Travis County Commissioners Court
May 20, 2008
Item 15
Number 15, consider and take appropriate action regarding space at 5551 airport boulevard and the hey man marion sweatt Travis County courthouse. A, allocate space at 5501 airport boulevard to move the district clerk jury management office from the hey man marion sweatt Travis County courthouse. B, proposed design for the new district clerk jury management office. C, relocate the district clerk microfilm section to the current jury management office space at the hey man marion sweatt Travis County courthouse. And d, reallocate the current district clerk microfilm section space for use by the justice of the peace, precinct five. >> good morning. Roger el khoury, facilities management department. We've talked about this subject before and would like to move forward with the approval of the abcd on the premise that we have a good design and we have ample space at the airport boulevard to move the district click. And from the facility face perspective, everything is laid out as it's supposed to be laid out at airport boulevard, and at the same time we will have some space vacated from the district clerk on the southwest quadrant and move into a space on the north quadrant of the first floor of the hey man marion sweatt, so we would have more efficiency for the district clerk. This is from a space perspective. The space vacated from the district clerk in the hey man marion sweatt, we strongly recommend that that space go to jp five for the jp five expansion. From the space perspective, what we're asking is to make sense and I would like jim to tell you about the space also, about the hey man marion sweat renovation.
>> recalling the work session, how it was laid out, it's obvious that if we approve a, then b happens, then c and then d.
>> exactly.
>> and I think the total cost is $73,304?
>> yes.
>> I move approval of abcd.
>> second.
>> talk to me about the budget. I heard the amount. What's the source of funding?
>> from the (indiscernible) we anticipate some savings both for civil and criminal, and there's enough money that would cover both the move to the 40,000 and the 26,000. So there would be enough savings there. That's where it would come from.
>> the planning and budget knows about it? Agrees?
>> we made them aware.
>> yes, sir.
>> we're just trying to get them on record. We see two of them back there.
>> three.
>> they agree the money is there.
>> so does pbo -- you've reversed your opinion about your write-up?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> what their opinion?
>> well, they've got about five paragraphs and I also remember didn't judge dietz also have some concerns?
>> I think we've addressed them.
>> is judge dietz okay?
>> we know pretty -- we now pretty much communicate electronically. And we will some of our employees in the courthouse that would take care of any issues that might come up related to the jury.
>> these dollars have not been allocated for some other cause, right?
>> judge, those are the savings from my jury that we have -- those are the savings that we have accumulated this year, but we have saved the county money in that line item every year since we have implemented i-jury for the last six years.
>> so it's a continuing source of funding.
>> and savings.
>> using the same line item as far as what's been accumulated, is that right, judge?
>> they are currently in the district clerk's budget. They are like utilities or fuel. If it needs to be increased, it's increased. If it needs to be decreased, we decrease it. There was a recommended decrease this last fiscal year and we will need to look at it again this budget season to make sure it's appropriately budgeted. The budget transfer however would not be automatic unless the court so desires today. We would have to bring it back to court unless we have direction today from you.
>> well, if we approve this motion, our intention would be to use those dollars you just described to get the project done.
>> that's correct.
>> so we would expect the budget transfer to carry it out.
>> we can bring a budget transfer to you.
>> from a facilities perspective, these moves make all the sense in the world.
>> that's right.
>> there's a need for them and logistically this is how we basically try to address three or froths. A little bit of additional space for the jp, more space for the district clerk out on airport, more space for microfilming. That's what I知 hearing.
>> yes.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> then why can't we -- then why can't we get pbo on the same page with this deal? I am still concerned about why we've got -- the people that do this is pbo. I realize that everybody -- a lot of people feel like they need space. And I知 not questioning whether y'all have needs over there, judge. I mean, I walked over there, you're right. It's pretty difficult to deal with. Which is why I知 in question as to why pbo would say this is really the thing to do right now. I mean --
>> I cannot answer for them, but I know that we have requested this in our budget last year. We were advised to work with facilities. We have worked with facilities. We found the money. I just don't understand why as a team this comes up every once in awhile. And I see that they have requests, and those requests have to be in line like I have. I致e been waiting for the last two years. So I think that that's only fair that if we need it and we're in dire need of space, that we look at this as a team. And what is it going to take for us to solve this problem? And that's what I have to say.
>> I think our main concern is not necessarily the (indiscernible) of this request or we aren't claiming they don't need space. What we are claiming is that this request can go and be considered with the rest of our space requests later in the budget process.
>> but that's too long of a wait. I mean, I致e been around here long enough and we stretch these things out just more than they have to be. And this is small enough to take care of now, and which doesn't mean -- I think we're going to disagree some time with pbo.
>> I知 used to that.
>> and we're going to disagree with facilities. So that's -- everybody is fair game, I guess, since we've tried to resolve these issues. But to put it off means it's going to go into this huge pot again and probably wait another two years. No. I think as we resolve these in small pieces, let's take care of them, move them out of the way and then let's deal with the huge problems which we still have ahead of us. And the fact money is available, come on. I think everybody is sacrificing in these two. It's just time to move on with this issue.
>> the point is that I remember her request specifically and I remember other departments' requests similarly also. And we have done some -- we've done a lot of moving from a lot of folks around here. I mean, it just -- a lot of things are changing. But I really feel that hers is -- should be taken care of. That's why I second the motion. And I知 going to support this motion because there have been others that have came in and made similar requests and they've been satisfied on their requests, almost during the same time line that amelia was in. So I have no problem seconding this motion as far as the court.
>> I have a comment to make, though. I think that if we were to wait for the budget process, this would be approved in any case. So that's the reason why I will vote in favor of it. But it's a point very, very well taken that we are in desperate need of a strategic plan for our expansion so that we don't do this on an ad hoc basis. This most clearly has come up in an ad hoc way even though it's been over two years. The idea that we could have a facilities expansion request that's ongoing for two years, but is still ad hoc, ie, not part of an overall strategic plan for the district clerk's office, is pretty -- is concerning, very concerning. And secondly, another concern that I have for this is that clearly this line item isn't appropriately budgeted if we see a savings in it year after year after year after year. So we should adjust that. It's got so much that it's a savings because of the change in an annual improvement in our jury services, it's an annual savings in an improvement that we made back in the day that has been excellent. I-jury is an excellent program and has been really phenomenal, but it's not out performing what we know expect. It's just that we haven't changed the line item based on its performance.
>> well, if I might add that we started 70% utilization. We're over 90%, so it has been that the usage has increased and that's what allowed us to do some savings. And we hope to get to 98% if that's possible.
>> it's a phenomenal program. I知 not saying that. I知 saying we often get into a habit of saying that we have a savings inside our apartment that we can use. Sometimes it's not really so much that it's savings because of programmatic shift from that year. It's savings because we were not as -- we weren't as accurate in setting the line item as we could have been.
>> on the other hand, we purchased that property out on airport. We need to keep people moving over there to utilize that property properly. And make sure that we're not just spending tax dollars and then not utilizing the property. And this is one of those areas, it's small enough, there's space to house it over there, make room in the crowded courthouse, the heman sweat courthouse so that the residents like the jp five can have a little bit of extra room that's badly needed. Badly needed. And I think we can address those issues now and not wait -- not throw it into the mix where it's going to take another two years. And we do have a tendency to do that around here. And I think we need to take some action here so we can utilize the property we have.
>> would y'all think that this would be a 2009 item that you could support?
>> let me just say in 2008 when it was brought to our attention, it was also along with a passport function that the district clerk was implementing. That was support understand fy '09 because the revenue was there to support it. And we say we need to look at it again this fiscal year and next fiscal year to ensure that that program was continuing as projected. The move, however, was not recommended last fiscal year. We thought it should go through the normal facilities planning and we thought it should be viewed in the context of that planning. And so we're just making that remark again this year. I don't know if we would be recommending it this fiscal year or not. I know that we wanted it to go through that normal process because just to give the Commissioners court visibility on all the issues. It's at your discretion, however.
>> let me ask this. Roger, if the court decides to support this today, when will all of this take place to move? We've got the jp five need to be situated, we've got the district clerk need to be situated, the moving of all these things, all these mechanisms, all this moving. When could we expect that to be completed?
>> by enof September 2008.
>> end of September?
>> yes.
>> oak doak.
>> the backup is $5,000 of the amount needed will come from facilities. Have you that in your budget?
>> yes, as a matter of fact, I do on another project. But as jp five, as mentioned last time, he will take it as his and we might or might not spend that $5,000 this year.
>> but if we need it you have it in your budget.
>> we have it.
>> any more discussion or delay?
>> and roger, I致e heard you say loud and clear that we need to move forward with this. Are there any other things that are going to get on this agenda in the next 30 days where somebody is going -- is this going to trigger something where somebody comes and says, if they can do it, why can't we do it right now are there pressing issues that we're going to have to say, sorry. You didn't get in early enough. Are we going to be able to get everything else in the 2009 cycle.
>> not related to this issue. Not related to the district clerk and john mccain p five.
>> anywhere else? Are there other people standing in line to come and say, you did this for amelia. Now I致e got an issue. Because you're going to know the facility -- y'all are going to know the facility issues more. If there's not, then -- and we're most likely going to see this thing done, then I知 like sarah. It's probably like let's do it. But I just don't want this avalanche of people coming down because we see what happens when things like this happen.
>> there is only one item that I知 aware of, and roger, I think you were going to say that there were none. And it's one that the court has urged us to move and that is moving someone into rusk building and someone into usb. But that has been a directive of the court to get that done asap. So that's the only one that I知 aware that is in there.
>> and this issue about the rusk building is like about two weeks.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> to the surprise of some.
>> thank y'all very much.
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, May 21, 2008 8:51 PM