would be 10. The number of courtroom on the fourth level would be 10. So the total courtrooms 36. Is total civil court square feet is is --. This is just to give you an example. But real any practicality, we have to have a setback. That's as you can see, the last column is that setback block. As you can see, I -- that's what the the. And I went the same calculation, I have about 28 courtroom on row number 15. And that will be a total square footage for the building was 240,000 square feet. I believe this site is a specific. Different site has different requirements because of the capitol view corridor. Example of that would be as you look at this map, down at the san antonio garage, this is the holt site, this area right there, the capitol view corridor is -- we can build up to 200 square feet -- I mean 200 feet high in this block with the san antonio garage because we run into -- we get a formal capitol view assessment from city of Austin and we can go up to 200 feet high. 200 feet high just gives you a perspective. The height of the cjc is 200. So this kind of example the height of. Now, please understand that if we have enough land we can go low on the civil court, you know, like a shorter building, but if we don't have land, we have like a block or a quarter of a block we have to go high. So I would say each land -- each site, it has its own specific characteristic, and that's why in order to move forward with the new civil court we need to find out what plan we are going to be considering, what plan we're going to be obtaining so we can move on with the civil court. Now, if you go back to the scope of service, and I just want to look at item 2.1-b and to say that the sites can be assembled site of multiple owner properties. Smaller site can be assembled on to the site or the site could be a abelieved with the county property and adjacent owner properties. So what we're looking at the site is to fulfill our requirement of our civil court footprint. So there's a lot of small little property around, you know, we have to combine them in order to come up with the site we want for our footprint. There's other site in other justice to the north of the cjc, this is block right here, north of the cjc where we have 1101 nueces, we own that property north of the cjc. We have 1101 nueces. Next to that we have a parking lot. We lease from bank of america. Next to it, as you can see this building right here, is for sale right now. It's on 12th street and nueces. And I can talk to you about the cost of that, you know, in the executive session, but that's to give you an idea there's some sites are for sale, but also they are expensive. And we have also in the downtown area another constraint is the historical houses. We need to make sure that, you know, we don't have historic houses houses impeding our progress. So I would like from the court today is to give me a direction about the area. Should I look for more area or smaller area for our civil court. And if the scope of work as we recommended is acceptable so we can move forward with r.f.q. For the site selection for the new civil court building.
>> roger, the thing that I'm noticing, and I appreciate I have given him the suggestion we may need to assemble properties as opposed to finding the magic thing owned by one person and perhaps even our properties can be leveraged on this, but how long do we think folks can take and should take in terms of the deliverables. I didn't see a deadline for the preliminary findings will be within x number of days, the final report is due to the court in x number of days, because we've got pending decisions here and if you give somebody a year, they will take a year. If you say we need it within the next 30 to 90 days, that's a different thing entirely.
>> sure.
>> so do we have a sense of what those deadlines ought to be?
>> I think for this -- again, it would be depending on the area selected right here. If we shrink the area, we need about like four months. You know, if we extend the area, we need more than that because we have to look -- because [inaudible] has to look for each site available and determine the constraint on that site. So I would say for this one right here would be four to six months. The site selection. We have the preliminary finding and the final report. I'm looking six months for the final report. And facility management would be helping the consultant and getting things --
>> a reasonable time 180 days. You are going to need that. Roger, it's not that big of a deal, but [inaudible] bank of america and frost.
>> yes.
>> just switch them around.
>> I realize. That I'm sorry.
>> all the buildings that you have labeled are buildings that we own.
>> that's correct. Except the one, as you can look at next to the bank of america frost.
>> but the san antonio garage is ours.
>> yes. And the san antonio garage, it's about like 47 feet high and then it's about 26,000 square feet and it has 376 space in there.
>> roger, that looks -- I almost expected it to look like it was going to take up a quarter of that block, and it doesn't. It kind of hangs over and it looks like we actually have almost three-quarters of that block. Because of it going down the hill. I guess on the other side was the old -- oh, john what is his name law firm.
>> [inaudible].
>> that's right. But I mean it seems like there's a shorter storefront on that street. So we own more than a quarter of a block with the san antonio garage. Interesting.
>> and we need to have as one of the pieces of information provided availability for acquisition for slash purchase.
>> any additional comments we need to hear? The other things, it amaces me how much property the county owns but we aren't using it.
>> one other things occurs to me as we are sitting there, sometime in March of 2007 will be the deadline for introducing bills into the legislature. If we were to pick a site and were to require any type of legislative relief, we would have to be able to have a bill drafted and a stoncer to be able--sponsor to be able to introduce that bill before. And as I sit here, I can't remember whether it's like the middle of March or the end of March. But there is a deadline on the introduction of bills. So when you all are thinking about the due date for your receivables when you get it back, I think we need to be cognizant of that. Otherwise you would not be able to get to the legislature until 2009.
>> judge, forget it if we do it in March or April because you know what happens. You are trying to do something then, we have, I think we have it going in the right direction. Probably due diligence that we were asked to get to . Quite frankly, if the court order is going to be the issue, then we need to identify that as soon as possible, which is all the more important to move forward with this thing. Could we get this bill, do you think we could get this out, and would we look for 30 or 40, how long would it take to identify who will be able to do this?
>> roger and I talked about it and we will try to make some calls to get something going this week. Since it's an informal process, it's based on us and the consultant. Hopefully we will have a contract in a month.
>> that would be key. If we have that, we have November, December, January. Hopefully, that really pushes it. If you are thinking that this group is going to really need 120-180 days. I don't think that we can ask the person that we talk to, judge, if I'm reading the tea leaves right, to see we want to you go through the due court but we want to you come back and the location may not be in the view corridor.
>> nevermind.
>> it's quite clear. And I would think that that, Commissioner, would be true of any member of our delegation that we ask and try to work with on this problem, that they are all going to want to know, are you all serious about the site. That just seems to be the essential component. With respect to the issue as to whether or not 150,000 is adequate for the rest of what we have to study, since the time that we had the discussion before budgeting with you all about working up this request for a proposal, the departments have been meeting and working together. In fact, we're working with mike wickern out of susan's office with respect to working out the statistics and all. We're trying to cut down that which we have to shop out to an outside consultant and yet still get good, reliable data that we can use within the planning process. I don't see any reason why, if this is a 50, $60,000 proposition, of why 150 would not be more than adequate for our initial planning documents that we need to do.
>> roger, sit reasonable that on the preliminary--is it reasonable that on the preliminary findings that that be the 120 days with final report being at 180? It kind of says get it down to, you know, kind of narrow it down. I think we do have, based on direction from county staff, a proceed, you know, we would get a look-see at that point. 60 days that really hone in on whether it's five, four or three.
>> I think you're on the right point, Commissioner. I think I will add 30 days as a total to get the final report, and it would be 150 days.
>> I was going to make 180.
>> just, I just realize about that March 2007 deadline. So we have to really move on it pretty fast and try to cut it short.
>> extra 30 days to get the final report.
>> judge, let me see what you think about this. If we really want too move forward with, you know, starting to x things off that ain't going to work, ain't going to work, I think the judge last week, you know, was pretty loud and clear. Bough--boy, I would like to have the notion of being able to say we were here first. We own the space, this is a great location. I would say that you probably might be able to pretty quickly get the court to say, you know, we're going to go to that sponsor and say, that's our first thought. Because I will tell you, I think that it would be crazy not to use every source of power and persuasion that we had to try to use something that we already own. And we know that if the mansion and site are an issue, that usb built site is a very likely site to do this on. I think if we sent the message about the five of us saying that's our first spot and tell that person, I mean it may be one of those things where we don't have to do 50, 60,000 worth of stuff and say, you know, that's our first. Until a sponsor says, you know, I've been floating it out there, and it is heavy lifting. Let's face it. View corridors in this town is not going to be something that you just, I mean, whoever you are, I mean, is going to be able to make it work.
>> unless you're ut.
>> unless you are ut.
>> if I may, last week was courthouse week. I only had four meetings on it. But in meeting with the bar on Friday, county attorney eric shepherd, soon to be judge shepherd, was really eloquent about if we were able to use this whole usb site, of how we could take the courthouse and really beef up the community involvement and the community utilization of that building in many regards. And he was so persuasive that I asked him to kind of help us, the judge side, in this effort. But there's just a lot of advantages. And people say, well, why do we need a courthouse in the central business district? Couldn't you go south or drive by 35. We have had a courthouse in the central business district sense 1854. In looking at the statesman one time, I remember I saw a reference to it. It was at fourth and guadalu guadalupe with two court rooms and a dungeon, is the way it was described.
>> .
>> given the tremendous voice am by lawyers, law , other auxiliary places in the downtown and the downtown business environment, I think it is essential we take everiest to try to keep the courthouse in the central business district. And then I applaud judge shepherd in thinking of taking taking sweat courthouse and the exciting things we can do with that. And the third area, maybe when you all are talking to the city, but wool ridge park is just near dead. And I think there are just a lot of things that could be done to make this area more attractive for the citizens, to fit within the history and the historical significance, and also accomplish some change as we need to so expand our growth growth. And so, you know, I don't, Commissioner, view the capital view corridors . I think we need to preserve them as best we can. But there also has to be some give and take here and there.
>> I agree, judge. I mean, I am willing to go forward with the deal. But I think that it's clear that this court needs to send a message to the potential sponsor of this thing, that we're not going to back away as a court. Our first, you know, choice is the usb holtsite and we will do everything in our power. Then you start turning up the heat with everybody that you need to get involved, and say, that's the energy that we want to go on. I mean, now, unfortunately, to go forward that aggressively, you ends up having to put a lot of, you know, eggs in one basket so to speak because it may be one of the things that at the end of the deal you go, boy, you spent a lot of energy by, hey, what do you you have to lose only the fact that you go to plan bñrk. I'm always going to look for number one, what do we own. I'm going to tell you I'm running to that garage and trying to find out what we can there, especially the fact that we can go, you know, 200 feet and do things like that. Even having a garage, I think we probably really think that the best site is the usb and holtand especially to tie it into the marion sweat deal and really throw some bones to the whole notion of being able to do something with wool ridgepark. We don't have to spend 15, 20 million on dirt. We have some dough that we can doll some things up and really make it something that the community can buy off on. I do think that if we're going to get this thing in the slot that we need it, then we need to send a clear message to that sponsor that we're not backing down, we know we're going to take some heat with some people getting in the middle of this, but we're saying, you know, nobody questions whether or not we need to have this in. C b d. There are people that say why don't you do it here or there, but there's a million other reasons to have this thing downtown, the least of which is not the fact that we own it. So I do think that we really need to send that message. Maybe we're not willing to, you know, put it in today, just agenda izeit that we all five raise our hand and say that's our number one spot, and then go to the potential sponsor. I think that we have a good strong potential sponsor if we're willing to take the message from the court. That's your spot and don't back down on me. I mean, that's kind of the message that you got at breakfast?
>> I certainly did. I also think it's a message that we need to take to all our delegation as we partner to try to get this through.
>> I think if we're going to talk about the usb site as potentially being in the wool ridge corridor, then architecture is big-time going to count. And I had my assistant bring down for me our current courthouse, civil courthouse and the one that we used to have which was located near the state capital just off congress avenue, which also had a courthouse bar located right next-door. But that's another story.
>> another day.
>> it was drop-dead gorgeous and I want you all to see how beautiful it was. Guess what? It was a four-story building building. And what wound up happening is that they wound up slicing off the top with all the really pretty stuff on it and made it into a really really, really ugly four- four-story building, at that point I guess it would be a three-story building, and then they took it down I believe in the '60s or '70s, and éby>ñthat's now the packing lot next to where the highway folks are. But that's where architecture is going to count if you're going to have any kind of conversation about the appropriateness, because of the capital, the governor's mansion, historic wool ridge park, and the downtown alliance is working on all four historic parks and wool ridge is one of them and they are working with all the stakeholders on that. The county is a stakeholder. The Austin history centers, architecture is going to count here. Look how gorgeous our old courthouse was there on the top of just beautiful. Four story. Why don't we steal that one.
>> let me get your name on this. Why dant we reagenda--can't we reagenda izethis thing and ask some of the delegation to come and hear it from us, that our, I mean ask them to come here and let them hear from us that this is really our number- number-one spot and we would really like to have their support of moving forward with this. At least send that message to them. They may have to go huddle up and say that's something we want to try and fight. I think we ought to try that before we get something out, maybe spend 50, 60,000. I think that's, if you are to have us all write on a piece of paper out of all these things on here where do you think it ought to be, I best the majority would be it ought to be the usb tract tract. Let's at least send a message. What in that group gets together and they come back and say, you know, we just don't have it in us to do that fight. Well, then, okay. So be it. We at least know that. I didn't hear from that from the one person we sat down with. I think that person needs a clear unified message from this court that that would be our number one spot.
>> we would have to think through the implications of going to the you can sb block. There are people, some of them in this room, who work in that building d. And there are departments and they would have to go someplace else during the construction period. And by the way, they are not going back into that building because we have h, are there, the facility, the park folks, dr, the wellness clinic over there. And domestic relation who we got out of a half a million dollar a year lease to come up into this complex. So it could be a good site. But it's also a complicated site because those folks are not going back into a courthouse. They were not courthouse folks. Other than the con stabel, sorry, blues, con stable five in the holtbuilding. And parking considerations. Always something.
>> a lot to it.
>> uh-huh.
>> I think if we displace other county programs they have to go somewhere. It may be difficult to get around some sort of site analysis. Do we ask what the square footage or the buildable area? I know we have a legal description of service. Do we have like buildable area or square footage for use in this?
>> go ahead.
>> this is the square footage, I think the site, we have to, the consultant would have to tell us what site it is as we move forward. But if we look at the square footage of the courthouse, I think we are going to make it in a way that we can afford and build about 28 courtrooms because that is projecting for 30-40 years down the road.
>> did we ask the consultant to make a finding of that?
>> yeah, that's something that we definitely need to have in here. We intimate that that's part of the deal but I think we need to state it a little more clearly . And I think this rfq, scope of work document that we presented here, is somewhat of a draft and we do need to fluff it up a bit and run it around and get some comment before we send it out, because we revise it from an earlier document. So we wed to make sure that we have covered all the areas that we need to cover, including things like running this pass the city of Austin and finding out what kind of little criteria they may require of us to meet that could cloud some of what we intend to do. There's a few hurdles that we need to jump. One of the definite ones is to find out the size of the envelope that can go on the sites, how many square feet, the analysis that roger did with the 19 feet floor to floor, the 16 feet floor to floor.
>> they are, a far.
>> that was a quick one but that was a necessary analysis.
>> one thing, I think that's all pertinent and absolutely true. What it does is it throws you out of the legislative year of doing what you got to do. Not saying that we don't need to do the due diligence of let's just admit today before we leave this room, Marching this way and getting the information, and I do think that it's great information because there are all sorts of issues as far as moving people and this and that. But I don't think that we're going to be able to go to a sponsor and say we want you to, you know, go out there and start standing for us because, you know, after we do 120 to 180 days of due diligence, we may come back and say it's not the spot.
>> we can have it as the prime ar err site and-- and--primary site and if it falls through have another one. If we have a prime ar site we need space for other programs. I think we need a final word for how we can use the property across the street once and for all. We limit ourselves if we cannot get around corridor issues and get a waiver. If it happens we can only put in a within or two story building there, we ought to know it. We can keep wishing. But have a reality check now and then and know anything higher, we probably can't get done. So if we vote for our primary choice this and put forth the reasons why, my guess is pretty soon during the process we will know whether that will fly or not not. And at the same time, though there are other properties around here that may well become available. Maybe we need as large a site. But those programs have to go somewhere.
>> whether I'm saying, when we added on to the garage at san antonio during that time period, we had to kick everybody out of the garage. The idea of kicking people out of the gange because you had to re--garage because you had to reconstruct was easier than entire departments that have to pick up offices and losing parking along with it. There's some things in terms of, I would, like I say, our san antonio garage takes up more than three quarters of the quarter block, and there's a potential of an assembly to the south of there. And you could wind up having two-thirds of a city block with no capital view issues at all. And goodness nor bid we would--forbid we would put a courthouse back on the courthouse square. There is something very special about that in terms of what was intended. That's where you put courthouses, on a courthouse square. We got one.
>> I like that idea much better.
>> I do.
>> I see all kinds of barriers. And sit really worth it to spend energy on that than to find something that we know is not going to have those barriers. And there's a little bit more room to go, to work with.
>> what you can do is put porking underground -- --parking underground and with load structure so the site can be of use for under underground parking. And utilize, don't get into a site with the state. I think there will be other things fighting with the state.
>> sounds to me, stoneyo garage is where you--san antonio garage is what you are thinking of, it could be pretty quick because we own it. Then it's sitting down with somebody and saying, hey, tell us what you think about doing this with the san antonio garage and going maybe next-door or whatever we have to do and concentrate right there. There's a lot of political capital that is going to have to use for this corridor.
>> right.
>> no question, Margaret, that it's a big deal.
>> not to mention delay. Delay is a big thing that holds us back from getting things done.
>> architecture would still count because you would have the historic courthouse to the north. You've got the you a tin history center to--austin history center to the south. And it is something that could be something very happening on the courthouse square, which I think in the same way that the federal courthouse is anchoring itself to republic square and they have warped with the city and they are going to be abandoning san antonio in front of the federal courthouse. We already have piece of san antonio abandoned in between the cjc and historic courthouse. There are some things here that you kind of, your front yard becomes the park. And so the feds are going to be working collaboratively with the city and the state in the redoing of the public square and kind of getting to good things. They are using the street as kind of being their setback. And with homeland security, have you to kind of think through what kind of access you indeed do want to have around your courthouse.
>> may I respectfully recommend that maybe that what we want to do on this is currently there are two sites that appear to be viable. Both of which the county owners. And to have what roger is wanting is to evaluate those two sites.
>> that's a good idea.
>> anything else, if it comes back and they are both then of equal weight and viable, then you all are in the happy position of having two a little two--two at tis. Whereas--alternatives. Whereas if it comes back and one has a lot of issues and one is better, and still has issues because this is Austin, after all, then you can focus on one. If the unhappy circumstance is that it comes back and both have issues, then we need to be looking at some other alternatives that would involve things that are within your discretion. And so, it's kind of a little risky, but not risky, becausy need to eliminate-- eliminate--because we need to eliminate the first two at tis or at least evaluate them. I think--alternatives or at least evaluate them. I think taking the money that you all have set aside and focusing on that might be prudent and might give us an idea of where we need to go if either one, either or both of those sites are good or not good.
>> sounds fine to me. The other thing, the information we need is available parking. No need for us to land on a site without dealing with that issue, seems to me. The recommendation is really instead of looking at all of the potential sites in this area that roger marked for us, that we look at the two pieces of property currently owned by Travis County, trying to figure if we can make one of those work.
>> that have application for the view corridor.
>> one of them does. Across the street.
>> the two we own, usb building and county.
>> one of them.
>> and san antonio. Each will have some obstacles and barriers.
>> that's correct.
>> and on san antonio, that may be one that there is an assemblage that is necessary with a private property owner. I think we have already had some informal conversations that they would not be un unexpected to get that phone call.
>> in the evaluation, would it be necessary to also indicate what kind of impact it has on the departments that already exist, impact meaning where are they going to go? Have the space to place them in not only the corridor situation but that situation situation. If we do have some departments that exist on these sites. I'm not really sold on a lot of stuff until I have answer answers to that evaluation. So what would it take. Some of those folks who wanted to keep downtown as .jál opposed to the courthouse, con stabel. So I guess that's my concern concern. In the evaluation, in the scheme of all those things, I just think those factors ought to be thrown into the mix because in my mind it's a part of it. We just can't just overlook it and just concentrate just on corridor view. There are other aspects and impacts of this that need to be shared to the point where we can come up with some type of final, I guess, position and impact.
>> I think you're right, Commissioneri just don't think it's all one thing--
>> I just don't think it's all one thingin terms of the expertise that you're contracting for, that the going to be something that lies within your all's discretion.
>> I know.
>> the expertise we're contracting for is probably more just theoretically just real estate and then you all have to add in and make these decisions on the other factors.
>> right, the other factors. Definitely eats going to be an impact. If that indeed is the site that has the necessary criteria, especially in the view corridor. I just want to make sure that we don't overlook that.
>> yes.
>> let's take about three weeks to put together an appropriate draft contract anyway, right?
>> right.
>> for the court's review? Review?. Move that we authorize staff to put together an appropriate scope of service and do informal competition to select a consultant to assist with an analysis, assessment and evaluation of the two county-owned tracts of land in downtown or near downtown Austin, namely what we call the usb tract and the san antonio garage, that we have this matter back on the court's agenda three weeks from todayfrom for follow-up action.
>> judge, want to make sure that when we say san antonio garage, we immediate the potential of assemblage with add adjacent property owners.
>> the whole tract of land.
>> we only own the san antonio garage and there are things that are very logical to look at assemblage.
>> and any and all land located close there to.
>> add adjacent. Just want to be sure that we can go outside the boundary.
>> that's where all these factors figure in. That's why I think parking, square footage. And there ought to be an alternate place, I guess.
>> and let me understand the motion . When the person, I guess within the motion, when the person that we look at that we hire on, are they going to be just looking at the real estate itself but also just one aspect of the cite and just the view, and what other criteria will be added to that scope of work as far as what we are look to go come back for recommendation recommendations to the Commissioners court?
>> basically it will include the services that we have listed here. Instead of looking for this big square that roger had on we'll be basically looking at those two specific properties.
>> all right.
>> and we'll call it like site number 1 and number 2. For the you can sb holtand site number 2 is the garage.
>> but view corridors will be, capital view corridor will be part of that.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> absolutely.
>> those other things I mentioned will be coming forth late zñr that's correct.
>> .
>> later.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. I want to be sure that's the intention of the motion.
>> the assets of this, exist exister, would be to learn dñr Commissioner, would be to find the suitable of the site, to erect a building.
>> I understandit won't deal with the programming or the other issues about la to do with the wellness--about what to do with the wellness clinic or the staff.
>> the pros and cons and the challenges on one of the sites would be that it would disrupt.
>> services.
>> service, yes.
>> right.
>> would I just ask or comment, who is going to take a leave on work--lead on working with the sonsers to look at legislative issues? Who is going to take the lead on that? I think that's very important that someone start talking maybe to our legislative group. Cñd is cñd--and Commissioner dougherty is going to take the lead on that?
>> no, some people already are.
>> I think that's critical. If you all are pushing that, you know, it's going to have more impact.
>> the whole court has to vote on the legislation. We can just pick up--
>> they might give us a feel on whether it's even feasible.
>> second.
>> I think somebody seconded.
>> they are will go having those conversations.
>> do you second that commission?
>> I'm happy to.
>> no one can command more attention than judge dietz. Judge dietz really has this thing in the heart to do. He really, I think judge, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I think you want to be involved enough with this thing, don't you?
>> I have a commission from other judges to do just that that.
>> without a doubt, judge dietz is the guy that I think will be able to pull the delegation of folks together.
>> I think that's critical.
>> thank you.
>> anymore discussion or ? --or delay? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
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 4, 2006 4:29 PM