Travis County Commissioners Court
December 18, 2007
Item 6
6, consider and take appropriate action regarding the precinct 2 office building second floor addition project including the following: a, advantages and disadvantages of current project versus new facility or new location. B, construction budget and source of funding. C, recommendation to reject all bids received for ifb number b 070319 rv, precinct 2 office building, second floor expansion. And d, discussion of long-term plans for precinct 2 beyond 2012.
>> judge, alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. About a month ago we discussed precinct 2 with you. This is a building that is currently 20,000 square feet, approximately, located on burnet road or burnet street. We had had a proposal to build a second floor on that building which would essentially double the square footage. You have located in that facility now components of cscd. You have precinct constables, precinct 2 van who is with us today, and then you have j.p.b.e.m.b.r.y. Also her courtroom and offices in that particular building. We received bids in September for the construction of the second floor. Those bids were higher than what we had anticipated. Currently there is approximately $1.8 million in the budget remaining from f.y. '07. And we have been working with the person who did the bidding and doing some value engineering, and we would like to talk to you about the options you had specifically requested that we look at pros and cons for building the second floor and for building another new building to house those functions. We met with the individuals at precinct 2 and Commissioner sara eckhardt. We took them the options and we've got those for you. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's an either/or, but perhaps both. But we'll go through that. I知 going to turn it over to roger l. Corey to start going through the numbers and the pros and cons.
>> thank you. Good afternoon. Roner l. Cory. On the -- for the first two option and the backup I have a couple pages which shows the advantage and disadvantage of constructing the second floor. I just want to go briefly on those advantages. To construct the second floor, the advantages are
>> [inaudible] current condition of the j.p. Office and construction can be completed in nine months after the notice to proceed. Also the condition of constable 2 office and the community service and correction department known as cscd by renovating the vacant space created when the j.p. Office goes to the second floor. Optimize the building capacity in terms of space. Since it was built in 1995, it was built to take on the second floor. Then we will gain additional 20,850 square feet if we build the second floor. So the total building size would be about 41,700. And one of the advantages we implement our program and design and also the advantages, the co-existence of -- in the same building at the same floor for security reasons and it's been there for a long time. The disadvantage of constructing the second floor would be the cost that
>> [inaudible] to build the second floor is much higher than what is expected. The budget was $2.3 million. The bid came in about $3.3 million. Now, the total construction costs for the second floor would be around $3 million. The construction of the second floor also would be done when the tenants are in operation. But here is the real thing about the disadvantage. If tenants would run out of space after five years. Which means in 2012, one of the tenant -- I mean we build the second floor, sure, it's going to be good additional space, 41,000 square feet, but I believe the jp 2 and constable 2 have to move out of that current facility to somewhere else after five years. And I share those numbers with you in a second. Those numbers were given to us by p.b.o. Based on the projection and also this is how we developed the program and designed the project. So the tenant would have to be
>> [inaudible] five years that counts for increase in staffing and services. The current access to the building right now is not safe in term of when you are exiting the property on burnet road, you have to do special maneuvering, if you want to go to the left as you are exiting the property and go to the right through some kind of a turn-around somewhere else and go to the left. So this is kind of like space issues or accessibility issues. And the building would be located one of the three existing ten nanlt. I think that turns out to be an advantage if you move the jp 2 office and constable 2 office to another location. And on the second page of exhibit 1, which is page 2, it shows -- I listed the advantages and disadvantages of moving the jp 2 office and constable office to another location. And if we -- the advantages to move the constable and the jp office to another location is -- and the constable 2 office is going to be taken care of for many years to come because at that time we'll buy more land and the expansion will be beyond 2012. Jp 2 office, constable 2 office will have ample space for expansion. Jp 2 office and constable 2 office will move closer to the client. This is questionable here what is the client. Where is the central location for precinct 2 constable and jp. They start from -- I believe from
>> [inaudible] crossing all the way to west boundary of Travis County. But I guess the population we're talking about the center of the client closer somewhere around the jollyville road area or peyton gin. We're looking at -- we're not looking anywhere at this time, but this is the location we're talking about closer to the client. Jp 2 office and constable 2 office will be visible to the public. Right now the building is way far from the road. Nobody know about it. Except, you know, if you have that big sign on the front of the buildings and you have also constable in the past, you know, talked to txdot and they put this sign showing where the building is. Now, it would be a good -- visible to the public when we buy the land and build them new offices. Then we'll assign them to a current build to go cscd. That's the advantage. Because cscd would gain 40% of the building size, about 8,000 square feet. Right now they are about 60% of the building right now. Cscd occupy, constable 2 and jp 2 is about 40%. Reduction -- one of the advantages, a reduction of the number of visitors to the property. Only cscd visitors will go to that property. Redirect the existing project fund that we have right now to help building a new structure or buy land or something to that effect. Another advantage, the building design duration I believe would be shorter and a design perspective if you want to design anything else because we already have the template of what we did on precinct 3. Then you postpone the building of the second floor until the cscd run out of space on the entire first floor. This is part of the advantages. A disadvantage of moving the jp 2 and constable to another location would be additional funds would be needed beyond what we're trying to ask for the second floor construction to buy the two acre of land. And it might take about three months at least to acquire the property. Then design and construction new building would take about 15 months. Therefore the total duration to acquire, design and construct the building would be about 18 months. Compared to constructing the second floor right now is only nine months. Constable 2 office will not be in the same building with cscd; however, constable 2 has offered to do security for cscd if the Commissioners court desires. Run down advantages and disadvantages.
>> okay. On item number b on the agenda --
>> we're getting -- do the constable and cscd have a preference or are they deferring to our wise judgment?
>> I have an e-mail from rose.
>> what did you say in your e-mail, rosie?
>> we're delighted if we could gain the additional space, but as roger mentioned that would meet our short-term needs. If the jp and constable move away from that location and you all would provide security through the constable's office for our building, we would be fine with that. But we really do need the additional space.
>> as soon as possible.
>> yes.
>> how much would the additional security cost if the constable and jp were to move to a new building?
>> I believe p.b.o. Costed that out a year ago or maybe two years ago and it was postponed because the building of the second floor never occurred. I believe there were three f.t.e.s built in with the remodeling of the main entry during that proposal, and what I appropriate -- I致e got no problem doing the security for cscd. I don't have to have our office there, but that's at the court's discretion.
>> but you are looking at you think three new f.t.e.s if you move your office out and provide security for cscd?
>> I would think that three would be necessary based on you do have to rotate them out.
>> yeah. I guess the thing that struck me was that I did not realize that it would only be relief for about five years. I guess I hoped it would be significantly longer ,
>> well, judge, judge bembry sends her regrets, there was a conflict, but she asked knee to convey the same stuff we discussed in the meeting with Commissioner eckhardt. She has some positions she can't fill because there's no space to put new employees. I知 up against that also, and in fact over the last couple of years, I致e given up office space of mine to cscd and cscd is faced with new legislative measures that were enacted by the last legislature. And we're looking at when we sat down and looked at it, the judge needs the space as soon as possible. And once that's done, we can foresee in that 3 to 5-year period that the whole building is going to be required for the use of cscd. Based on the legislation that was passed.
>> constable van, how many employees do you have right now?
>> I believe 26.
>> do you know how many justice of the peace bembry has currently?
>> I don't know that answer.
>> I have something to show the Commissioners. One second. For j.p. 2 in 2008, 2008 is about 31, plus or minus one or two.
>> 31? All right. We were projected in our 2001 facility strategic plan in 2020 to have 23 employees for the constable's office and we now have 26? And we project understand 2020 for the j.p.'s office to have 17 and we now have 31. My concern about the either/or analysis on this is that it appears simply from going out there and seeing people just on top of each for an additional building. We're growing far faster than we anticipated in j.p. And constable and cscd.
>> you don't lose anything by building the second floor. You can always use it. You need the space. You need that space and you need something else. But seems like the timing is probably pretty important. In 18 months I bet you can get to 24 months real fast.
>> I would suggest that we move forward with building the second floor and start exploring options for another building and funding sources for another building since in any scenario we're going to be needing to identify additional square footage at the latest by 2012. We're not even -- in the best case scenario the second floor and the renovation of the first floor wouldn't be completed until 2009. Correct?
>> correct.
>> so that gives us a three-year horizon from completion of the project before it's obsolete for its current tenants.
>> do you perform security now for cscd or is it just your mere presence? In other words, do you really need three people over there in the event you all work two different locations? You don't have three people dedicated to cscd right now or is it just the fact that you got all those police cars and uniforms walking in and out and that kind of in itself acts like the security? Or are there people dedicated to that?
>> I wish it acted more like that, but it doesn't. And this is sort of a history lesson. When I took office, I don't know that there was any security at any of the cscd offices. And during that first month I was in office, we had two -- they notified us of two probationers that had taken off. And I said, you know, this is a waste of time to have to keep going chasing them. One of them took three hours before we tracked down. And we came up with a solution that worked to the advantage of everyone there and that was their probation officers, when they have someone that they are revoking or has had in warrants issued on them, they call our front desk and I have -- usually have a deputy available and we go over and make their arrest and hold them until the agency who wants them comes and picks them up. And since that time, we have had nobody escape from their custody and the model worked so good I believe the court looked at it and based precinct 4 building on that. And that's why I知 saying I知 not -- don't want to continue to do their security, but having my office there was not a necessity because most of my office during that day are clerks and they don't get involved in the cscd stuff at all. But I have a bailiff in the courtroom and I usually have a deputy or two that's coming out so we've always been able to accommodate them. But it was in the plans that were proposed I think two years ago and with this last budget year I said, you know, just forget about all that because there's no need until we remodel the building and actually come up with security security, that three deputy security system that was proposed.
>> if we build out the second floor, what will it take starting today? What needs to be done, the cost, et cetera.
>> okay. To build the second floor, we would like to have additional construction fund -- construction, security, in the amount of additional $1,654,214. 1,654,314. That includes construction, contingency, 10% contingency, i.t.s. Fund, security fund, and the move fund. Now, the source of that 1,654,314, we talked to p.b.o. And was to be fools. General fund would be about $13,000 because of the move. We have to pay out of general fund. Certificate of obligation five years, about $1.1 million. Capital acquisition reserve which is c.a.r., about 551,314. Jessica.
>> actually c.a.r. Is 550 thoi. The recommendation 13,000 from allocated reserve for the move, and the rest from the c.o. We have to reserve a little of that for issuance. The issuance is 18,636 and the project amount 1,381,314.
>> the c.a.r. Amount?
>> 560,000. That would leave the Commissioners court with sufficient resources to purchase the property that has previously been discussed as well as a reserve. We like to keep the reserve at c.a.r. For the fiscal year at approximately half a million. Approximately that.
>> so that's 1.6 budgeted so far. So in terms of probable cost to acquire enough property for a new site, you say 10 acres that is correct includes the building, parking?
>> two acres.
>> that includes building and parking and everything else?
>> yeah.
>> so what are the broad estimates on that?
>> the real estate, it's a dynamic. I would say two acre for -- I just made a very preliminary spread sheet on that. It's about two acre of land in that area is about like $800,000. Plus. And then design and construct a new building, design it in house --
>> [inaudible] just like precinct 2, it's going to cost about 3 million. So with a contingency of 10% because we don't know actually the cost of the land is really going to be $800,000 for two acres, so the total amount $4.4 million to have other property acquired, two acre, and build the new building with the same standard we did precinct 3. So this is an additional cost of about 634,176 than what we do the construction of the second floor. In terms of time. We will build this building on the second floor nine months after we issue the notices to proceed for construction. Let's say if we have a contractor tomorrow, it would be nine months from tomorrow. Now, if we go and build somewhere else, I don't know how long it would take to acquire two acre of land. It might be three months or five months. But I am certain about the design and construction. It would take us -- and including the procurement, it would take about 15 months to finish design, construction.
>> 4.4 was the total on the -- of the new building? 4.4 grand total?
>> 4.1.
>> that includes everything?
>> that includes everything.
>> surely you could find some land out there --
>> not down the road. If you do it now. Because really -- we're talking about $3 million for a building that's 17,000 square feet. And $300,000 contingency. Really at this time we don't know how much until we know what the land is and all. So to build, it would be nine months. Now, I would like to talk about -- about the schedule when we move to item number c. This is about reject the bid or not.
>> you just landed on it.
>> okay. Thank you. On item number c, we did value yearing -- the bid came in about $3,329,000. And we talked to the contractor and we sat down with them on two sessions, two
>> [inaudible] sessions and finally we came up with a reduction in the cost of the low bid down to 2,889,475. Reducing the low bid by 450,389. The items -- the items for the low bid for the -- on exhibit no. 2 on your backup, as you can see the schedule of value of the contractor giving those real numbers from his side. Then on column number 3 you see the value engineering items. And that totaled 450. So the new value right now is 2,889,474. Now, what are the value engineering items are items that does not have any affect on the programmatic issues. We're not reducing any offices, not reducing the squire footage of the building, rather we're changing the envelope, the type of materials on the envelope of the structure on the second floor. We're changing the configuration of the roof. We are eliminating the entry of the tower, you know, into the buildings. It does not have a
>> [inaudible] at all. Then also we are changing the signage. We're going to do the signage ourself. And then we are changing the way the hvac system works on the second floor. Still have a comfort zone for the users, but we're changing the way, the distribution of the hvac system going to provide to the tenants. And also we're changing the roof drains. Right now the roof drains in the middle of the building. They drain inside the buildings and go to the sewer. Right now we'll build the second floor, we're going to eliminate all those extension of the drain floor to the roof, rather we're going to have a one pitch roof so we'll have a downspout and that will take care of the drainage on the outside of the buildings. So all of these value engineering items cost about $450,000.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> it is the value engineering for the record. But because it's too much and the value is too much, that changes the characteristics of the project. We cannot do a scope reduction.
>> when you delete certain things, you have changed. There is no value in deleting something except you have reduced the scope and decreased the value.
>> it's more, it's the changing almost of the definition of the purchasing laws.
>> the requirement of the purchasing irrespective of your engineering efforts.
>> exactly. That means a change.
>> yeah.
>> what is before us really is the request to reject all the bids and rebid.
>> correct.
>> all right. That's c.
>> item number d--
>> hold on. We may as well act on c while we are hot.
>> move them.
>> I move to reject the bid to rebid.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. Show Commissioners Daugherty and eckhardt and yours truly in favor. Commissioner Davis away for the rest of the meeting.
>> I have a concern about what assurances do we have built in so that we don't reject again? That in itself delays the project. What can we do? What can we put in place so that we can, you know consider.
>> we did some of that Commissioner, with this last budget. You approved a cost estimator position with facilities management.
>> right.
>> and we had a real hard time fulfilling the position because of the high demand.
>> do we have one now?
>> yesrb he's been on one month.
>> are we rejecting based on his estimates?
>> no, these were done really in '05 estimates approved in '06, yeah, approved for the budget of '06.
>> I think we need to do something to make sure that we have the right estimates given whatever is going on in the market and the costs and materials and all that kind of had thing. When we go into, if it's true had a we're going into a recession, what the that going to do to estimates?
>> I think--
>> are we going to be able to do it under budget?
>> I知 not sure, but I would like to, for my side, when we did the value engineering with the contractor, I feel good about that value. When he gave me that 450,000, he gave me he thinks on number that numberlve I feel some other value can be drawn and additional issues can be taken care of so I will not have, with the funds you're going to approve, I don't think we're going to go beyond that. So we're going to be under budget. This is my estimation on that. Because the 450 we're going to go ahead and remove all of that. If we have a real number from the contractor, that it can be reduced by that much f we can go ahead and take care of those tells, I believe the value will be even more.
>> I値l vote in favor of it, judge. I think it's absolutely needed. But I think we need to get a lot better at these estimates. I think we're rejecting too much much more, I知 just not comfortable with the way we approach this.
>> show an en--enthusiastic unanimous court. Move we approve the funding for the second story at this building and move that we fund it as recommended by roger and ms. Real.
>> second.
>> in the amounts, you have those, mr. Opal?
>> yes, we have included the 1.1 in one of the orders in the event that the court wished to go in that direction. Would you like the transfer from the car reserve in the amount of 560,000 to be treated as automatic so that they may begin work?
>> I hate the word automatic, but this motion does authorize it. How is that? Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Show Commissioner Davis not here except in spirit.
>> judge, judge vembray did want me to relay one comment, and that was her concern for her staff and the fact that this project moves along because they are walking on each other.
>> in regard to d, I would like to move that we amend our strategic plan on page 77 to freshen up the statistics and wording of the paragraph above the statistics because this indicates that this building even with the second floor will be appropriate through 2020. I think from our discussion today, it's plain that we, it seems there is an implication from the court to look for an additional building.
>> can you request that since we're not posted to do it? I think we ought to have a specific posting for that new building at the new location also. Would you request that they change the long term plan, right?
>> yes, that we amend the long-term plan page 77 to reflect needs for additional space beyond 2012.
>> would you like that we come back, since we are getting additional requests for the document.
>> the numbers are as y'all said a few minutes ago, they are clearly outdated. We have greatly exceeded them 13 years earlier.
>> yes.
>> as is true with many other member.
>> the other numbers are like that too?
>> many of them are. It depends on the department.
>> rest have a specific posting on that.
>> all right.
>> long-term strategic plan is what we call it?
>> capital facilities plan.
>> let's have this --that in the item.
>> all right.
>> and the new precinct 2 office building, a specific item on that. Get it done. Roger wants specific authorization. Mig --anything else under this item today? Cscd happy? Thanks for coming over. We don't see you all that much unless you're trying to get a new building, new counseling center.
>> we appreciate it.
>> I can joke about it since I知 on this side. Thank you all 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, December 19, 2007, 18:30 AM