Travis County Commissioners Court
April 22, 2008
Item 31
Number 31, receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding Travis County central government campus and related issues. Last week Commissioner eckhardt and I prematurely advised the court we had reached a compromise and agreement on the six or seven bullets on the backup, and I think we have except for number 5. The first chair, second chair on 5 is all right, but the question sort of goes to project manager of 5, I would say.
>> we also -- is the jury still out on 6 as well in terms of whether it would be joint project directorship or single project directorship?
>> that's the way I read it.
>> is the jury still out on that?
>> I think 5 and 6 are issues.
>> 5 and 6 are both issues. That's what the backup -- if you read -- if you can follow this thing.
>> why don't we have each of you lay out pros and cons.
>> yes, sir, thank you. Lisa strickland, facilities management. The pros and cons for facitiesanagement to be project director involves first clarifying what is the difference between project director and project manager. As we've defined the chair 1 and chair 2 roles together, our basic understanding they will fill the day to day project manager's function and be the point of contact for regular business with consultants with the stakeholder groups, but that the project director position is the one that the project manager reports to on the status of the project and to whom major issues are forwarded either to the purchasing agent for procurement related or contract related issues or to Commissioners court for decision and direction. For facilities management to be project director under step 5 would mean that the f.m.d. Chair 1 project manager would report in the normal fashion to the department director who would function as the project director. We think this is following our current organizational structure and provides for the proper professional oversight by the department director of his professional staff in executing technical work that's involved in step 5, which is space and parking forecasting, alternatives for reuse of existing facilities, and planning development of new facilities and parking and also refining a development strategy. Facilities management has a full compliment of technical professionals that are ready to do this work. And we are accustomed to working through and to our director who oversees us. Facilities management also is a fundamental interest in overseeing the work of step 5. Because we will have to live with the results. We have to be sure that the outcome of step 5 in putting forward alternatives with budgets and schedules at the conceptual level for moving forward with the campus plan is something that's doable. And we have been working over the years in executing phased projects in doable parts and feel we're well qualified to continue doing that for you on this larger project. Facilities management is knowledgeable about not just the facilities but how they are used and brings an integrated team that combines planning and implementation in one department in a fashion that follows best practice of Texas urban counties and was the model recommended by the Texas comptroller's report in the mid-'90s on the basis of which the facilities management department was formed at that time. Roger, do you have anything to add?
>> roger khory. The two things really is the space and parking forecast and reuse of existing and new facility and parking alternative. This is a fundamental function of the facilities management department. And what we see here, that we do the best of executing projects and planning projects for all county departments. All county facilities. Including all departments who are users. And that what we see is we're supposed to be in charge of that as has been in the past, you know, eight years and even more under our leadership, you know, right there in facilities management to make things happen. And the
>> [inaudible] requirements also supposedly part of the facilities management department. Those three things we would like to keep because we do the best, you know, on those three issues. And we are team players. We're not saying that we're going to
>> [inaudible] turf, but this is fundamental for us, planning, design and construction division we have in consulting management department.
>> roger, hearing stuff going around, there seems to be a point of disagreement. Or there may -- where there may not be the type of structure in place whereby agreement within departments and within departments. My question is to you as far at facilities are concerned, what are those disagreements, if there are disagreements, but what I知 hearing there is --
>> yeah, there are disagreements. I can guarantee. I致e heard about them.
>> right. I知 just trying to understand. I understand. But I want publicly for those folks to let out. Because at the end of the day, we will have to work together whether we like it or not. And my question to you is if you think facilities should have jurisdiction over certain things, I need to know what they are, per se. This is what we should have jurisdiction over. P.b.o., as far as p.b.o. Is concerned, they have issues, and in my mind, I know where I want to land. As far as what I want to do. I think p.b.o. Has responsibilities. I think facilities have certain responsibilities. So I知 looking at the tugging of the two giants here and tug-of-war, and we're in the middle. And, of course, I知 trying to -- as far as facilities, what would you like to happen as far as your responsibility. P.b.o. Is the same. But at the end of the day, I知 going to make a decision on what I feel is the comfort level for both. And if you are comfortable or have a discomfort, I would like to know what it is and what you think you should have responsibility for. I知 going to lay it out just like that. So I知 putting you on the spot.
>> repeat. It's okay to repeat.
>> thank you, Commissioner and judge. Facilities management because we are involved in the day-to-day maintenance and operation of those buildings and also because we work closely with users on short-term planning projects and renovation and remodels and move projects. We understand where the rubber hits the road on facilities issues. You are talking about roads just now. And we know that there are critical matters involving scope planning, the execute yact of projects, doability of projects in terms of sequence of who goes where that affect not just the project budgets but also how much pain and suffering the end user departments and our external customers will have to go through in the course of executing a long-range plan with multiple projects. And we want to bring you the best possible result by bringing the team to the field as it is used to playing. We have our team captain. That is our facilities management director. And his depth and breadth of knowledge in all of these matters and his professional expertise are critical tools for having superior plans brought forward. And by adding another layer between the facilities management director and his executive manager, between that team and Commissioners court in making final decisions and recommendations to court concerns us that our voice will not come through clearly to you. And that can involve scope issues, schedule issues, budget issues, what the consultants performance is. We're here to work for you and work with our partners, and we want to have a partnership with p.b.o. And a partnership with all the stakeholders whose input is absolutely essential. Speaking as an architect, speaking as a planner, we know we have to make this work for the people who are going to really live with it. After they move in. And we believe firmly and clearly that is the best way we can get you the best results.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> implementation type planning working again am we do believe that the project as identified today is a long range needs analysis. And that is under the purview of planning. We believe that if you are going to ask for cross functional work team approach, which we hing is an excellent approach, first tier and second tier project management avails itself of all the assets that the Commissioners court has in front of them, all the execution of management, the departments and the planning and budget office and brings a consultant to bear on the project, understanding the consultant will do the majority of the work. We believe that is an excellent approach but the complication of asking to split the project director ship of a cross-sectional team we think complicates the contract management too much. So we think that you should maintain a single voice for accountability for this contract at some level. That needs to be on the department level and we believe that is pbo. We believe that if von is not responsible for making sure that the project moves forward in a timely fashion and not functionally split, that the Commissioners court will lose out in the long run. And we think that given the complexity of this project and the numbers of players that would be at the table, there are 28 departments and a recommendation to add two committee structures, 30 stakeholder groups at the table during the course of this consultant's work, that is is complex project in and of itself and he should have a single point of accountable to make sure the project is being delivered, and that is a needs analysis and long-term strategy for the downtown so that you can begin to implement the very critical project, only one of which is the courthouse structure. We also believe that this parts of the process should be focused on operations, trying to achieve operational efficiencies, certainly analyzing and trying to maintain critical operational adjacentant sis as you are going through the analysis and how you are going to use your existing assets and what you are going to construct. I知 not going to say that facilities management doesn't have some good points about their involvement for step five. That is why pbo seated the position as first chair. I understand that is being questioned today but that was one of the reasons we felt strongly that was a functional approach. It does bring their to that point of the project but still keeps it focused on a needs analysis and the operational objecttive of the departments. So I think the main point for pbo at this point is not to split the contract issue any further than it already has been, complicated than it already is but a cross functional approach. It is not the intent that though the project manager from facilities management is assigned as a resource to this project that they wouldn't report through their director and executive manager.
>> I don't understand this. In other words, what you are saying splitting the contract, in other words, because of what facilities have asked for, to look at not dealing with another layer, the project facilities management director needs to look at those things that are directly related with facilities. You know, the relationship is tangible and right there. You are saying split the contract, could you explain that to me, as letting me know what you moon by --mean by splitting the contract as far as what you are saying.
>> right.
>> how would that work.
>> leslie started out her discussion, and I believe that is what the sticking point is today. There is a difference between the day-to-day project management and interface of consultants. That usually is assigned to the a staff position. There is another position actually named in your contract, a technical point of responsibility and a sickle point of responsibility for the contract with the purchasing agent. And that is the position that we do not believe thought be shared across the departments. We believe that a cross functional team where the day-to-day work is split between the two offices is workel and functional and though complicated could be a real value to the Commissioners court. But to complicate it further by saying the consultant is going to have two points of responsibility in the contract, we think is carving the work up a little too finally at this point. Again with the understanding this is the very front end piece of the planning process, this is not the implementation of the project.
>> but who would the contractor of the proposed facility, who would they report to as far as splitting the contract? Who would they actually report to is this.
>> as far as the project director is concerned? In planning and budget that would be me.
>> reporting to you under what concept? Under the concept that they brought in this morning?
>> under the--
>> as far as what facilities is saying?
>> no, under the concept that we were originally trying to discuss that came to the sticking point of who should be project director for step five and step six.
>> all right.
>> can we back up for a moment for clarity's sake. There is a project director who is named in the contract as the point person for the contractor. This is the first phase of strategy planning that is the needs analysis phase and then subsequent memberation phases. In the first phase it's the need analysis phase the planning phase. There are six different steps. We have agreed on the idea that among the six different steps, there will be a first chair, second chair relationship between fmd and pbo. Sticking point here is whether pbo will be the project director as named in the contract as the point person for the contractor throughout steps one through six of th it will split off at step four to facilities management, either in total or in some joint relationship with facilities and pbo being the project director.
>> point well taken, Commissioner.
>> it's confusing.
>> it is.
>> took me pages of backup.
>> I understand. But as far as would like to have, to be divorced from another layer that is in existence now under this kind of concept and they would like to have that layer of responsibility devoted to them instead of sharing that with pbo.
>> but the layer will exist irrespective of who occupies the layer.
>> well, maybe. But I guess, yeah.
>> because--
>> I guess I壇 have to hear from the departments. They would know exactly what's going on and how they have to deal with it. I need to hear from them. I hear us but existing building the best to know the existing building is functioning or not and what needs to happen or the assessment, and bring the alternative. This is the heart of what we do. I mean that is what we are saying we should take charge on that and nobody else. Like the support department like pbo, they support the departments. On they can support on things but this is us doing the work. I mean we are supposed to be in charge. Something happened to it, we are responsible. There's accountability here.
>> so the accountability phase.
>> we're happy to take the responsibility and accountability with it because we are accountable for it all along. That is what we are saying. We don't want the split up function to go away to pbo or any other department.
>> I壇 like to add a different perspectivetive, and I知 not speaking for either pbo or facilities management.
>> all right.
>> in your position there is a conflict, and you as responsible people look down and go gosh, I wish there wasn't this conflict. Can't they just work it out? In the last several weeks should be exhibit number one, that these parties cannot work it out. What is that telling you? You as an owner of these prospective projects, and we as the prospective consumers or tenants of your projects have an identity of interest. And our identity of interest is that we both want a builder or buildings that are long-lasting, will serve the public need, and will be relatively economical and buildings of significance that will fit within our proximity to the state capitol and represent Travis County and Austin. Neither side has come to you and said, we want to build a building that is long-lasting, economical, meets the public needs and is a building of significance. This is in essence a turf war. And the problem is, is that in my position of dispute resolution, you have to have a solution that is good for the goose and good for the gander. Pbo or facilities says, well, we don't want a layer between us and the Commissioners court because we fear that our voice will not be heard. And I know this is true because in all due candor, facilities caved during the period of time when we were working as a working group because they felt like their voice was not being heard by the Commissioners court. Are they equally, I were in your position, are they equally, will they act as a good steward? Because everyone else is going to fear that if facilities is in that layer position between the consumers, the other departments, the stakeholders, and the Commissioners court are they going to fairly let, just as they are worry that their voice is not going to be heard, are all the rest of us assured that our voice will be heard? Whether you pick pbo, whether you pick facilities, this is all within, obviously, your discretion. But my earnest recommendation is not to compromise, not to split the baby here. Because if we're taking the first baby step and already we're tide up in this search on would is --who is going to be in charge, it is a prescription for disaster. Have you to pick one horse or the other. We'll work with whichever horse you pick. But these people have proven, , and this is not a dispersion, but they have they will not compromise and not work together. Not just now. Before. If the they are honest about it, they will say so. You're going to have to pick one or the other. But don't compromise. Please.
>> that's why I made the statement earlier, judge. I知 glad you brought that up. I did bring in the war. I said earlier it's like a tug of war with the Commissioners court right in the middle. That was a good analogy on your part also.
>> the final thing, I will say what some of my, I want to say this out loud. And it's sort of relevant to this issue, from the users, the commerce, the residents we really do have--the consumers, the resident we really do have to live with whatever the end product is on a daily basis. There are things that almost look fani the t acompli. I never did understand why we were focusing on trected and engineers and not looking at planners and designers and other many talented people that can do this needs analysis kind of work. The needs analysis was helpful when we did the juvenile product because it accurately predicted or predicament and given the food print --footprint got a stein in there. Things like security is not an incidental. We can't even begin to count on everybody's hands and tows in this room the number of courthouse incident in this country involving security, injury and death that is something just as important as to where you park your car. We are looking to make sure from the very get-go, from the needs analysis, that we're looking at flexible space. More and more we're having to move into problem solving courts that don't take place in a traditional courtroom, jury room type of setting, and we need flex space that we can use fare many different types of things, particularly with the problem solving courts. Finally, 1982 was the introduction of the pc, which was approximately 52 years after the courthouse was built. Nobody in 1980 could ever foresee something that has so substantially changed the business process of the clerk's office and jp and county couts of law and the district courts as technology has. We should be paying as much attention to technology as the potential for changes as we are parking. Thank you all.
>> thank you, judge.
>> I guess I壇 like to speak from a user department viewpoint. We sat on a working committee. I have to tell you this. We're seeing a turf war as to who is the best at facility, who can do the best job. I have to say from where I sit, no won has done a very good job. Just talking about my own department. Not because we are worse than anyone. I just know my own office. That is that we do not have the space to do the work that we are statutorily required to do. We are going to be bringing up a new financial system, which we have been talking about for several years. You began the funding of it a year ago. The it is well underway in the planning stages. And we do not have a data center in this county that can even hold the boxes. The county attorney came up to me and asked if they could put their computers up with the financial system because they need to put attorneys in the room that their computer boxes, I知 calling them boxes, sit in. And we are sitting here looking, arguing about the philosophy of facilities when in fact the users are in a crisis in terms of being able to do the work that we have to do and to be with the people that work with us. And we are in extremely serious situation now because we're going to start fragmenting all off the place because there hasn't been a facilities approach that has allowed us to be in a facility that suits the needs of doing our work. For instance, in my own office right now, facilities is working very hard with me to figure out what we can do now that we have this ahead of us. I will tell you, there are no good solutions. Put some of my department down on one, let's put some up on five. Do we put some of them in another build ing? At the end of the day we're going to have to to something. I知 pragmatic too of the they will want my signature on something and they will saw the auditor is not happy with this. The auditor is not happy that we are in a facilities crisis and we going to have to start shoving out people in spaces that make absolutely no sense. We sat on a committee for two years, and I was asked to be on that committee to work on the civil courthouse because they have the exact same problem. The judges came to you six years ago with the problem in that courthouse. It's in the just the civil judges. All the people over there. We keep saying civil judges . It's not just civil. When nothing seemed to move they put the committee together. This committee worked for two years. The reason we can't get anywhere is because there is a turf fight as to who is in charge instead of moving forward. And we have lost two years. Now, things are happening. Buildings are being bought. Good lease space is being taken and our options are getting smaller and smaller. I have to tell you as a public official I am extremely concerned where I am going to put my people, where they are going to work and how we are going to be able to work with the offices that we need to on a daily basis. So I guess I知 at the point now of saying, I致e done everything I know to help. I kind of try to do a philosophical kind of piece which I gave to the judge and Commissioner eckhardt that talked about how facilities really needs to be focused on operations because it's a tool. We don't build buildings just to have them. It's a tool for doing your work. For the public and how they use it. It has to do with who we can recruit here and how they work. We haven't done a good job on it. I know for me, and I think the judges would be the same, I would have been extremely happy if all of a sudden someone else had taken that planning and they had had done the facilities work and there was a space solution that met my needs in a time frame when I needed it. When we worked, facilities management came up with planning document that would have cost I guess about $850,000 to do this kind of planning work. I will tell you what made me sick to my stomach when I looked at that I知 not underestimating that. They listed the departments that they wanted the planning to deal with. The treasurer was not on that list. The planning and budget office was not on that list. The county auditor was not on that list. The purchasing office was not on that list. So that was the planning for downtown and we weren't even on that list i.t. Was on the list, facility management was on the list, records manage the or I think the tv, you all were on the listment judge--list. Judges were on the list. When I look at those things I am not confident that the users' needs are sitting out there for these buildings. I don't know what you are going to do. I致e tried to be--
>> hopefully we're going to vote sometime today.
>> I hope so. But you know--
>> I don't know that there's way to make everybody happy. I have been sitting here listening. It is not like we told either pbo or facilities, go out and get a master plan and bring it back and we'll fund it. Nothing is further from the truth. Where we are today, though, is about doing that. And what drove it was the realization that if you do is a civil courts building you impact other offices down here. So we may as well take a comprehensive look at it. Now, whether we look it or not, if you go first chair or second chair, and it seems to have agreement, we have already divided up the work. When we did this, I just assumed that the project management would follow this. I had no reason to think otherwise. As we were about to discuss it in court, two weeks ago, I guess, that issue surfaced. So that resulted in other meetings. I don't know, in my view it's 51-49. It is not, this is not a 70-30, 80-20 issue. If facilities and pbo can't work together, this project won't get done anyway. You got purchasing who is going to be impacted you have civil judges, criminal judges, a who will lot of other people . You have the da and the sheriff. A lot of issues. The person to do the bulk of this work if we coordinate it well, a paid consultant. That person should know a whole lot more about constructing civil courts buildings and meeting those needs than we do. Otherwise we ought to do it in house. Based on the estimates that I have heard, we are paying to get good advice. So some of these problems that may crop up shouldn't crop up if we have good consulting advice and are as inclusive as we should be. This is one of those issues where my goal was really for us at some point to make a decision and be thorough and comprehensive enough to at least leave the impression that we tried to be fair, you know, fairer. In my view whatever choice we make today it will be all right. If they remain team players, dedicated county employees. I don't see it as a win-lose. I see it basically as the court's environment was for this to--e vote was for this ho happen.
>> your explan clears up the answer for me. I was going to say let's get someone to design and build this thing that way we have someone over everything else. But the thing is to get that, the facility done and get all of the needs for people met. Then have the public be able to entera place where all of their needs are met as well. And I really don't want to choose. I would still insist, go back and work it out. Because don't bring your.
>> please don't say that.
>> don't bring your issues to me. We have insisted a lot of money in professionals who are going to help us get all these issues done. And then we also, I mean most of it was because we followed the recommendation of the comptroller's report back in '94 or '95 when I first got here about how this county ought tor organized and where it ought to invest its money for professionals to help us do all of these things. So don't ask me to settle your problems for you. I知 depending on y'all to do it. But I still see, judge, you're right. We are going to hire someone who is going to give us this advice, who has much better knowledge of these things. Right now I don't feel like anybody is bringing me any knowledge that I can grab a hold of so that I can get moving.
>> can I respond to that.
>> le me throw something in right here. The process road map that we are looking at, I think both facilities management and pbo agree in principle on all of the line items of the process road map. The process road map is 18 pages long. We've actually accomplished the first page, essentially. Roughly pages two three eight we are discussing. Pages 8-14 all go to facility management. Only pages 2-8 we are discussing. So facilities management already gets page 8-14. In 2-8 though in the last month, in terms of saying y'all just go work it out, I have had six hours of meetings, more than 60 pages of documents provided to me on the various arguments for pbo and fs d. They cannot compromise or come to a decision between the two of them. The spears that are expressed by facilities are that pbo will, if they are the project director, will come up with unworkable, imprudent or impossible directives out of the needs analysis. I think that while that fear is not outside the realm of possibility, I think it's rather remote. Conversely, I think that the fear pbo expresses about if we split the baby even further than it's already split in this first phase, pages 2-8, we've already split it down in the first chair and second chair in every single, in all six of the steps of this first phase. If we split it even further at the level of project directorship, pbo expresses a concern that we will not have accountability and we will not have forward movement. I think that my experience of the last several months is vivid proof of a lack of accountability and total inertia. We are mired in turf warfare, we are lack a pack of starving dogs where a pecking order hasn't been established. So we peck on eve other and are bleeding rather than going out and looking for food.
>> let me give me three point since you have given yours. And they are these. When we look at these seven points, four and five are similar. Four, in my view, involves more long-term planning than five, which really is space, facility and parking. Two is that there's no way important to us get this done without them working together. Now, it won't bother me the if the we compromise and make five joint as well as six. The court is going to have to have some involvement in this project anyway because it costs too much money not to. And so what happens after seven is important. We can make that call when it's time to do it. This is just the up front planning phase. Basically. So I don't, on one hand we may be blessed in that both departments want to do it. In my view both possess a lot of expertise. But I don't know whether either has done a project of this size, this magnitude, before. That's why you bring in an expert.
>> right.
>> so there is some good here. The bad seems to be, there seems tor a turf war. But we asked what you think about this. And we wanted you to give us your opinion. And they did. So we did compromise on 1-4. So we ought to compromise on 6 and 7. And five we compromised on the first chair flipping to facilities, second chair switching to pbo. But the question about who would be the project director on five really is a piece that we are discussing right now. I think we made a lot of progress.
>> and six though. We are also, because it's my understanding--
>> in my view we had an agreement on six. It ought to be joint.
>> but I don't believe that is the position of pbo.
>> I don't care. We reached a compromise in the if first meeting. The meeting lasted two hours.
>> I don't believe.
>> that is into the my understanding.
>> I guess they can't make the decision so we need to make it.
>> judge, may I make a short comment? In response to the Commissioners' statement about knowledge. I think it's common knowledge now that rodney rodeshas accepted the executive manager position for planning and budget effective may 5. In 2002 colin county underwent a space utilization study accomplished for similar plans to the courtroom space, open space, transportation and technological studies. That report, that stuffed was headed, ironically, by the previous budget officer colin and rodney rhodes. That report was 1500 pages and rodney directed that entire study with the consultant they hired that is going to do the same thing here. So there is some knowledge. There is some experience. That was in 2002 in colin county.
>> but that is not the capital city of Texas.
>> I understand.
>> there's se differences hire. And the size is different.
>> I would just.
>> the culture is different.
>> am I wrong in assuming that whether we like to or not, we got to work together?
>> sure. No, I don't think there's any--
>> this is a job--
>> but we haven't.
>> but we can of the I have heard various come complaints. It seems to me we have to get over them. Pairs will not go out and aprayer spending in excess of $100 million, and who knows how close to $200 million we will get to, if they think we may not be able to work together to get the project implemented. I would have to vote against it myself. I don't know that--
>> without establishing accountability, though, my fear is that we will continue to bicker at this level rather than move forward.
>> we will be held accountable.
>> if wishes were horses, beg gars would ride. We would be riding right now if team work could be established between these two departments on a joint and equal basis.
>> it can be established after we make a decision.
>> apparently this doesn't work.
>> after we make this decision they will be working together as a team.
>> sure. We will agree do that.
>> we have an old executive manager and a new won coming that will help us do that.
>> right.
>> then I have a motion unless you have one. One of us ought to have one.
>> if I may address the court.
>> mr. Nelis, judge shebshemshepherd, then lisa.
>> pbo's recommendation is that the court decide either pbo or facilities management to be the project direct tor. Based on your decision we will a hundred percent comply with your decision is to are you either or on all receive not on all seven. We're talking about the overall project manager.
>> the planning phase.
>> right.
>> the project director the planning phase.
>> right.
>> facilities would obviously--
>> do the implementation phase.
>> right.
>> when we had the group we discussed that. And when I first heard about the project when I got a call, it was step 1-6, 1-5 would have pbo as the project director, the if first chair being facilities management. That changed somewhere along the way because there apparently was not an agreement, although I thought there was one. There are competing visions. It is fairly simple. There are competing visions of how you do step 5. Fmd has one and pbo has another. You could choose either. I think we lined up behind how we saw pbo doing that. But clearly it is your choice. We will work together no matter what. But we did not want you to think that there wasn't at least a competing vision that we were offering. There was a competing vision. Whichever one you choose today is the one we will work with.
>> a competing vision on what?
>> on how to run the project at that level.
>> the civil courts build the civil courts building far sure.
>> or the Travis County central government.
>> let me be clear. There is one for both, I believe. But I can only speak to I have left skin in the game with regard to every other building as opposed to just the courts building. But yes, there is a competing vision.
>> yes.
>> we didn't come here to tell you we weren't going to work together. Obviously, we do. That's a given. What we are saying, the visions are different. No disrespect to anybody. They are different. Because they are, you had to go one way or another. We houtthat the vision that pbo presented was a good one. We liked that vision. But whatever vision you choose, we will live with and do what we have to do to get the project completed and done well.
>> at some point we have to achieve a Travis County vision. You bring in a consultant and pay a couple hundred thousand dollars just on a little piece of this, we would be foolish into the to have --not to have a trathevision, even if it's a draft to have the consultant help us refine it. If we do a revision on the comprehensive plan like I have heard, I have heard estimates up into the six or seven or 800,000 range. The vision I have is us working together as a team.
>> the difficulty is that at some point team work deinvolves that a decision being made. How that gets made is influenced mightily by who the director is. Just like when two lawyers come to me they have equal vision. At some point I make a decision as to which vision will apply. And who the lawyer is influences greatly who is presenting it. The first is going to present it differently than the second chair is and that will make a difference as to how my decision come about. Are you in fact that judge and the court. When we bring that decision to you, how it looks depends on who is the lead person responsible tor for the vision. We sill --simply request the vision be laid out as 1-4 and 1-5. I think that five as it was laid out previously somehow changed.
>> nothing has changed. What changed was--
>> these were--
>> the realization that the project management had not been addressed by us clearly, I think. The memo that we had before us last week, which I kind of put finishing touches on, is the same one we are looking at today. The question was what about project management.
>> I had understood that to be already decided. Apparently it was not.
>> project director ship.
>> project directorship I had understood to be already decided 1-6no. If it had been decided, the first chair in five would be the project director for five. Then we learn, hey, there's been no agreement on that, let's discuss it further. I thought that a follow-up meeting would enable us to gain agreement on it. Two meetings later concluded we won't be able to reach agreement on this issue.
>> at first I thought when we laid out the process at first what was going happen, when you all got through you would run it by the working group and the group would talk bit. Clearly beyond that point in the meeting today.
>> we did that in preparation for the last time this was on the agenda.
>> yeah. So what we have said is 1-5, our understanding was pbo was in charge. I understand their vision, we simply don't have an agreement there. But you will make a choice and we will live with the choice that you make.
>> okay. Let's have a motion.
>> yes, sir. I will be brief. First I reject the motion that we cannot work together. Please, our first duty is public service. That goes beyond any organizational issues or more of a falling. Secondly, that there has not been facility planning is just absolutely incorrect. Let me give you specifically examples, please. In '02 this county's for leases, in '09 it will be 330,000. That was an issue in planning. That didn't just happen. Since '02 we had purchased 5501 airport, 5555 airport, a 535 airport, 2501 congress, 910 la vaca, buildings in precinct two, three and four. Again, that was a process of planning, and that was the court direction of that is the sort of planning that facilities has taken, and we have published a work plan that outlines that. But those are very, very specific examples. I think what we have gotten off into is an organization make-up. I addressed that with a memorandum to two members of this particular committee. The court has invested significant amount of money in fte's and building up facilities management department over the last ten years. You did that with the full recognition that you needed to have that core foundation of professional architects engineers, planners, estimators, in order to guide the county into another era away from what was done in 1998, into a time when we indeed had the horses pull the wagon and to get to the vig. Secondly, as I mentioned, we have a track record of long-term facilities planning with the buildings that I mentioned, leases and all the facilities, the building at airport boulevard part of the county's plan to relocate people out of downtown and build another campus. We're well underway. We checked with other counties, dallas, ter rant, bexar and harris county, and those particular operations have operational analysis, workload, staffing, contracting and financing options in their budget department but each of the operational department do their own planning, as has been the tradition in Travis County too. You don't have long-term planning for parks and roads in pboment you have it in the department. You don't have long-term planning for criminal justice or for emergency services or for any of your other operations. They are in the department. Because that is where they are implemented. The last point that I want to make is that we are proposing a very clean approach to a management problem that is not different than it is in other organizations. That you indeed provide that operational analysis, staffing and forecasting be with pbo. When it comes to space, that you give it two the department that will be held accountable for the implementation of those plans. For us it's a simple division that is followed by most other large urban county, and we would ask that Travis County do the same. But whatever you decide please know that we will follow your lead and will do everything that we can to maintain public trust. That's our primary here.
>> what you mentioned, how would that be invoked in today's process, the steps that we have before us now. How would that be related or included, substituted, whatever word we want to use here n what you just suggested in the steps that exist right before us today?
>> the way that it would be implemented, and understand that we have developed this road map through study and analysis and comparison to other major projects throughout the country. And the way that it would be implemented is on the planning phase, on the needs analysis, one, two, three and four would be first chair of pbo with powell acting as first chair and strickland acting as second chair, again as a team for synergy.
>> all right.
>> on the meads analysis--needs analysis, when you get to the space part, planning for space, parking forecast, reuse of existing and why you facilities, that would go to facilities planning, with the expertise and background for that particular area. Then six, we have proposed a joint chair of that because since we have both been working on the needs analysis, that we both were able to contribute. And it forces the synergy of the final report to be done by both departments. You get the best of both.
>> in that division, the first chair, second chair, and joint in six is not disputed with regard to project management the dispute is in project directorship. Correct? Not in dispute that project management would be divided just as you just described . The only question is whether in five, if fmd is first chair, whether pbo would be second chair and project director, and in six, whether with fmd and pbo as joint project managers, pbo would be project director or whether it would be joint there as well.
>> if I could just one more time make sure that it's very clear, pbo's stance is that it doesn't matter to us whether you pick pbo as the project director or you pick fm d. We just don't believe it should be split for this particular project. We will continue to work as it's been defined here. I guess that, I want to make sure that's not a kind of handoff, we're done, statement. It is truly in the interest of executing this contract. We will work under either format. It's just in the interest of not splitting it within the contract. That's fine. Really. We think the first chair, second chair, the project management approach, the fact that you're going to have a high quality consultant on board to execute this project, puts the Commissioners court in the best position to get the best type of information back, and it truly is a management issue on the part for the contract. If you want had this to continue into discussions about ultimately whose role is what we are happy to do that and discuss that at an appropriate time. For this particular contract we thought the simplest approach was the best approach.
>> but you will defer to the court's judgment.
>> absolutely.
>> Commissioner Daugherty. Back with you.
>> let me ask a couple things. Susan, do you need to grow in this building? Given your choice, your choice, either if we start this and get this worked out, we're still looking at two and a half years. So you need growth. Who is in russ? Is had anybody in the russ building? We bought a $2 million building. Let's find out some way to use the budding and get the auditor the space they need to have in my opinion. Belinda, didn't you use to work for facilities?
>> yes, sir.
>> if this is a turf deal, why don't beling linda go back --belinda go back and work facilities.
>> I talked to the both of them two weeks ago.
>> if this is a turf deal, let's stick them under, you know, one umbrella and say, you know--
>> if there is agreement on it, I vote for it.
>> there are many other things that I do. That's why I think that the recommendation that if you choose to move the project direct for for this contract is not an issue for me. I am used to working closely with fm staff. That's why I believe the cross functional approach can be done. That's why we're proposing it as a successful approach. But there are other things I need to do in pbo, so I would request that we not move it.
>> I don't know what is more important than this project. It may be, I mean, I might be able to get comfortable with lending you for a 12 or 18-month period. Let me ask this, given the fact that we have to do this needs assessment/analysis, what prevents us from following through that, getting this consultant and turning this project over to the consultant? I mean, let me tell you what, I know too much on the fifth floor you all can sit here in front of us all day long. I could have people come through the door on the 15-minute intervals talking about you might have told them to do that downstairs, but let me tell you what, there is not peace in the valley. And I知 not with that. I知 not comfortable with making them move or making one two choices here because I know what's going to happen. We are going to no more call this meeting off and I値l have five people that will run in and say I can't believe you did that. Let me tell you the reason why you shouldn't have done that.
>> and reopen it next week.
>> the only place that I am the most comfortable is knowing that there are people that do this professionally and they get paid and go to, and those people come to our staff and get the information that they need. But then, I mean, to me the comfort level is much greater for that than I am voting on something right now and thinking I知 going to get it off my plate and vote for it. I think this is too big a project and I don't think that needs to happen.
>> we're talking about the work that we do in house to hand the consultant so the consultant can do his or her job. No way to get around the need. We do that one way or the other. We don't want the consultant having to talk with 50 people at the county.
>> might be easier.
>> plus it would driver up the costs also. We need to coordinate our effort to pull together the information to hand to the consultant. I thought that's what this is about.
>> in conjunction with what Commissioner Daugherty said, you could say we're going to hire a project manager and they are going to put the whole project together.
>> you wouldn't require someone to manage that contract too.
>> I have a motion that we establish a project director, a single project director for steps 1-6 of the planning phase needs analysis portion of the road map.
>> I知 sorry.
>> I missed the first. Motion was what?
>> that we establish a single project director for steps 1-6 of the planning phase of the needs analysis.
>> does it have to be anybody here?
>> no. The motion goes to just establishing that as a framework. Irrespective of who is in it, whether fmd, pbo or someone we hire off the street.
>> a consultant.
>> I think we need to hire swonsomebody to--somebody to take the project on and tell us what they need . Get the credentials. There are plen the ty of people who do this. We can tell you what you need to do, the people you need on talk to and when to talk to them. We do need the needs assessment analysis because without that, we're not going to know the questions that we need to ask.
>> is there a second?
>> I will second it for discussion purposes.
>> okay. Anymore discussion?
>> do y'all understand the motion that Commissioner eckhardt just made?
>> my point in making the motion is that by having a single point person for steps 1-6 of the planning phase needs analysis, we establish a point person, a point of responsibility and accountability, through which we can get over this hump. If it is a two-headed beast, we continue to bicker. If it's a one-headed beast, even if you don't like the decisions, decisions will get made. At this point, we're looking for a 70 percent solution, not a hundred percent solution. There's going to be 30 percent who are unhappy. We cannot get to 100 percent.
>> motion as I understand was to hire one project director.
>> one project, a single point project director for steps 1-6, the planning phase of the needs analysis.
>> I understand it. Anymore discussion?
>> and it can also come from inside.
>> I知 not, this motion isn't, doesn't go to who that person should be. It's just a motion regarding the structure.
>> right.
>> --of the hierarchy of how the decision is hatei.
>> I understands. Planning and implementation follows all that. Right now this establishes the person per se.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor of the motion show Commissioners Davis, eckhardt, Daugherty and Gomez voting in favor. Show judge voting against it. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> all right.
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, April 23, 2008 8:51 PM