Travis County Commissioners Court

March 25, 2008
Item 7

Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court. Item no. 7 to is consider and take appropriate action the Travis County downtown redevelopment initiative and related issues, including the following: 1. Site options for new civil courts building; 2. Needs assessements, including: 1. Needs analysis to establish space needs for civil and criminal courts; 2. Family law center needs and initiative; and 3. General government departments' space needs and which departments remain downtown; c utilization of county properties, including: 1. Future utilization of heman marion sweatt historical courthouse, including expansion, technology and utility infrastructure; 2. Future utilization of rusk building; and 3. Future utilization of county owned property on airport boulevard; d, revised scope of additional services for broaddus contract and establish schedule for presentation of completed phase I report; e, future of county space committee; and f, coordination of certain county staff and consultants. Looks like every time we have this on the agenda, it's longer with more issues. Late yesterday I sent out an e-mail saying if we could address three or four big issues, we will have made a whole lot of progress. Let me take on what I think is the biggest one. You received yesterday a -- a -- a project process road map and decision framework which was put together by facilities. This document has -- has notations that belinda powell also noted. I had a -- a meeting with ms. Powell yesterday. I had another meeting with facilities personnel today. Here's my recommendation on this. That we asked leslie strickland and belinda powell to get together. Try to -- to resolve their differences -- in a perspective concept, et cetera. Try to get down to I would say the big issues on which they still have differences or disagreement. After that, commission eckhardt and I try to meet with them and resolve those and bring back to the court a document that -- that probably will represent all of the issue that's we have been able to agree on, the ones that we have not been able to, try to get the pros and cons for each perspective, then land on it that way. I think this is real important. This document contains our commitment to go ahead and do the comprehensive analysis which I understood we said we needed. I has that recommendation because there are a whole lot of details here, a lot of work has been put into it already by facilities and ms. Powell and others, but additional work needs to be done. And my fear to be honest is that if we start discussing this today, four hours from now we will have done nothing except discuss it. If we can reach agreement and circulate the agreed document with a clear indication of -- of points of disagreement that are still outstanding, then I think we will have made progress.

>> and that's okay with me. I just kind of want to make sure about -- above everything else, opt to repeat the cjc fee I can't fias. I think there are enough of us here who were here when that happened. I’m counting on the fact that we have learned from that process. And that we have things built in here so that we don't repeat that, please. Let's not repeat that. And so -- so trying to be futuristic.

>> one of the glaring things about cjc when we started that and worked our way through it, we didn't have much professional staff. One lesson there was that we needed to bring architects, engineers, planners on board, we have done that. Maybe not to the extent that we should. But we ought to.

>> sure. I think that we have come a long way since then. But the other thing is where there is the need for Commissioners court involvement, then I think, you know, I need to know about it. And because -- because hopefully I’ll keep up with everything that we have done and in the future when questions are asked of me about why this happened or why that happened, I’ll have the answers. To be able to provide that. And but yeah I think we've come a long way since the cjc. So -- so hopefully we won't have any errors.

>> yeah, we have learned a lot of lessons.

>> the way I see this document is it will lay out in a comprehensive manner basically all of the things that we need to do. To do the entire redevelopment initiative. And then who is taking the lead on different parts.

>> okay.

>> and we have stressed teamwork enough, but I will just stress it again. Because I think that we ought to do that. It doesn't help to have a lot of professionals on board if you are not working as one.

>> right.

>> at least to the extent possible.

>> uh-huh.

>> that's not to say we will all be of one opinion, one mind, we will try to achieve that if we can.

>> absolutely.

>> we've had our subcommittee, we have not done a whole lot of work. I have kind of met individually thinking at some point we will be subcommittee ready. We're not to that point yet. But our goal is to get -- to empower them to help us get there, then you and I will meet with them and others if they want to, then we try to come back to the court with a document that hopefully contains a whole lot of agreement and where the disagreements are, address those. Now, there will be other specific issues if we pass this.

>> judge? Respectfully, will we be able to comment on those portions of the scope of work that apply to the courthouse and the redevelopment of the historic courthouse?

>> those and others.

>> thank you.

>> before it comes back to court. We know who has been involved in this and so -- so we will run that by whoever is interested.

>> thank you.

>> because I think last time, judge, we also learned that we needed to involve all of the users of -- of whatever facility we are -- we are working on. Involve all of the users. And probably -- probably even sign-off at some point when it's that time to do so. So that we don't have to backtrack later and say well we left somebody out and, you know, change orders are very expensive. If we can do as much involvement at the front end, have as much comment I think that's great.

>> what I meant by those and others, those relating to the civil court building as well as any others, criminal, jp's, you got some ideas, I think you ought to give them. Other persons will be given the same opportunity.

>> okay.

>> would you say out loud one more time when -- what your charge is so I know exactly what it is.

>> what I’m asking the court to do is to authorize leslie strickland and belinda powell to take the facilities document that ms. Powell has park -- has marked up, and that they sit down once or twice as needed, try to work through where they disagree. Then after that exercise, then they would generate hopefully another document for this document revised, then Commissioner eckhardt and I would meet with them, but our intention really is to discuss points of disagreement. And after we have done that as best we can, then we would share that document with all interested parties. I’m thinking that may take a couple of weeks. Hopefully not a whole lot longer because when we put it on the court's agenda, you may be looking at two or three weeks from now. But our goal would be when we come back, we have achieved as much agreement as possible and we'll be able to pinpoint areas of disagreement for court consideration and action.

>> I’ll second that.

>> and my idea, too, is when we break back areas of disagreement, we would try to set forth the different privileges, whether that's two, three or four but to put the court in a position really to be sort of fully informed and advised and go ahead and -- and take action.

>> okay.

>> now, there's a document -- there's a whole lot in this document. And I would be real surprised if this document does not change over time. But once you start working on the -- on the initial steps, then you are taking action. And hopefully you will learn from those actions to such an extent that you may have to refined what's provided later on. The other thing is that part of this is getting outside consultant assistance and you may have one idea in mind up front and -- as you work you may have others. That's a long answer to your short question.

>> do you see a need these two have at this stage for outside involvement? I mean might there be a -- a need to have somebody sit down and -- with a -- with belinda and leslie and say okay, let me try to act as, you know, a moderator or --

>> she's perking up like she's a person cyd is.

>> that's kind of what we do.

>> leslie and belinda have told me they can work together.

>> you all have. Y'all feel like you can come back because I don't want to see two weeks go by and you come back and say there are just some area that's quite frankly we just can't get there. I mean, then we're like --

>> they are the ones that come back to us.

>> I would be surprised if there's not a few of those.

>> okay.

>> but I would also be surprised if there's a whole lot of them. So hopefully when it comes back, there will be mostly agreement. And where there's disagreement, we will be able to find out exactly why and basically go ahead and take action. Now, I’m -- I was smart enough to touch base with both of them, see if they would pull this off. Without any pressure from the county judge, they said yes, right? I think that what you'll find is that where we will have a sticking point is where you have more than one choice. There are pros and cons for each choice I think is what judge Biscoe is alluding to. It really does have to do with the process and where you want to take the process, how you want to procure it. So I -- I think that -- you know, this is a good approach and I’m ready to sit down.

>> I like options with pros and consequence.

>> that's -- pros and cons.

>> I would suspect that's where you will see there are still areas of disagreement, it's not disagreement, it's a choice for the court.

>> > sure.

>> I guess then my -- that leads me to my real question of -- if you all feel comfortable in being able to -- to determine, okay, here are the areas that you -- that you can't, you know, get together on, and you -- you and sarah or Margaret y'all are going to take it on and say okay we're going to make that call, I’m trying to give you some help if you need it, not from me, but from somebody that really knows how to do this. I mean, I don't know -- broaddus or somebody that's sat in a number of these things, but it sounds like you kind of got it wired I mean if you are comfortable with where you are headed with this thing, I mean, then I’m willing to trust you and to go forward. I mean, obviously you have gotten the word from these two that we're going to get there. I mean I’m glad to hear belinda say, I’m sure leslie would agree, there are probably going to be some things that we are not going to be able to get there on. Knowing that, I don't want to put you in a spot where you go quite frankly hey I have never taken on a project this size so my opinions, you know, aren't really, you know, that, I mean, the worth of that is not much. But heck I’m willing to -- to be there with you if that's what you are comfortable doing.

>> I’m thinking that after Commissioner eckhardt and I meet with them, trying to keep the numbers small, we come up with if necessary sort of a second revised document to what we have today, they generate one, hopefully four of us working together generate one. Then we meet with others. I’m sure that we make some changes there. Incorporate some different ideas. When we get back to the court, though, hopefully we will reach out to the court with everybody interested in providing the information, especially the document. That's not to say we will have gone to the j.p.'s and ask them -- part of this is when you start identifying space needs you have got to go to them, in my view you have got to go to the -- to our customers out on airport, find out what additional needs they will have in the future. They have been out there several years nowment and my guess is that when they occupied the current space they had enough, I don't know that's the same today. So part of this will be to go to them, find out what additional space if any they need. If so plan to accommodate that out there where they are. The more of that -- the more that you use, the more space you will need. And I should also indicate that the ridgetop residents contacted me the leadership about that resolution they gave us years back. I did tell them, you know, we have this building, we are doing the space analysis and -- and we given up, haven't given up, I may have gone ahead and sat an appointment with them. Different pieces is what I’m suggesting.

>> okay.

>> it has highlighted -- it has highlighted that it's high time for us to come back around and do a needs assessment globally so that we can make the best decision for the central business district.

>> I agree. I mean I think that the needs assessment is the absolute first thing that we have got to do before we can do anything. Everybody is pretty much of that opinion, without question.

>> okay.

>> on a related point I’m taking the plastic liner out of the recycle here. Alicia and I talked about that. Recycle!

>> anything else on this?

>> judge, I would just like to add facilities is ready to constructive discussion with p.b.o. On this. And I’m sure that we will make progress together.

>> okay. A motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now to the specific stuff that we think that we can land on today. The -- the there is the question of potential sites and others that may surface later. Is that to pinpoint those two specific sites that we have been discussing? There are -- there are -- it seems to me that at the -- during this meeting we ought to try to figure out where we are on the -- on the property under the garage and afl-cio. Or we ought to put in place, we ought to indicate where we stand, put in place a way to make that decision because -- because hopefully when we provide the scope of additional services, for broaddus, we will leave on the table everything that we are seriously considering, take off everything that we are not. We won't spend money on something that we won't do. If we know we won't do it. If we're uncertain, then my choice would be to include it.

>> yes. Have we gotten follow-up information from the garbage landowners?

>> I will defer to alicia.

>> good afternoon, roger el khoury, director of facilities management department. When we -- last time I talked to mr. Rodgers and we told him that we're going to come back with a -- with a -- with a -- an offer, he asked for an offer, he put the offer on the table to -- he put the price on the table to buy -- to sell the -- the piece of land under the parking garbage. I told him we took it to the court, right now we are engaging with an appraisal. The frame land then we will come back and talk to them about this after the court agreed to it.

>> leaving it alone.

>> uh-huh.

>> well, might as well. Lets take it to the end, see what happens.

>> he hasn't said know, basically what price you got in mind.

>> yes.

>> after we get the appraisal, yes.

>> but we did ask for the appraisal.

>> uh-huh.

>> okay. Any objection to leaving it on. It remains a potential site.

>> uh-huh. The other thing is -- is that -- that -- that based on one of the graphs I saw, what's the name of this little building? Carriage house.

>> the carol house is there. Depending on what land we end up owning, there is a way to build a building that faces guadalupe but we would need to own that little house.

>> we didn't do an appraisal.

>> does that land stay on the list of potential sites?

>> yep.

>> I would -- I would suggest that it should stay on the -- on the potential sites. It may become cost prohibitive. But it could also be designed around it but it's not historical.

>> we don't -- we don't know. That is part of what we -- what we have asked broaddus to research or will ask broaddus to research.

>> okay. So when we think potential site we should also think when we do the necessary work on these potential sites, these are the sites that we would include. So -- so if you are sitting down negotiating a fee with the consultant, fee would cover this potential work.

>> yes. Correct.

>> the more you add, the higher the fee. The more scenario that's we come up with, the more it's going to cost us.

>> all right.

>> okay. Afl-cio. That's two we leave on there. Afl-cio. I have had nightmares about two things.

>> [laughter] one is us spending a whole lot of money, then leasing from them. Two is for an investor and leasing from the afl-cio. So -- so in my view unless they are willing to sell their building to us, we take them off.

>> let me ask something.

>> any objection to that?

>> huh-uh.

>> I don't understand this process now. Why are we talking about -- about site options before needs assessment? Isn't our site, our site options 78701? I mean it's -- we know that -- we probably could say it's -- it's such and such street to the north, such and such street to the south. And to the east and west. As opposed to going through here and trying to pick out the carriage house and garbage, this and that, I don't know that it's not -- that it wouldn't be prudent to go and talk to the minimum ton law firm. I mean I don't know. We really can kind of pick some of this stuff. Until we really get this needs assessment I don't understand why we are doing this site stuff. I need to know whether we need a billion square feet or half a billion square feet. Then you start applying or you start looking at what we have but you can't do that until you get the needs assessment. I don't know I think that site options for me would be site options yes we are going to do that. But appear possessed to going through each one I don't know it may be worth going when we find out what our real needs are, determine who really is going to stay down here --

>> we know the afl-cio does not wish to sell to us. Which we do. In my view, it would not be wise to taxpayers to lease a building that we spent a huge amount of money for. To me it doesn't make sense to partner with them to get a developer to do a building for them and us. I mean I’m just thinking when we go to taxpayers, we ought to go with best case for them to approve and I’m also telling you right now I’m voting against us doing some sort of lease or some sort of development partnership with them because I don't think we ought to. And if three of us feel the same way, why waste the money. We will end up with a whole lot of areas on the potential site list. So my goal was what we know we won't do, let's take off. And the garage may be doable, it's money. Carriage house it doesn't make sense to face guadalupe with that little building down there. It also leaves this building for analysis as well as all of the other buildings. So I didn't think wreld take, you know, 10 or 12 off. But I thought we might take any one of these three. Looks like on this one right here, no, the vote can be 4-1. But it still won't make sense to me. But if three others, if two others feel the same way, why leave it on there. Now, all we can say -- I’m agreeable if we think afl-cio at some point may agree to sell it to us much then it's a different matter.

>> I think we know better.

>> I’m still back to why are we talking about this when we don't know what our needs are. I mean -- we are beyond figuring out whether or not we're going to do something other than a civil courthouse. We are. So until I know what our real needs are, then I don't really care --

>> how long would it take to know what our real needs are.

>> we get someone hired to do the needs assessment and master plan.

>> several months.

>> several months. It's a matter of when we do things. It's just a matter of when we do them. We should have --

>> [multiple voices]

>> simultaneously is what I’m thinking.

>> the other thing, though, is if we think that a majority of us may be supportive of a lease or partnership, it ought to stay on. I’m saying I’m not voting for it.

>> I will second that so we can move on.

>> judge dietz --

>> if I can answer, try to answer Commissioner Daugherty's question. This has been sort of an internal debate between the alicia and i. She has always advocated the need for an overall needs assessment and I have been the one that's been sort of driving the site because when we first started we first started asking in saying that we were going to try to use county land, whether it was block 126 or this present 134. And so we -- we've looked at sites, including the san antonio -- the first round with broaddus was to look at county sites, including the san antonio garage, block 126, and then we've talked about as the impairments, the restrictions on 126, to wit the view corridors, we began to look around at other county owned sites looking here at 134. The discussions that occurred between judge shepherd and myself and the afl-cio occurred because as we looked at 134, the site of the present granger-stokes building, we didn't know what the plans were of the afl-cio and it appeared that -- that if they were in a position, if we could partner with them in some way, then that might in your -- to both benefits, the afl-cio and the county, it was when judge shepherd and I approached them that we found that they were a little bit further along in their own development of their own space and we felt duty bound to report that back to the court to let you all know under those set of circumstances. Now, we have explored the option of third party financing and we see that that's probably -- that would be a stretch and, you know, we -- we understand the court's concerns and aren't pushing it. We just felt like it was our duty to report back what was happening.

>> yeah.

>> and in the first cut, was to use and look at county property. And I think that -- that some of the things about the expansion of the broaddus present scope of work is for them to do an assessment of this -- of this site and then I think there's even some discussion about the engagement of realtor services to take a look at the development, the availability of other sites that would address both the administrative and the civil and criminal court needs within a a certain range, that's how it came about.

>> so I -- I looked at this intensively for a period of time as everyone else has on this issue. It concerns me that the need assessment, I think Commissioner Daugherty is correct in what he's saying. We don't district attorney on a lot of things but sometimes we do.

>> amen.

>> I really feel very strongly, I think when we had the little retreat and stuff like that. We did emphasize strong need assessment, strong need assessment that seemed to be the hot topic of today. Along with other topics we talked about in downtown campus for the courthouse. I haven't really deviated from that at all. It just appears to me that they can work simultaneously with the site and also jointly hand in hand. But appears to me that I would like to know what the needs are. Keeping these sites of course on the table don't do away with them. Let's see if we can let the needs fit the site. So I’m really looking forward to seeing a need. Really looking to see what the need assessment look like, see what we -- where we are on the need assessment, see what sites we have available see if the shoe fit.

>> may I speak to that for one moment. In many ways I’m simply echoing what the two of you have both said. An overall needs assessment is very needed. I also wanted to chime in that the civil courts in their quest have done an internal needs assessment. And it has -- it has revealed a good amount of need there. So we do know at least that. We also know perhaps certainly anecdote tale, some degree statistically that the criminal courts are going to need more space as well. I don't think it's out of line to be looking at procuring additional real estate in the cbd knowing that there is additional need that we just haven't quantified or categorized it yet. But we absolutely have to do that. I, too, don't favor leaving afl-cio on there. I would prefer to be more conservative, only look at pieces of property that are more low hanging fruit to us. The rusk was right next to the parking lot that we owned, parking garage is contiguous to this building and they were -- rusk was a straight purchase. The garage would be a straight purchase. I don't see an issue with looking at the garage. But I 100% agree with Commissioners Davis and Commissioners Daugherty that -- that we saw it in the needs assessment that civil courts had done, as soon as we started looking beyond block 126 to block 127 san antonio garage we were stepping into territory that might be criminal court's expansion. As soon as we started looking at block 134, we were looking into territory that would be administrative expansion. So the need for an overall needs assessment is obvious.

>> I would say just one thing. On process in looking at broaddus doing site analysis at this point and where we are in the needs assessment process and finalizing some of that is that if you have an expectation or what the sites can hold at their maximum potential, what good configuration architecturally sensitive configuration on those sites would look like and how much space that actually is, if it's courts or office space, there's nothing wrong with doing that while you are also -- because you already know that you have a shortage of space while you are defining your need. What I would caution you is to not expect to get from broaddus at this point a recommend addition as to a site for either a civil courthouse or an office building because you won't have defined sufficient need for them to definitively help you do that. But if the work occurs concurrently, there's no reason to expect that at the close of these two initiatives. You won't be able to come with the users and with the reports themselves and say we have a recommendation site a for this, site b for that and let you discuss a scenario. So you think it is a matter of doing some concurrent, some con current work so you are still gathering technical information on your sites while you are defining your needs. The question always comes up as to how far beyond what you already own should you already go with assessing anything until you really have your needs designed but nobody has proposed yet but you step outside of the blocks where you already own substantial pieces of property to look at. So the proposal to look at 134 and 108 really still is looking at properties where you -- or blocks where you own significant property. The issue with the afl-cio is why -- why that have involved in the scenarios for broaddus to look at. If there is not an ability to acquire --

>> it's too speculative I suppose what I’m trying to say whereas the garage has a probability that's much higher.

>> it's -- the issue really is we may have started looking at

>> [indiscernible] analysis on site before we finish defining need but there's no reason to think that you can't do those tasks con currently. You just won't get a conclusive recommendation until you are finished with both tasks.

>> one other consideration what we have funded for this for, do we want to spend that money on the needs assessment now and then fund the rest of this next fiscal year because we are getting close to that time of the year. So -- so it's also that factor.

>> we can also run an analysis with p.b.o., if you wish to pursue both types of scope of work, we can look at the costs associated with both scopes and alternative sources of funding if we need to do that. Again, that's a choice issue on your part as to whether or not you want concurrent work to occur.

>> also when you all are talking about the scope of work, the level of detail that we drilled down is also going to affect the costs and just from a non-technical person's perspective, we need to do high level planning, high level needs assessment and not drill down so far that we are getting into details that at this point just too early to be thinking about those things. So that's another way to make sure that we are just doing a high level is to take out some of the detailed things that are just sort of too early for us to be looking at.

>> there are a number of related issues here. In -- in selecting the consultant to perform the needs analysis, we have discussions yet ahead of us with purchasing regarding the type of consultant that we need to perform the scope that we are still working together to -- to decide on what exactly will be done in the needs analysis, also what the procurement method will be. If it's going to be a longer time, a more formal procurement method it's possible that could take definitely several months and might not -- we night not be ready to move forward with a contract award for some time. That can be taken into account when you consider current fund versus possibly funds budgeted in the next fiscal year.

>> actually, I have made a recommendation sort of not formally on how we proceed with this. Broaddus has actually started a lot of this work. My recommendation would be engage broaddus and have him bring in the expert court planners that we need. I think by doing this we have a local firm that is very familiar, already started working for us in a sense on this project, roma as I reported to you thought they were doing the needs assessment. If we go that procurement strategy as soon as the scope of work is approved, I can negotiate and we can have broaddus on board pretty quick. Can we get closure. The last thing we need to discuss is afl-cio. The other is generally what we have always been looking at. I just thought that you should formally go ahead and decide what specific sites we wanted to leave on there. There's a reason why we have a under 7 and then a b and a c. B and c basically deal with needs. What we have, how do we use it, what do we need to go out and construct. B and c. But on a, though, even if we take the afl-cio off, we are left with a whole lot of other potential sites, some we own, some we don't. They are all in this area that we defined during the work session and it seems to me we ought to take a real good look at them, we ought to be serious enough to pay somebody to do it. That's what it boils down to. If we know up front we are not going to seriously consider a place, why pay to have a feasibility study done on it the only reason I thought we ought to address that issue first. Judge dietz, I cut you off. Here. I’m sorry, this is why cyd and a number of others of us disagree. Since the sill courts, criminal courts were two out of the three components, of the needs assessment which included general government, administrative, we were hoping to get somebody of -- of more analytical about her and who had more court experience, but was also able to do general government.

>> what do you mean?

>> [indiscernible] realm of what we are looking at now.

>> there are national initials which several of the people here at the table have become aacquainted who do projects across the nation who have a large port foil I don't of having done courthouse and general government projects.

>> my discussion is that we hire broaddus and have him bring those experts in under his contract to do -- to do exactly that. We might have a number of expert, not just criminal or civil courts, but others as funds are available.

>> before we disagree -- we just felt like that would just add administrative costs we don't need to pay. If broaddus has to subcontract that --

>> charge you for it.

>> they are going to charge you for it. Whereas we are quaiptsed with the firms, we can do the r.f.p.'s and contract with them directly. And cut out that admin costs.

>> would there be much variation as far as costs what we have now? What is the national firm? Basically put on the table? Are we -- are we looking at the service itself, paying for the service, looking at the national --

>> the two responses Commissioner are one, we want you to get value for the work and we believe that that lies with people who have experience and know what they are doing we don't want you to spend any more for it than you absolutely positivelily. That's why we are considering such things as administrative type of costs that which is a good thing to consider. But we do have a purchasing agent that watches our back on that.

>> comerks just as a follow-up. The estimates that wilford hall been discussing about the needs assessment assume that you are going to have a analytical der courts expertise planner at the table. I can't say that I have refined numbers, under somebody or on their own, we have absolutely anticipated that the type of work that needs to go on will require a certain level of expertise, we have tried to work up cost scenarios that reflect that. We have been working with the project team for several months on benchmarking different things, trying to get underneath some of these planning figures. So when we have been looking at the budgets for various pieces of this work, we do absolutely expect that -- that -- that you are going to have that national expertise covered --

>> any type of indication on the added value that -- that we will receive from -- from -- from being suggested, some type of funding aspect as far as what works have been done for those national firms, I really don't know who they are or anything like that. I have dealt with courthouses across the country and anywhere else. But their track record as far as the service added value that you get with the equally of that expertise which is an added value. Also the amount of money, some form of what they charge for this kind of stuff. I don't know those answers, I don't.

>> I think as we finalize the documents with b and c we started out talking about you will see more of that information coming forward because that is what we have been working with behind the scenes and discussing in the various options.

>> I move that we drop afl-cio from the list of potential sites.

>> second. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Do we want to pick up the vote or go back to the needs assessment. I wanted to get closed on that issue.

>> let me ask judge dietz. Do you think that the national folks that you are talking about that they would be involved in the needs assessment as well? Or do you think that the needs assessment would be given over to them? I see out as a process, I’m going to call it an it active process that -- iterative process that we would have to tell them through the scope of work what it is that we want them to do. Then they would be working with us and then also with planning, also with facilities, on the two levels that -- that in order to arrive, I mean, ultimately I think that the type of product that you given is ts much needs you have and this is approximately the amount of space that you are going to need to fulfill that need. And so -- so I think that's essentially the end product of this two step needs assessment is what are your needs in the foreseeable future. We have to define what the future is. The end product is they as certain the amount of need, the fte's, then the says that's necessary to house those people so that's the end product.

>> judge, if I may go back to the issue that you are dealing with in terms of space, let me go ahead and go to the map. I think we can wrap up this.

>> [indiscernible]

>> land that we are looking at is as judge dietz said. We have started with the direction to look at county owned property. We are looking at block 126, all of 126, we own all of that. There have been agreement from the court, judge, I don't know if you need a motion to go ahead and continue to look at that. Not only for courthouse , but also for office space. The development or buildability, constructability of the area will be different for courthouse that will be for office space. For example, on a courthouse the only parking that you will have with the structure would be for the -- for the judges. Very secure parking. If you decided to build an office building, you could change that, there could be significant parking underground. Those are the sorts of scenarios that we are asking broaddus to take a look at. We are asking them to take a look at any historical issues, historical legacies of buildings on any of the property that we are looking at. So 126 is one, 134 where we already own both ned granger and the garage, the scenarios that we were looking at is -- is facing 11th street, afl-cio is no longer going to be a viable project, that comes off of it. Off the table. We look at ned graiker and granger parking. Ha a block facing guadalupe, we ask them to take a look at instead granger being demolished and instead granger staying. Ned. We ask them to look at the parking garage it staying or being demolished this whole black being taken up by one building. Those are the sorts of scenarios that we are asking broaddus to develop. This is important because you own this on the or own portions of it, so by the time that you complete your needs analysis, you will at least know from the property that you own what is buildable and constructible in those areas. We have 126, 134 and on 134 we have this scenario -- the scenarios you have them from front of you in your map, half a block facing guadalupe, half a block facing 11th. We will now change that to half a block facing guadalupe, ned granger and granger parking.

>> alicia, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? Why are you -- I don't need the explanation of that. I could look up there and see everything that we own. That's not questioned. The question is do we need 500 million square feet of space down here, do we need a billion square feet of space. Once you determine that then you say okay here is the limit we can put on 128, here is the building, we have no height limitation, here is something that we can do with the granger building. We know that we can do those things. But until we know I still don't know who is staying down here. Somebody has got to give us, the only thing we know in staying down here is the civil courthouse and all of the things that are attached to the civil courthouse. We assume I guess audit and p.b.o. But I don't know of hr or all of these other things, but until we do that I mean this exercise that you are going through alicia I mean I think we all know, when you gave us the map and said here are the things that we own, here are the things that we can -- that we actually can build on, here are some limitations, because of cbc's, that's all the information that I need to know right now. I mean, I’m -- the next thing that I’m waiting for is how much space do we need to build downtown for the future who is going to stay?

>> but we've only done that analysis excuse me we have only done that analysis on 126 and 107.

>> and it was good to do because it highlighted the fact that we didn't have an independent needs assessment for the central business district. Now I agree we need to put aside site analysis and go back and do needs analysis and utilization of current assets analysis before we change the scope of broaddus or bid it out to somebody else to do additional site analysis.

>> that's exactly right. We may be -- broaddus may be doing something and we go you know what we just found out you need 300,000 less feet. Than what you said, what you thought, so why did you even go through the motions of doing something with -- with the parking garage. I mean, we know that we get the parking garage until 2030.

>> we know that we have until 203035, I -- 2035. Even though we don't know with statistical speaks specificity, what we feed, how much, in what categories, I don't think that it is outside the bounds of sense to go ahead and look at the acquisition of the dirt underneath the garage.

>> I don't think there's any issue with that at all.

>> I do agree that I would not be in favor today of -- of amending the -- the scope of the broaddus contract for additional site analysis because I too would like to see a needs analysis as well as a utilization of current assets analysis first. Before we go further. What we have done so far with site analysis was extremely instructive. It is has brought us to this moment. It was not wasteful, it was very useful.

>> I agree.

>> what's the best way to do

>> [indiscernible]

>> yeah. I would submit that bnc really is involved in your process we are going to need. I think there will be agreement that we are going to need to contract for part of the resolution of that information, the development of that information that is part of your needs analysis as it comes forward it's looking at the utilization of your assets versus what your departments need. So if you would have bnc be related to us bringing back this process diagram and hopefully a scope of work that supports that process die graham or map -- die graham or map. As you've outlined earlier this afternoon to work with you to do that, work with the rest of our group to do that so that we have a road map better defined as to how you are going to be about answering bnc. I think that that does require some consultant expertise to assist staff in doing that.

>> judge dietz? I want to talk about b 2. What you all have listed as family law center needs and initiative. I would respectfully ask that you all remove that and -- and let me tell you why. The idea about -- about what we have styled as a high volume justice center, can about in those dark years of 2004 when it didn't look like y'all had any desire to build a courthouse. And we were fast running out of space and we were trying to generate what we were going to do. And an idea was developed about taking high volume and pricing it off-site. Most likely near the juvenile center. Right now the situation is there is no -- y'all do not have any land within your inventory that would address this. You have acquired land, additional land, but that land is really for your need for expansion of juvenile only and in what we don't want, what the judges don't want respectfully is that we have to trade off what we see as -- as expansion legitimate expansion of the juvenile for having to supplement the needs of this high volume. We can keep all of this -- you all styled it the family law center, we styled it the high volume justice. We can keep all of this within a proposed courthouse. You need parking which you don't presently have, and other types of things in order to -- to facilitate the amount of people that come in or out. But in order to develop a high volume justice center, in my opinion, respectfully, you would need to acquire additional land to do that. It would lessen the amount of what you would require in the central business district, but that's really a policy choice but the judges are not wanting to kind of get in a -- get in a respectfully a whip saw of using land that the county has acquired because we have advocated that we are going to need to grow in juvenile in using that to satisfy a need in other areas. Does that make sense?

>> absolutely, but welcome to our world. That is the situation in every single part of the county. With every division. As far as whip sawing goes, the -- the whip saw possibility is -- is goes far beyond just the -- the various service lines of the civil courts.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> our growth is with several family an specialized dockets like cps, and with y'all's consent, we have become a boarding county and we'll be doing more of the enforcement of child support. So that's all within what are the needs of the civil courts.

>> maybe ienl not understanding. I thought you wanted us to take off b 2.

>> I do, but that was for a separate site and a separate building for a high volume justice center removing that need out of the cbd. There are some functional things, but we think it's really a resource problem. And we're so committed. You've got -- I mean, I believe the expansion of the juvenile facility with our ever rising population willfully occupy all of the land that y'all have acquired for the foreseeable future. And unless y'all acquired some other land, then there's no real -- there are some gains to moving it, but why not just keep it downtown and put it within what our need is?

>> can't we say the same thing about the current -- the current services that we're providing in the central business district? It may that be our needs assessment indicates that we would need to acquire additional land. I guess what I’m saying is as long as we're looking at -- we're looking at the probability that administrative has outgrown cbd in deciding which portions of that would be better for the clients that it serves at a different location. Why wouldn't we do the same in regard to the family law aspects of civil courts?

>> because -- for several reasons. This may be a solution in service of a problem. It generated because there was no movement in getting a courthouse constructed. If we construct a courthouse, then we may not need a separate building, this says a family law center. And what I’m telling su that we're not advocating the family law center, we're advocating the courthouse that fully meets all of our needs.

>> right. But in --

>> [overlapping speakers].

>> I’m sorry. It may be that we would apportion our work in a way different from just a family law center since we don't have specialized courts and our judges are fungible and we rotate in and out of those dockets. And as long as we're doing that, we think that would be best in the cbd than placed out there.

>> and I understand that and that make all the sense in the world, particularly in consideration of the agreements between the judges in regards to the utilization of the space on south congress. My concern, however, is I would prefer not to take that option off the table in response of a needs assessment and analysis of the utilization of the current assets in the central business district. I think it would be good information to have.

>> I think one of the things we're responding to is that we had a discussion internally several weeks ago trying to challenge whether or not we should be paying to evaluate the fragmentation and decentralization of the civil system. And it came to light in part of our discussion that -- when the judge went over the history of the idea as he did just now, it really was a prime example of where your space need, or your deficiency is driving an idea that may not be operationally what they wish to achieve in the management of their use and utilization of their courts building. That they might be more effective if they had sufficient space. So when you write your scope of work for your needs analysis, one of the things that the courts consultant will do with the judges is come in and talk to them about their utilization of their courtrooms and how they operate. And as judge dietz was talking about, do they have different docketing procedures or uses of areas that they could achieve greater efficiencies and serve the public better if they're consolidated. Many times what you will find is that fragmenting your system, particularly if you're not keeping them in contiguous buildings, and that's not what we were proposing. He was proposing moving it closer to juvenile just for space issues. Your ongoing operating costs far out way your capital investment. Urltd have we made that analysis yet?

>> and what we're saying is that part of the discussion in your needs analysis will get to those questions, you don't have to answer them today. But what issue is he's bringing up is that they would very much like to say as we analyze our system, let's not discuss decentralization even if you talk about the other initiatives with the system it's servelings even if you ended up with multiple buildings in a campus environment downtown. If you're talking about fragmenting the system, at least not talk about decentralizing it, and I think their preference is not to discuss fragmenting at this point unless something comes up during the analysis that changes their opinion of that perspective. Perspective.

>> in regard to taking b-2 off, the assumption would be the family law aspects of the central business district would still be analyzed under b-1. We're just not talking about a separate building, per se, but it's still considered -- it's still an option.

>> and we wouldn't be looking at decentralization of those services, specifically --

>> no, that's what I’m having the har time with. What if -- and I’m saying what if, hypothetically, the needs assessment and the utilization indicates that it would be preferable from a policy standpoint or at least have serious pros to consider a family law center.

>> those are exactly the types of issues that come up --

>> may I respond this way, Commissioner? I think the -- respectfully, the civil judges have a long history of cooperation with the court. We have a long history of the operation of the premier juvenile facility. That's more of an operational question, ma'am, and not so much a matter of Commissioner policy. How we operate our cowrsd, what the needs assessment is going to show you is what your expected caseload is. We have a pretty good idea of what it is and what it's going to be. But for everybody's comfort level, we're going to get somebody to look at it and to question us more about it. But whether or not the courts are in one building or not is really more a matter of operation. And right now what we're telling you is that --

>> you will not operate that way.

>> [ laughter ]

>> actually, we're going to take the position that we would prefer a courthouse. Unlike harris county, which has devoted four different city blocks to its courts buildings structured around a county square, we think what's been developed and what's been here in Austin is going to be in one courthouse. And right now our preference is to look at our needs, as belinda said, under b-1, and then if -- we'll be novel about our operations. We think we have a long history about being novel in our operations. We take pride in the fact that we are the most electronically advanced county with the Commissioners court help in this state. But it's more telling us whether we have to do that in one building or two buildings, is more a question about our operations. And we think we're pretty good at figuring that out.

>> but that's why I also see the need for having someone do the assessment of courts who know courts and how they should operate, right?

>> yes, ma'am.

>> and if there are new ideas or changes or confirmations, those things are all -- those are all the types of reports that come back during that stage of the analysis. So you can see what the conclusions of the individual users are and how that begins to look like a framework to say, this is an identified project. In this case this is what we think the framework of the courthouse could hold. So the -- it isn't that you are necessarily saying all doors are closed of the what you're saying is it's premature to make those kinds of decisions until you have --

>> that makes sense to me. I’m fine with b-2 being removed on the knowledge that b-1 covers all the service lines of civil courts in the central business district. All I’m after is that we don't presuppose what is in the best interests of both the taxpayers and those who regularly use the court system.

>> do we know how long it will probably take for a completion of a need assessment?

>> six months.

>> at least six months? Are we comfortable with that amount of time?

>> it depends on the procurement process.

>> six months to do the needs assessment and then whatever in terms of the procurement process is added on to that.

>> so six to nine months if you're talking about a time line, if you take six months to complete the actual needs assessment, three months of procurement, then you're talking about six to nine months.

>> it does appear to be the hot topic again with the need assessment to see what you need to do about some of the situations. So that's why I was asking the question is what kind are time line are we really looking at to get something and deal with before some of these other ongoing issues.

>> and during that six months it's likely there won't be a contract award and you go away and we come back in six months with a needs analysis. There will be agenda items that come forward for different parts.

>> different parts and phases of it. Okay.

>> this has been an excellent discussion. So b and c we will see further when we see the road map and decision making framework. Do we need to discuss the issue of a broker or are we basically saying when we look at the potential sites -- I do think there's some general inquiries. I would go to some of the owners of property that would obviously benefit us and inquire as to the -- whether they're motivated to sell. We'll sort of assume that some of the prime properties are not available because the owners seem to be using them, I think. But it seems to me that a good question to ask would be, by the way, have you ever thought about selling this property to xyz?

>> judge, if I can -- and then the others weigh in on it. I think the question was I think everybody sitting at this table recognized a need for broker services because the planning we were looking at extended from 14th, 15th street all the way down to seventh. And I believe congress over to nueces. And the question really was cyd had a list that was compiled of brokers that was compiled the last couple of years, and then the question broke out among the various departments. Did y'all want to use that list or did you want to compile a new list? Is that a fair statement of our discussion?

>> sure. I mean, the issue was whether we need a broker. And I think we all agreed that we did. And by hiring a broker, we don't have to come up with money until we actually start buying stuff. So we agreed to that. And then the issue got to how do we procure Davis' favorite subject, and we already have a pool of brokers and so we had developed a list or criteria of picking one out of that pool, which is what I think we do. We have at least three that are highly qualified to do this work. If you make the decision, we have a procurement strategy already in place to get it done quickly for you. And if we were not satisfied with the three in the pool, then we can go out on a formal process again or we could exempt it and hire whoever we wanted to. So we have a solution for you if you want to hire the broker, which I think we all agree --.

>> there are only a handful of brokers in this town that specialized in downtown, that specialize in downtown and building downtown. This is not something that you're just looking for somebody that's got their real estate license. I mean, this -- and there are probably a handful of people, not to mention their names right now, but I know who they are. And sit them down and say here's what your needs are, and they will then be people that have bought downtown, have built downtown, have designed downtown, that know all the things you need to know. And I do think we need a broker without a question. I mean, we just have to make sthawr we get somebody that really knows that business.

>> that's kind of where we thought as policy direction.

>> we need to make a decision on hiring lines and they use the pool. I don't know how you want to --

>> I’d like for you to give me a list of who you think that there are.

>> what's the court's position on the need for a broker at this time? That's the question.

>> I think we need one. I think we need to start talking and identifying who we would have. And at least get them in the mode of here's what we think we -- that we're headed towards. The sooner the better so that somebody can really start thinking about putting these kind of thoughts and ideas. Because they're going to bring us things that we would not have even asked. Previous.

>> okay. Do we want a broker before we get farther down the road on b and c?

>> not necessarily because I don't think you're going to have to really spend any money on a broker. What you're really trying to do is let a broker start thinking about how he would approach us and say here are the things that you've got to have. Let's go ahead and identify those four or five, and then determine how we want to bring that person to the table. Say here's what we've got. Here's our process. Take your valium, get over here and thron this stuff. Noose what you've got to -- that's what you've got to do.

>> okay. Are we convinced that the needed downtown broker is now on our list?

>> I don't know who Commissioner Daugherty was speaking of, but I have five people that submitted proposals and of those five, we believe flee are qualified to -- we believe three are qualified to do this week. We need to do some more requests from them, but I needed y'all's permission to start talking to them.

>> after you and Commissioner Daugherty have chatted and whoever else wants to chat, can you put together a description of what you would ask that broker to do?

>> we've been working on a scope. I can get that to y'all.

>> judge, that may be an issue best addressed during executive session because there are a lot, a lot of details involved and more issue. Is this broker going to get schiews sieve rights to a 10, 12 block area.

>> that's all part of our --

>> those are the sorts of issues that may be better discussed in executive session.

>> week or two weeks?

>> I can start talking to them during the week and get you something this week.

>> it's posted for an executive session next week then. We really don't have that item posted today anyway. But is probably is one of these more generally worded item. So I think we can give directions on it, which we just gave. And it would help me to see exactly what the person would do. And if we have a list of ones that we can choose from, that will help. Our list of brokers we competed to get you on that list, right?

>> correct.

>> we sent out an rfq a year and a half ago.

>> do we informally compete by phone?

>> well, you mean if we --

>> let's say you have five names. How do we choose one?

>> we came up with a list of some more qualifications. And what I would do is send a letter to them asking them for additional qualifications to see if they met our criteria and then evaluate them again and then rank them and pick the top ranked firm and then bring them in and negotiate with them.

>> do we need to do that after? Do we need to have our executive session after you've done that or next week?

>> next week. After we get the scope of work and y'all give me authority, then I’ll do it the following week.

>> okay.

>> start that process.

>> any froks the dismowrt -- any objection from the court? All right.

>> the important thing is that you do get that scope. I think that will inform you in your decision.

>> downtown broker, huh? That fee just went up one or two percent, didn't it, by adding downtown?

>> we're not going to pay anything.

>> this is a good market.

>> the seller will be paying, not us. The sellers are paying.

>> I’m all worked out today, y'all.

>> we were hope to go get you excited.

>> anything else we need to do?

>> yes, judge, there is. Going back to the discussion on what we are doing with broaddus, this is one of those decision points for the court. Neither wrong nor right. You can continue to work with broaddus and the analysis of the additional property. You will have that information. That information is valuable and useful for when you complete your need analysis. Or you can not do that, not continue with broaddus, do your needs analysis, then come back and do the site analysis at a later point once you've refined the number of buildings and the size of buildings, parking issues and everything else that you would decide or look at with a needs analysis. Again, not -- neither right or wrong. It is a choice of doing one or the other. But we do need to know. We have been working on a scope of services to extend broaddus' services for 134 and 108, which is this property here, and then the property where the rusk building is. So if the court doesn't want to go that direction, then we should probably know.

>> I also added on the road map that you received already, there is an assumption that broaddus was going to do the additional studies as currently proposed and that would provide some basic site analysis information that would be fed into the work of the needs analysis scope. As we're going to take another look at the road map, we can compare those alternatives on the timing of when this additional site analysis is done and see if there's some pros and cons on that choice to bring back to you next time.

>> okay. Can we pull from the draft scope for additional services the work that we think needs to be done say immediately? Before we get the needs analysis? That's what you're saying, right?

>> oh, I was just saying you can -- the choice I’ve heard so far was either have broaddus holden tyler or have broaddus proceed entirely with the current services. And now you mention a third alternative, which is have them do a portion of what's currently proposed for them to do now. We can look at all three things and evaluate those and bring them back to you.

>> it seems to me you would put them on hold until the needs analysis is done unless there is work that needs to be done immediately. Then you try to clearly define the immediate work. May as well have them work on that if it needs to be done immediately. And the other part will turn on the needs analysis from what I’m hearing.

>> the trick of it is we don't know until farther into the needs analysis process how much new space we're going to need. We don't know who is going nobody the new space or what sites it's going to be located on. The advantage to parallel tracking some of the site analysis while you're figuring out how much new space do I need is to have some preliminary explanation of how much space you can build on blocks ab and c, so then when the needs analysis says I’m going to need one bght at 50,000 square feet, another building of 200,000 square feet, you can already see, well, you have some clear choices ready to go to match up or not. Otherwise you weight until you decide I’m going to need one 50,000 square foot building, one 200,000 square foot building and then you start looking at all the sites to see which one might be a good fit. It's true that if you go ahead with site analysis now, there will be some excess information. You will find out more than you need to know. There will be extra effort. But you will also find out what the development capacity of your sites is. Because we talk a lot about needs analysis, what we need to build to meet county operational needs, but you're also property owners and have you the development question before you. What is the highest and best use of your properties. And understanding the maximum development capacity of each site gives you that framework to make that decision just as you need the framework of understanding all of your space needs in order to apportion the solutions for them.

>> judge?

>> yes, sir.

>> I believe I can make this simple. And I think everybody at the table will agree. What's simple is does broaddus look at block 134 where you're now sitting and the garage, is that an immediate need? And I think there would be a consensus at this table that yeah, that is. The other part of what was asked is we were going to ask is whether or not you go down to block 108, which is the hope building and the adjacent parking lot, and it animal care services to us, and I just asked alicia, that you could put that part on hold. But I think that it would be useful because of the amount of time it will take, to find out about the present space and the garage land. So that's the choice.

>> but as far as the present space and the garage land, we know how high and how wide. What we don't know is building underground and the breakout between space utilized for courts versus space utilized for office, right?

>> I’m not sure that you know about the height because you have to take in both the view corridors and the capitol dominance.

>> and historical nature of the garage house.

>> -- carriage house.

>> and also the issue of zoning. One thing we asked broaddus to do this time around is instead of zooming existing zoning would remain, we asked them with the county as their partner to begin discussion with the city on what kind of height limits would truly apply if we rezoned p for public.

>> what do we lose if we wait until the needs analysis and the utilization analysis is complete before doing that site analysis?

>> time.

>> it's called time.

>> soco we parallel track it further into the needs analysis process?

>> we can lag the start to have it finish up just in time with that information when it would flow into the needs analysis. We can take a look at that.

>> and I’m only asking this because I do see the advantage to parallel track ing it, but I’m also thinking that we're talking significant money for each site analysis that we do.

>> I suppose that's the purpose of lagging it if you're going to be doing it anyway.

>> lagging part of it so that we can narrow the focus to what we really think we need at that time.

>> I’m not sure everybody will agree with me, but I think the question from our side is you have some money that's in reserve and some money that's within facilities budget. The needs analysis is going to cost more than that money and then some. So it's -- so we're thinking we have to wait until September or October before additional money comes online. And as to whether or not we'll be able to get it. But it seems to me that if the procurement process for the needs assessment is going to take a couple of months here and then take four to six months for it to complete, that you're able to spend what you've got now to finish out this needs assessment, the site asays. Of 138 -- of wurn 34, I’m sorry. On -- 134, I’m sorry.

>> clearly it's not going anywhere before next week.

>> no, sir.

>> judge, let me ask a question. --

>> should we turn broaddus loose or should we delay this other part. Did we ever get a final report on phase 1?

>> we've got it, but we -- yes. We've gotten it.

>> we got one presentation, I recall, but I thought we were supposed to get more information.

>> you are.

>> we can schedule a presentation. You can get a presentation on the report.

>> I need to men tag close that phase -- mentally close that phase. I would feel more comfortable taking action on the next phase.

>> and we know the next phase will be about $60,000.

>> and that includes then revisiting the two blocks they looked at before because they took some assumptions in their calculations that they didn't really consult with us about and that when we reviewed the final report, we thought those are not good assumptions, like using 12-foot floor to floor heights for upper floors of a courts building. That's not realistic. And when you're working against running into ceiling caused by view corridors that can impact the potential size of the building on the site, there were some other similar assumptions that we would like to have them revisit at this time. That's one reason why the presentation of the phase 1 report was delayed because we wanted to bring you the right information in a consolidated fashion.

>> susan?

>> when all is said and done, I think some things are just plain obvious.

>> is the mic on there? Is it on there firmly?

>> today we are out of space.

>> talk into leslie's mic.

>> today we are out of space. We're out of space in admin and we're out of space in the courts. If in fact you took just a visual, and that is the land that we own, and you laid the extra people needed for just a year or two, you would fill up what we have. So I think no one will be surprised when the needs assessment comes out. No need ares. Is going to say we've got plenty of space, don't worry. The other thing is that we act like as we're stretching the time out that there is no down side to that. There is a down side to that. Because you have thing that need to be done that you don't have space for. Let me just give you an example in my own office because it's the one office I know. And that is we just issued an rfi on financial systems. Two of them said that we would need an equivalent of 23 extra people to bring this system up. I don't have the room for any extra people. Not one. So you are very quickly getting in to major operational decisions if there is no space. And to the extent that that is stretched out further and further, your options are more limited. The longer it takes, the more people you will have to be leasing space. It's not free. You will have to find space and wire it and get everyone in extra space. So that's going to happen. The other thing is if we don't look at real estate, again you can't assume everything is going to just stay the way it is. If you take a walk through our little square here that we've looked at, you will see that people are making development decisions just like it's a development decision. And I don't know if we could have done something a couple of years ago or not. But the opportunities we have are getting smaller and smaller if we do nothing. Or if we take another year or two years or three years, the needs continue to grow. And some decisions will have to be made. So I think that one of the things that we learned from the broaddus is that we don't have that much developable space on the land that we own right now. We don't. So we are going to have to get some more land. Where is that going to be and when do we start looking for that? The judge and I were talking the other day and I said the odd thing about land compared to other things is that if I need more computers five years from now or four years or three, we've got it. But if you need land and you're not willing to go out and condemn it be, then you're in a box. You either have to buy land when it's available or wait and create a crisis if it's not. So I think some of these things have to be on track and this is information you need to know. You need to know what land is possibly out there. If someone wants to sell their land, we need to know that before they do. We don't have all the time in the world and we don't have all the options. With this carriage house, if it can't be torn down, it's really no value to us at all. We need to find out. We don't need to be buying it and finding out that the city of Austin won't let us tear it down. Then it is really of no value to us. What we can do on the land, you really need that information. And we need I think a real estate professional that is aggressively out there looking at our options and what potential we might have. Susan, I want to say something before judge dietz leaves. Do you have one second? Here comes a novel idea of sitting here and listening to this stuff for an hour and a half talking about it. No broaddus except for this. Why wouldn't we identify the three nag people in this business that we can pick, along with broaddus? Ask them if they would be willing to send somebody, a couple of people down here, within a counselor of weeks to sit down with our folks and us talk out loud about this page and about with the judges talking because in 30 minutes time you can probably bring people up to speed that really are in the business to do this. And say would you all be interested of taking 30 days or whatever and to assess where you think that we need to be and how we need to go from this point forward? I mean it sounds to me that we're looking for that expertise. I want that expertise to tell us about our needs assessment or to help us with our needs assessment, but that's the reason that I wouldn't be supportive of doing the broaddus. Let broaddus sit in as part of because you have four people, and then you have a write up from somebody, so you go back in 30 days, we want a write up to see what you would think about how we need to move. And if you were the person that was going to take this task on for us, how would you do it? And I bet you those people would send somebody down on their own nickel for a couple of days, say I want to sit down, we're going to have questions, you get them some information before they come, and then move this thing forward because I fear that what we're about to do here for another two weeks or three weeks or getting back to four or five weeks, I just don't think we're going to get there. I think we've got good intentions, but I think there are people just like the judge said right up front, there are people that do this that have done this all over the country. Why don't we try to bring them in and see if they're willing to listen to us? Is that too crazy of an idea, judge dietz?

>> are you saying pushing this all forward what would be the next step in getting the needs assessment and the utilization analysis?

>> yeah. I think that -- we'll tell them that our full intentions right now are that we know we need to have a needs assessment. That's probably one of the first things that the national guys are going to want to ask you is what do you think your needs are? Because we can't begin to tell you this unless you tell us what that need is. But once you tell them that -- give them an indication, I think they will be able to fire you within 30 days of saying here are the things you need to ask yourself and' here's how you need to move forward. I think we might be able to short-circuit a lot of this stuff.

>> is this essentially an rfq on needs assessment and utilization analysis?

>> I want their input when they sit down with this group right here, and I think that in a couple of hours of a meeting and then maybe come back the next day and say okay, assess it overnight as to what you might want to ask us before we go back to each of our camps and in 30 days we will give you a write-up of exactly how we think that you need to move forward.

>> they're going to write you back and tell you you need to do a needs assessment and master plan. That's what they're going to tell you to do.

>> so are we at a point where --

>> can we do in two minutes today what -- the first thing we did today was get two people to spend two weeks.

>> I realize that. After sitting here for an hour and a half and listen to go it, I’m not so sure that we haven't kind of chased our tail a little bit on -- I think there are some things that we've gotten out of this deal, but I’m real entertained by getting the real professionals --

>> I don't know that we've given enough.

>> there's so much information that we need to be able to hand a professional for the professional to do his or her work.

>> then here's what I’m asking. I will like that professional -- I would like that professional to say here are the questions you need to be asking yourself because we may leave something out. We've done this. And judge dietz, I asked for you to stay. I know you've got to go, but what's your quickky response?

>> my response is this, Commissioner: there are a lot of smart people who work for you and with you. And we've been working on this for over a year. And I believe what you need to be comfortable with, even though I can see you're not comfortable, is these next steps of what we set out it in the working session and what we're saying again today is that you need to do a master plan. You need to get a realtor to be out there looking for additional land in case you're going to need it, and to see what's available. And you need to do a needs assessment. And I think -- and I think a gym cracky expert out of new york, california, whatever, is going to come in and tell you those same things. And the good news is that all of these people sitting here before you, we have done a lot of work. We're not just going to be able to start from nothing and not know what we're going to do. We have a lot of stuff to say to them. But I think what's troublesome is that -- I really don't mean offense at this. Is that we're all sitting around waiting for y'all making decisions. Give us the go ahead on the scope of work, give us the go ahead on several of those decisions. And the discussion takes a couple of hours. I wish there were better news. But I think the way that y'all have agreed to lay it out over the next couple of weeks is the way to go. I think susan's point is a week or two here is fine at the git-go, but we really are -- we really are running up about five years or six years y'all are going to be in more of a crisis if we don't get started. But I think we're doing okay.

>> so give us -- give us what we're asking you and get out of our way, court, is what I’m hearing.

>> I would never say that.

>> I know, but that's cut to the chase. I’m willing to do that. If you all are comfortable with the direction you're going, then -- but I’m a little bit like you in that I’m frustrated because, yes, it has been a year. Now, maybe it just takes --

>> actually, before christian went to the china sea, he has a resolution that y'all passed two years ago. But you'll get comfortable with the discomfort, but in general we're all in the same boat, rowing in the same direction, and I think the court is too.

>> absolutely. When you're taking on a major capital improvement program that could range from 100 to $300 million, spending two hours out of your day discussing it, I just don't think is beyond what is expected. And us spending days and weeks and months going through each of the issues, this is academic. I can provide you at least five books right now that will support this sort of process, including aia, the harvard school for design, the national center for state courts, and good old work process or project management processes. So it's tailored for us, but the very core of this is academic. It's things you would go through in a small project and a very large project. And if someone from new york city or chicago, if you want to pay them $100,000 to tell you that, then it's worth your comfort to do that. We don't see that it's worth that much money.

>> then you tell me -- don't ask me the question then. You tell me do we need to do broaddus? Stop asking us. Stop asking for permission. Come in here and say quite frankly, here's what you need to do. That really is almost what --

>> [overlapping speakers].

>> and I have been reminded on several occasions that we advise the court. Some of these decisions are not black and white. It's not right or wrong. It is truly choices. And sometimes when we hit those, it's like what belinda an leslie were saying. There's things in here we're going to disagree on. And it's not right or wrong, but they are choices. And a lot of times we will bring those choices to you.

>> cutting to the chase, in regard to the next steps to get an rfq on the street for a needs assessment and utilization assessment, whether it's broaddus or somebody else, we still need to define the scope of work and going through the road map is how we define that scope of work.

>> no, not the road map.

>> yes, it is.

>> that road map takes you through moving in the building.

>> [overlapping speakers]

>> roadblock. Listen to me. Irrespective of whether it's the road map or not, the next step to getting the rfq on the street is the scope of work for a needs assessment and a utilization analysis. And do we think we can get a scope of work together within two weeks?

>> [ inaudible ].

>> I think what the direction so far is, if you look at what this road man is, it is what alicia just talk about. The back end of this is process. It is cradle to gave what do you. The front end of this document for six pages or so had to do with how you might go step by step through defining what you probably would put into a scope of work in negotiating that. So we also quite frankly have a couple of different drafts of scopes of work. I think we have a total of three, but we can -- as we go through this process, I think that yes, leslie and I will end up with some key decisions that might need to be made to finalize the scope of work, but we should be very close to a scope of work.

>> and scope of work for needs assessment and utilization.

>> exactly. And that will be the discussion of where is the break point of this scope of work verse the break point for the next scope of work. Where is broaddus' phase 2 or second amendment, where does that fit into this or not? And we'll come forward with recommendations to you for that, using this as the guide as we've been directed.

>> and being mindful of what susan is saying in our need and also what leslie is saying in our need to parallel track a good amount of this, do we think that we can within two weeks at least get that scope of work for needs assessment and utilization analysis put to rest so that we can then go on to scope of work for site analysis to the degree of parallel thraking for site analysis would be appropriate?

>> we have all three scopes, broker, site analysis and needs assessment almost ready for y'all to approve.

>> the big one now is --

>> [ inaudible ].

>> we've got three of them almost ready for y'all to approve. This is the scope of work for the site analysis that broaddus was going do do. We're basically ready to go with that. That's basically been negotiated with broaddus. And the brokerage, we've got that pretty down. It's for these two to finish that scope of work for the needs assessment.

>> so those are the three simultaneous next steps that will push this project forward, and we all -- do we all agree that those three are steps that need to be taken?

>> after we have given them -- after we reviewed them, I don't know that I -- I don't know that I’m here just to fund whatever you put before us?

>> the devil is in the details. The devil is in the details.

>> the other thing is that we have not been able to reach -- there is still disagreement among us on exactly how we proceed, what we want to end up with. These are big decisions that impact generations in the future. That's why taking a couple of hours doesn't bother me. And even basically covering the same ground over and over and over doesn't bother me because that's the democratic process. At the same time, though, on something like broaddus, either we're going thold it or we're going to focus on the immediate work and get it done or we will give the green light on all of it. But it would help to have reasons for each one of them before us. And one reason we cannot do that is that I think we have been overloading ourselves. We come in here with 15 issues. It's hard to focus on any one of them. But if we've got one issue to focus on, we can ask the right questions. We can get pros and cons in advance. We can come in prepared to act. And that's why I was asking do we need broaddus on the agenda next week? We basically say hold, immediate action on all of it or immediate action on part of it?

>> I think the discussion on broaddus might go better if belinda and I have the one to two weeks that you suggested for us to work out and clarify what differences remain on the needs anal sus because I think those things might interrelate.

>> I agree.

>> that was my thinking earlier, but I’m willing to go with the majority of the court on it.

>> it's fine with me.

>> but I do agree at some point we have to address those. And I say we delay them only as long as we need to to make a good decision. An informed disiks. And y'all are doing the groundwork on this. We're kind of waiting for the information, but I can let you know that we're not crvelg making the decision because there are questions that we have and we're not sure we're getting the answers, we're not sure we've given you an opportunity to work through them. But they're big issues and there's a lot of them.

>> maybe we want to do a work session in a couple of weeks if we can't get this done on Tuesdays.

>> I do think that we would appreciate that opportunity to work through the road map. I think that as you've already said, a lot of the issues that are on here, the pros and cons where we might need to suggest pros and cons for the things that you've talked about today will be well on the way to finalizing what is scope of work would look like. And it is administerial from that point on getting the scope of work together and out on the street. So I think using the road map and giving us a couple of weeks, we'll go through using today's discussion and try to give you -- if there are options or pros or cons or even if there are pros and cons and we have a joint recommendation as to what to do, we'll highlight that through your road map for you so when we walk out of the next session we have some definitive direction on finalizing scopes of work.

>> and you have support for that. Judge shepherd?

>> judge, Commissioners, you've given us a lot to chew on. I think we're at a point right now where we need to go back and come back to you in a couple of week and see where we are. I think we'll be in a good spot.

>> cyd has done a lot more rfq's thoon I have, but I have been involved in a few of them. And what happens is the respondents will send back something called the project approach. And that's where they weigh in with their expertise and put what we're asking them to do in that context. And they make suggestions. And then we'll also hear more of that sort of thing during the interview process. It's rare that you'll write a scope of work and then have the project executed without any change or input from the professional who is taking the job on, who knows how to do it best.

>> any other discussion or delay? Anything else? Thank y'all very much. This has been so productive and informative. Now, the one other item that

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, March 26, 2008 8:51 PM

March 25, 2008 Item 7

March 25, 2008
Item 7