Travis County Commissioners Court
June 3, 2008
Item 7
7 is discuss recommendations regarding the assignment of space as follows. 910 lavaca street building and related parking to facilities management department. B, assignment of fourth floor of university savings building to information and telecommunications systems department. And c, reserve for future allocation space vacated by the information and telecommunications systems department on the fifth floor of the ned granger building. And this is posted for discussion.
>> good afternoon, judge, be Commissioners. Roger el khoury, director of facilities management department. The rusk building in November of 2007 we purchased the property and the building size was -- is 7,500 square feet. And the total property is about 14,800 square feet. And we -- for the last six months we contacted several departments to see if they wish to move to that rusk building. And the departments, they did not want to relocate because some of operational issues as some are very small and they cannot occupy the whole rusk building. The departments were purchasing office, the county attorney office, the human resource management department, its department, cscd and tnr, park and natural resources. Tnr and park and natural resources because they are small and cannot occupy the whole building. So with this in mind, finally after we talked to its about what is coming up in fy '09 and all this f.t.e. Requests, and the way they want to have their space configured is open space rather than offices like we have at the fourth floor. We decide that facility management, the administrative, financial, the planning, design and construction section, all of them can move from usb fourth floor to the rusk building. The rusk building has about 20 offices and we're moving about 21 people so we can make it work. Really the cost of sven knowvation is going to be -- of renovation is going to be less than $10,000. The budget for renovation of the rusk building was $49,938. So facility management would like to take the space as is and I think we'll have our space -- we are right now 21 people in there that's going to be demolished, the old partition, in usb further floor, and make room for its for their open space and they will have about 34 people in the usb fourth floor. I would like to talk to you a little bit about our plan in the space for the rusk building. And here with me is gabe and he's going to show you the layout of the office space we have on rusk. And then I would like to talk to you about the parking situation. I heard that there was some concern about it. We would like to show you where we are demolishing and renovating the building. You will see the situation.
>> (indiscernible). As roger was saying, we're really doing minimal work here. This is the first floor of 910 lavaca or the rusk building. Basically what we're doing here is there's an existing wall. This was used more for a storage room, so by moving this wall to line up with this window, it becomes a workable office. So we'll have -- and it shrinks this office a little bit here, so we'll have two offices there. And then what we're doing here, there's a storage closet in the old phone switch room that they used before, and we're going to convert that to the new its room for the building just by demoing a wall there. Then on the second floor, all we'll need to do is right now there's an l-shaped configured office which is pretty big. We'll be putting in a partition wall here to divide that into two separate offices. And then right now this is more of a storage closet right now that we're going to take out this wall and put in another wall to make that an occupiable office. And we're exploring the idea of me putting windows in some of these offices for natural daylight, but we're exploring that right now. It might not happen right away. Thenky show you the plan in the usb right now. I think this is part of the backup too. The top is the existing condition. The dashed walls that are on your plan are the walls that we're recommending demoing out. And by doing this, it opens up the space as you see on this lower plan, and that allows us to put in more cubicles and just fit the more people in. It's the way its likes to work. Here we're demoing a bunch of walls here. I think it's like three walls. But then this creates an open cubicle area and then an open what they call a scrum room. There's where they can get together and reprogram things and get together together and work in there. And this configuration allows 31 people. It's 27 cubicles and we're leaving four hard offices here. And right now we have 21 people there. They will be moving over to the rusk facility. And the areas we're talking about moving you the its folks from are currently there will be eight employees coming from the gault basement and there will be 23 coming from the granger fifth floor. And that will allow them to give us this 2,000 square feet here. I think it's like 13 offices. It's about 2,000 square feet. So they'll keep this occupied, but 23 people will be coming out into the fourth floor.
>> that's the fifth floor of this building?
>> this is the fifth floor, yes. And then eight people will be coming from the gault basement.
>> the cost of this construction, the rusk is already budgeted. We have the amount and we have also a major saving on the its. That was budgeted for $150,000. And the cost to have all the its, the cable and the telephone, is about $95,000. So we have about $55,000. We can work on that with the usb demolition and add more system furniture for the 31 people over there. And also the its, if any short in funding is going to happen, I talked to joe harlow and we will fund it internally between facility management department and its regarding we do some of the renovation and the construction and demolition with our folks, and we might have to do some of the its cabling themselves. So that's kind of between me and joe, we can make it internally. The funding is internally and we can make it happen. This is the issue of the space, and I think that in the long-term that will have some space available in the fifth floor, and is yesterday I received from pbo the space requirement for so many folks in this -- in the downtown area. They need some space. And some of them its department. There's about like 13 of them. And some of the 13 is -- they're going to be located in the usb fourth floor already. Some will be locate odd the fitches floor in the shaded area already there. So they're not going to take over any of the space they vacated now. So it will be available for other departments requiring additional space an they can fit on the fifth floor. Pbo gave us like one month to come up with all the space for all the final space requirement, so we have to come back on July 7 and present what the space are for all the others. But this is what we're talking about right here is an fy '08 issue. We have a budget to take care of the rusk building. Have you a tenant now that can go there and use that space efficiently. Now, the maintenance department are going to stay where they are, at the third floor at the usb building. We cannot take the maintenance dent with us because if we do we don't have space anymore in the rusk building. So that is the space issue. If I may talk a little bit about the parking --
>> can we talk more about the space before we move on?
>> no. That's what I was going to ask. Go ahead.
>> I am wondering about the transparency of the process of evaluating allocation of this space. Because I see in the memo that purchasing, county attorney, hr, its, cstd were all contacted. I understand that pbo had an interest in the space as well.
>> they didn't tell me that.
>> did you ask them.
>> they didn't officially come and say that. I didn't ask pbo, no.
>> although it's not reflected in the memo that they were asked. What I?m saying is that it appears that we could have had a more transparent and thorough evaluation of all possible allocation scenarios. Because I know I also had sent an e-mail worning about Commissioners court -- wondering about Commissioners court staff being able to move over there and you responded with a very comprehensive e-mail to me regarding that. But I do think that we could have -- we could have had more than options to floor. -- more options to explore. I?m troubled by having only one option presented, I think. Because at this point I?m not sure -- because of a lack of a facilities strategic plan, I?m unsure who has the most dire space need as far as the triage goes and who would be best placed there for the longest period of time. How long of a residence could be maintained for facilities as opposed to some other departments. It seems like there are variables that would come into play regarding the permanency of the move and the adequacy of the facility for whoever would be utilizing it. I?m a little troubled by having only one scenario to consider. '.
>> this scenario was the last resort after we talked about the other six departments.
>> and that is what happened. And I had mentioned the mav to pbo, to christian, and that was a responsibility, be and I understood and perhaps it was our mistake, that it was the desire of the court to have pbo in the same proximity to court members f that is not the case, then certainly we can go back and explore the possibility of moving pbo into that department, into that space. It doesn't resolve the issues, though, in terms of how long. Three to five years, I?d say, depending on what we do with that area, the strategic planning would be at least -- and master planning would be at least two years, I imagine. The bond election, I think you've said 11, with a starting date maybe of 12 if do you it in November of 11. So we would start construction in 2012.
>> and I hear what you're saying. I am mindful that because of budget constraints we do want to take what amounts to the path of least resistance in regard to whatever utilization will cost the least and requires the least amount of renovation. But I?m concerned as I look down the list. It occurs to me that there are discreet elements of some of these offices that while perhaps whoever is in charge does not want that movement to happen, it may actually be the best overall. And we're not going to have that conversation, which I?m troubled by. I would like us to be able to have the conversation even if whoever is the head of that department said I don't want to move. But at least we've got a list of elements that we're looking at in regard to how pressed is division y for space as opposed to division x? What discrete functions of division y could be stand alone and don't have to have proximity to the Commissioners court? Which ones have a need to be downtown versus others that don't necessarily have to be downtown? I would like to have the opportunity to weigh those between options. If this is the only option, I would understand. I?m just questioning is it.
>> we can go down -- like, for example, the purchasing office. Cid was here, but we talked to her about the possibility of moving that. Again, the proximity with the auditor was important to her and proximity to the Commissioners court. The county attorney's office have two sections --
>> three if you include hot checks. You have hot checks on the first floor, you've got criminal with elements --
>> criminal and then your civil. And with that it was -- one section was too small to put there, and the other ones were too large. And there was I think a hesitance because of their filing system to separate the civil and the criminal. But we talked to them, took david over and also two of the assistant -- the executive county attorney and the assistant county attorney, took them over there and we even talked about splitting them -- maybe their domestic or violence or criminal with the da's and creating some synergy, but again it just didn't fit the maximum utilization of the building. The human resources department, ada issues, that particular building is not a.d.a. Accessible. You've got both the clinic and you've got a lot of ground traffic coming in for applications, so we would have to do modifications to the tune of about # 800,000 to a million to be able to bring them into compliance. Its is what you have here. Tnr, park and natural resources, they were too small to go into the building. You would have to couple them with another department in order for them to go in the building.
>> actually, we've done quite well, but I was reluctant to move because I didn't know what the next step was. It was unclear to me just how all these things play out. We have been told various things about moves and quite frankly, I said I would like to see the future and where we're going with this before we make yet one more move. So I think my major hesitation was not seeing any planning. It was kind of like an ad hoc move. We move here, but what's next? How long will we be here? Am I going to move again in six months? We were waiting for the dust to settle to see just exactly what going to happen.
>> your parks department was too small, joe, to put there.
>> we could put natural resources and parks together and we fit fairly well.
>> when the idea was tossed out of pbo going over to to rusk, it was as we were reviewing the request for positions as it relates to the needs for space. One of the reasons that I kind of thought pbo is because, a, the second floor of that building is about the same square footage I believe as what we're currently in now. So from the standpoint of an ease of move, it would be easy for us. And b, it would free up the space that we currently occupy on five with the idea that its could then expand into that space somewhat and then you could reserve the remainder of that space for -- from a long-term perspective for the implementation team that would be required for the new financial system because you will need space for that new financial system. And in my conversations with the county auditor, what I have shared with her is that I would anticipate that from a combined consultant team as well as the staff that would be required to implement that system, you're talking as many as 20 individuals that would need to occupy a space somewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be fixed office space. I shared with her that the idea of an open pit type environment works well for that type of application with a conference room or separate office space. So the idea of pbo going over there was simply an idea with minimal renovation to that facility on the second floor. The first floor I don't know what would need to be put in there or what could go in there. But I was thinking from a long-term perspective it would free up space on five to provide for those applications. Keep it less fragmented and give adequate space long-term for the financial system implementation and keep the proximity to the auditor's office and it did the same. So that was kind of my thoughts on that.
>> if there's willingness, then we can go back and look at the options.
>> I?m indifferent. I kind of threw the idea out thinking maybe it would be a viable solution. I don't know what the court's feeling is on pbo being as directly related or in proximity to the Commissioners court. It's only a couple of block away, so it's not as if we can --
>> a block separation I wouldn't think would be a big issue, although I do think people have turn down parking spaces at rusk because they don't want to walk the block, which I think is pretty amazing.
>> mr. Daugherty?
>> judge, I feel pretty guilty about this. I think the only reason this thing got started is because I started asking about the rusk building and everybody started trying to find outlets get somebody in there. My intent wasn't do it, find a way to use the building. If there's not a practical thing to do right now -- it south sans to me like given enthe fact that there are -- there is going to be need to be a lot more concerted effort to really overall thinking about what the needs are, I mean, this is really part of the needs assessment thing. I mean, we --
>> yes and --
>> the reason I said it is because I thought susan needed something immediately. But obviously that probably is not the case right now. I don't know when that's going to be, but this new system obviously is not going to come on for awhile, I don't think, rodney. But let's not overreact to something just because one of us made the comment about, well, when are we going to do something with that? I think if we look at this, we don't need to spend 100, $200,000 if there's not a real need for what we're going to be doing. And I?m quite frankly -- after having read it, not to even get into the parking thing. God, the parking thing is a nightmare whenever you bring up parking. But I?m just uncomfortable with this right now because I think that it's -- and I apologize, roger, alicia, whatever, because I do think that you all have jumped to this thing because of my making a couple of comments about, well, what are we doing to do with the rusk building? If we don't really have a well thought out whatever -- and I think with the 2009 needs that we're going to have, then let's pull back. I wouldn't know why we wouldn't pull back and say let's really give legitimate time. And if there is something that we legitimately need to do, then I think that we probably would be pretty interested. But I?m really uncomfortable, especially given the fact that we're going to do this. Then we'll have a space left there that -- all right. Then we'll decide who goes into this space that we create --
>> and that is in preparation. One of the things -- and it wasn't just you, Commissioner Daugherty. We heard it from the judge also and from the court last November when we bought -- when we purchased the building, who would go in there. We went to pretrial and see if it was good for the drug treatment center that we're going to put in the neighborhood. They looked at it. At first they were impressed with it, but then after they considered it, they didn't want to do there. And the county attorney, purchasing office, hr, since last November we've been looking at this as an available space. One of the things that we get caught in in term of a catch 22 is that we are doing this as a means of trying to free up space in the granger building. Sometimes you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't because we heard on April the 22nd the auditor talking about her immediate space needs and being in a crisis. With the -- in the court funds additional f.t.e.'s of any departments here in the granger, we're going to be in a tight fit. And clearly if we do start off on the new financial system, we will need space here at the granger. So this is kind of planning ahead for that. To say that we're going to leave that building open for two years until we have the master plan, it would be something that you should consider is that really the right thing to do because when have you master that's out two years, be then have you to go out to voters, you have to go to construction. It's a relatively long process. And during that time your organization would grow and you will be having more f.t.e.'s in that building. So we want to make enough room to be able to accommodate and meet the immediate needs while you're planning for the future.
>> I don't question whether or not we're eventually going to need t I think that that's a given. My only point here is that I?m a little uncomfortable thinking that we've really tried to -- let's find a way to use that building right now. Maybe that's not the case. It just seems like that's what we've done and we need a little more planning time and really to see what our 2009 needs are. I think you can probably get us to a spot to where we're clearly is where we need to be. So that's how I feel about it.
>> why not just talk with pbo. Whoever else is interested, whether it's a change of mind or what, talk with them. I think we ought to do something with it. I have a hard time thinking it's a good public move to acquire a building like that and let it sit vacant and it's been vacant now a long time. At the same time, I don't feel the need to rush to judgment. But we cannot wait until the needs analysis is done because that will make time.
>> we can't wait until the needs analysis is done, but I think we can set up a system to evaluate what is the best entity to go there. And I wouldn't stop at, well, I don't want to go.
>> well, be the best entities have already turned us down. And some others, for good reason. I don't know -- if I were in the eob building, I don't know that I would want to move over there a few months and then move out to the airport. There are a lot of decisions we need to make before we have permanent answers. And I looked at it as a kind of interim move. I have a hard time driving by the building and -- personally I tried turning the other way, but I would think about it. It bothers me to sit empty, but it it doesn't bother me so much that I think we ought to rush into something. But six months is a long time to talk with these departments. And I?ve chatted with several of them informally and I did learn recently of pbo's interest in doing it. And if joe wants to throw his hat back in the ring, but I thought that joe's position was hey, I want to move permanently. I want to know what the permanent plan s.
>> I would like to see the steps.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. I kept hearing I was moving to airport.
>> moving to airport requires a whole lot of planning and renovation and construction.
>> it could be five years down the road.
>> three to five.
>> the --
>> talk with pbo, and anybody else that wants to talk about the the rusk building, get with roger within the next two weeks.
>> and the other thing was I always had the impression because of the need analysis that needed to come on that this was going to be a temporary office space for somebody. And then if we had to move them -- if it's going to be temporary, why do we want to invest a lot of money to remodel it if then it's going to come down? So I like their approach of take as is, you know, because we don't know how temporary it's going to be, but it is going to be temporary.
>> but Margaret, that building you can move into it and somebody will say we'll take it 99 percent the way it is. But you've got to take facilities existing space if you're going to get somebody over there, and that is going to take decent money to get that thing up to speed.
>> well, I don't mind remodeling buildings that are going to be for extended periods of time, but -- I?m uncomfortable spending more money on remodeling that's going to be temporary.
>> send us whatever options you have and let us choose.
>> one more comment on that. Please understand that also, also, facility management department is in need of space.
>> and we're not suggesting they're not.
>> because -- all right. I just want to make sure that we are also. And the --
>> 60 seconds on the parking issue. What's that about?
>> parking.
>> or should we discuss it behind closed doors?
>> [ laughter ]
>> I think what happened right now, I think I would ask the court to postpone the item on the parking until we know what facilities -- what department goes over there.
>> okay.
>> roger, but let me say -- I don't think I?m going to change my mind. Just so you know this, I don't like the notion of whoever goes over there that they get that parking. I mean -- I mean, I think that really has the potential of pitching something out there that -- my office members, I know that sarah has one too on this parking committee. And parking is one of those things that you can lose a friendship over around this place.
>> and we'll touch base.
>> but it -- we'll touch base with the parking committee. I think that was a misunderstanding. It wasn't like all of the parking -- it was people who were parked over here would already had spaces, not people who didn't have spaces.
>> the facility management goes over there, just a very small example, I have a parking under the canopy here in the usb. I would like to move over there. So I?ll just give up one space and get the other one. It doesn't hurt anybody.
>> but the way you park over there, roger, is a lot different than the way -- you can get your people over there, get them crammed in there. Everybody knowing where their car is, when they're going to pull out or if there's a car up there, just go get it. Versus -- we can't pull other people over there under that overhang the way that you've got them over there right now and just let them sort of do it -- hey, if there's a spot there, let me pull in there and do it. If do you that --
>> the fleet vehicles in the drive-through.
>> I?m not talking about the county vehicle. I?m talking about my space.
>> but the proposal was to take the facility's fleet vehicles over there as well. The drive through at the old bank and the drive-through can't be utilized for employee parking because it's a drive-through. So there were issues with that, but we can -- why don't we -- it seems to be a moot issue at this point.
>> come by and show me what you want to do.
>> really I just want to keep in mind that I have 21 vehicles, and physical management parked downtown. I have more vehicles parked elsewhere. And six vehicles park under the usb vehicle, only six. Nine park in the parking garage, stokes. That's 15. I have six vehicles parked elsewhere on the street here. What we're trying to say is if we can advocate the one in granger for nine space in granger for our vehicles goes to rusk building and give those nine space in the granger to county employees.
>> I think bringing the proposal to us without vetting it to the the parking committee first is probably not a wise idea. Continuing should go to the parking committee first because there might be issues that perhaps you wouldn't be aware of unless you asked the parking committee because they've been doing this for awhile. It sounds like it wasn't -- it should have been vetted through the parking committee to work outside a schedule bugs. But now it's a moot issue for now.
>> we will go through the parking committee. They're kind of -- now we know that they're real and moving and we'll talk to them before we come back.
>> two weeks, judge?
>> I?d allow two weeks for interested managers to get with you and have it back on the agenda in three or four, depending on what kind of responses you get.
>> okay. You've got three votes you're working with.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:51 PM