Travis County Commissioners Court
September 2, 2008
Item 4
>> speaking of disturbing, let's go to another disturbing item. Number 4. Then we'll take up 5. 4. Consider and take appropriate action regarding campus master plan study and planning for a new building and parking garage at the airport boulevard north campus.
>> good morning, roger el khoury, director for facilities management department.
>> [indiscernible] project manager on the -- on the particular project. Are we asking -- okay, back on -- on the budget hearing, we present to the court our concept of -- of what's going to happen on the checking. The court asks us to go back and look at the numbers and how much we need for -- for the master plan and for the planning of the new buildings and parking garage. We went back and looked into all of this -- this consultant we need because first we need to do -- we are going to do all of that in house, the capability of facilities management, perspective and the rest. But we do need some consultant to help us along the way to get a good master plan for the -- for the north campus. When I mentioned north campus, the whole property that we have right there. 335, 5501
>> [indiscernible] that's the north campus. What we need is a surveyor to give us some more information about the property for the horizontal vertical layout and controls and we need to know which utilities over there. Three site feature location anything comprehensive survey. We did this union when we tried to -- you know when we tried to get the campus for planning, survey for certain blocks. Similar things that we need over there. We also need technical services for solar investigation, technical services, very important to know what the -- what is underneath those properties because that can make -- that can have lots of impact on what kind of foundation we are going to have and when we are going to look into the buildings in the future. And also we did this here in the downtown for the -- for the blocks we investigated and very important. And -- and the other one we need to have an
>> [indiscernible] assessment. Just from phase 1. And also if we find anything on phase 1 we have to move on to phase 2 and I believe we had some -- some information come from -- from -- from the environmental section of t.n.r. Asking for what is included in phase 1 and phase 2 and they gave me a list of that. We are asking for now the phase 1 and hopefully we don't find anything to move us to a -- to get the actual sample of the soil and test and all of that in phase 2.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] and then I have platinum and gold, I guess.
>> yeah, you have various levels of this. What our intent was, in order to -- and we're not even suggesting that we do this building under the united states green building program yet. What we do want to do, though, is get out ahead of this so that we don't -- so that we know what the issues are and we don't make any missteps in the planning in terms of how you deal with rain water retention, how you deal with washing issues, how you deal with -- what we want to do is make sure that the initial steps we take are compatible with this so that if the Commissioners court ever decides to adopt this as some kind of county policy or if we decided to this, we will not have taken missteps. The other issue is even if we decide not to apply for the formal program, we can put into effect many of the benefits that this philosophical wave building buildings can have for us.
>> yeah, and the mechanical engineer at this time really is not very extensive. It's just like what we need to make sure that we have a central plant and some storage, different type of things we haven't done in the -- before on the thermo storage. It's important to know ahead of time if it's going to be a central plant for the campus. And absolutely we need the civil engineer who is very knowledgeable about the city of Austin ordinance and regulation because we need for the civil engineer to tell us more about, you know, the traffic over there and how we can do all the water quality structures, which is sedimentation and filtration and all those area that can help us throughout the way. And this is -- the cost we're asking is only $125,000, which is include also miscellaneous issues and printing. And 125,000 is nothing comparing to what size of this north campus is going to be in terms of the cost to build this out. This is good to put more money in front to make sure you have good planning and you have -- so this way we can plan our north campus on a solid rock right there. We have a good funding to have to purchase some services needed to make sure that our master plan and the planning is will solid. In the backup, I did mention to you, I did put exhibit 1, included exhibit 1. And exhibit 1, this page, it shows -- it's a spread sheet really. It shows the departments and offices who had moved to airport boulevard and also the departments and the offices they are in the downtown campus including health and human services, which is in park square. This is all the departments can move to the airport boulevard. There's no other department can move out of here because those other department has no direct relation to the judicial system. Those are the departments, you know, and the general offices they can move to airport. So the total square footage, they exist in offices including health and human services. What I'm trying to say, it's not a complex matter. You know, it's very simple. It's only about like if you exclude health and human services, it's only about 98,000 square feet. So I think this is sure when we plan ahead for 20 years or 30 years, you know, down the road, we have to include all the increase in space based on increase in f.t.e.s on the surfaces and all that. That comes in making the plan work. So I would like court to approve the 125 and give us the direction to move forward with the master plan and the planning for the buildings and the parking garage just to let you know we do not have over there lots of land. We have only 12.49 acres. That's all that we have. There's three properties and those properties are as such. 5501 airport 7.1-acre. I'm talking about the properties, 3.03 acres. Total of 12.94 acres.
>> about 13 acres as opposed to 19 acres, which was stated in a previous memorandum from p.b.o. There are two components when you take on the development of property. One is what's going to go there, going to be house, it's going to be office building, the decision. Who goes there. The other is what goes there. And that's the question I think that we're trying to get at, what can go there. What are your environmental, what is the survey, what is the buildability of that particular campus. An example that I used at the agenda meeting was this gentleman parcels bought all that property, thought he was going to do a development and all that. But he didn't have the environmental assessment done and all those other assessments that you need to do to tell you what can go there. When he did that, then he found the -- the endangered species spider or whatever, insect. And he found out he couldn't build what he wanted to. So we are trying to answer the question what can you build, vertically, horizontally, environmentally, how much will you need in retention ponds, what is the most efficient constructability partnered with the city of Austin on trying to get -- grants or energy efficiency. Those are the questions that we would like to answer. And you say, well, but we don't know who goes there. If we have this money in '09, then have additional information to tell you what you can build in 10, by that time we may have that first portion of the downtown master plan question answered, who goes -- who stays downtown. That will tell you who goes over there. So it's kind of trying to get these two projects in sync so by the time you start constructing downtown, you have a place to put those people that will be displaced or will no longer have a long-term life in the downtown area.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> my motion will be to deny this right now. I am not for spending -- I mean if it costs $125, I wouldn't be supportive of it right now. We have got to do our needs assessment. I mean before we spend -- I think before we spend a time. If we were talking about doing this next July, then okay. We are talking about a bond issue -- I mean a bond package before the voters probably 2011. I mean we're two and a half, three years away. I know that there are some things that we would like, that we might like to do and I could see where you could make an argument for let's get some geo tech work, some things done so we know kind of what we can put out there. The fact of the matter is we can probably put out there what we most likely are going to need to put out there once our needs assessment. But I don't know why we keep coming back to this and looking to do this ahead of doing this needs assessment thing, which continues to be slower than a snail's pace. I mean and why aren't we -- I mean, I would like to have the energy to get that done before we do any of this. I mean so for that reason, I mean I don't need to hear anymore and I respect -- roger, I love you to death, in a manly kind of way.
>> [laughter] but you know, it's just -- I just can't get there right now. I mean it's just not -- if people are watching, they are going I thought they were doing all this needs assessment stuff which is exactly what has to be done before we go out and spend the dollars.
>> the needs assessment is for the downtown area.
>> well, we don't -- well, it's not just for the downtown area because I think that some of us at least are wondering whether or not somebody else is going out there. And I would think that somebody is going to go out there. I mean I don't know who it's going to be, but I mean we know that the cost of downtown, we know that the parking is a challenge, we know that capitol view corridors are challenged, we know there are a number of things. Not to say those all can't be overcome, but it doesn't make any sense to me. My motion would be to deny this and bring it back in whatever.
>> where is the needs assessment? We keep bringing it up, but who has an answer.
>> we have a meeting on September 8th. There are numerous issues and I would appreciate assistance from the court, I really would. The biggest issue is the data center. And it stays downtown or it doesn't stay downtown. It doesn't have to stay downtown. No, it does not. And there is -- are you putting everything on hold, Davis center, airport boulevard, everything because of what is happening downtown? I don't know. I think that is a question that needs to be laid out before you.
>> and I think the last time that I heard discussion about this, I --
>> we have a meeting September 8th.
>> judge, I thought you and Commissioner eckhardt were going to meet on that. I think I remember that. Is that going to happen? Has it happened?
>> administrative operations has scheduled two meetings, both postponed.
>> so that it looks like we all need to get on the same page here. And it doesn't sound like we are. And so we need to do that. So we can get moving forward.
>> yes, we do. And I'm afraid that by -- I'm afraid that by not keeping all of our feet to the fire to needs assessment for the central business district, if we allow ourselves to stray into other projects, it will take our feet away from the fire.
>> well, let's say that that's true then. So let's get going on the needs assessment. So we can kind of all land in one place. And I'm -- you know, I can -- especially would encourage us since we are located in the city of Austin that we have a partnership with the city of Austin. The strategic housing corporation had a partnership with the city of Austin and it got an award of a four star energy award on a building for elderly on -- right behind i.r.s. There's no way -- there's no reason why we shouldn't get those four far awards for our buildings as well if they are energy efficient and especially in these days and times, and I would think that as we go into the future that's going to be a bigger need as well.
>> we should certainly set the example.
>> absolutely. And I heard that process takes a long time too so we need to get started on this needs assessment. Let's get moving on setting up a partnership --
>> but we cannot get moving -- wait for the consultant.
>> it's a lot of hoops that we have to jump through, but you know, they did it. They are a small organization. Surely we can.
>> we can.
>> with the city of Austin.
>> absolutely we can.
>> I'd like to get started with a needs assessment.
>> let me ask you a question, alicia. What benefit would it be for us to look at the consulting aspect of this and from looking at the airport site along with the other downtown, the whole nine yards, but it appears that there is some immediate -- immediate here as far as immediate building with the airport site since we've already looked at cherry king and in talking with the neighborhoods and folks out there, they really are anxious to see things move out there as far as that project. What does this consultant lend to the airport location as this point? Because it appears that there is a need for some level of connectivity between what we're doing here and the city of Austin as far as having the knowledge to deal with setbacks, drainage, environmental concerns and the list goes on and on, the zoning aspects, what's required, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that will be across the board. As long as we're dealing within the bounds and regulations of the city of Austin. My question to you is by not putting the advantage of moving forward even if this site specific to, say, listen, we can move forward with this right now and what will it be later on if it manifests itself according to schedule, according to availability, according to persons getting together to make sure need assessments and a whole lot of these other things are satisfied. Right now we're looking at an urgent situation as far as the airport site is concerned and I don't think we purchased that building just to sit and look at it. Cherry king. So there is -- there is apparently probably some urgency as far as start moving folks around, but making sure the availability of what we're doing out there at the airport site is accommodating. Maybe with the same avenue as this consultant combined into the overall bigger picture, but could you answer that question for me, please? Somebody.
>> I think one of the things about what we're requesting here is that the information that we come up with and the studies that we're doing is information that's not going to become stale. It's something we could go ahead and do now, and I certainly appreciate Commissioner Daugherty's comments about the timing of when we do that and that's certainly your decision, but I would like to say that the information that we're asking for, this master planning that we're asking to do is -- are things we would need to do at least ahead of the design process of actually designing something to go on that site.
>> let me ask you, in regard to the fact that this information wouldn't become stale, some of these are -- I agree, the mechanical engineer, study whether the potential plant is advisable for the campus, I imagine that wouldn't go stale. Additionally the survey and the geotechnical services for the site. I'm wondering about the others, however. The civil engineer regarding the city of Austin policies. Of course, the city of Austin policies change from time to time so that would not be as finite. Additionally the environmental site assessment, that also have some wiggle in it. And the leed consultants as well. There would be a way to pare this down to the essentials that don't have any staleness possibility. I'm a little concerned about camel's nose under the tent. And I do agree that there are certain aspects that would not go stale that we would be able to use 10 years from now. I mean, borings of soils, for instance, the soil is the soil.
>> let me hear you make the case -- did you finish your answer?
>> I think I did if I answered Commissioner Davis properly. I don't know, did you have other -- I don't know if that answered your question completely, Commissioner.
>> and your answer was?
>> the answer is we could go ahead and get this done now and we would not be wasting any of the money, in my view.
>> okay. That's -- okay. I just wanted to see some movement here. That's my concern.
>> and just let me make one more thing about the civil engineer. It's not only what it is on the site, also for the off-site utilities test as water, wastewater, drainage. We need to know things about -- investigation about those utilities and civil engineer is only one that can do that about what the capacity, what that building, what the existing system can take, if there's anything we have to upgrade, the city water or wastewater to get -- or electricity to get to the site. And the civil engineer cost is not that much. That's not normal design of a civil engineer. This is consultant what's going on over there so give us more information for us for better planning.
>> okay. You don't have this 125,000 in your budget at this time?
>> 125,000?
>> do you have it in your budget at this time?
>> no, sir.
>> no.
>> is it on the work sheet?
>> it is.
>> how many checks do you get?
>> not many. I don't know the exact number, but I don't think it's -- maybe one.
>> let me hear you make the case for taking this action now. Make sure I don't miss it. What's the case for taking this action today?
>> the action is to approve --
>> why? Let me hear that explanation. What's the emergency?
>> I think it's so we can get out ahead of what we're doing. The needs assessment is one thing. This is something that we can go ahead and start doing for next year and get it out of the way. That way when we do -- when the court does decide to go ahead and do the design of the facility there, then we would cut several -- we would cut some months off of the process that we would otherwise have to engage in when the design is approved. So I think it allows us to get this done and have it ready and then when -- the whole aim is to get this building in place so that we can move people there whenever the need arises.
>> why in this -- why isn't this a budget markup item and issue? Why wouldn't we just delay action until next week. Then we'll know -- markup starts tomorrow and is tomorrow and Thursday and Friday if we need that long, right? Why isn't that --
>> because, judge, it was requested -- the court requested this item be placed on for the 26th for further discussion. So the item is before you at the court's request. You wanted further discussion so that you got more information on exactly what it was that we were planning to do. You wanted to have the 125,000 broken up into the particular consulting items so we have provided for you a line item break-up. In response to your questions why do it now, it is a matter of planning. I hear your frustrations and can echo them on the master plan for the downtown area. We do want to get something done, something moving. We are proposing this and accountable and responsible for it. We believe it is a good planning -- planning measure so when you start planning downtown and construction, if the first thing out of the chute is the courthouse or the Davis center, that you will be prepared to start moving people out of downtown and have a place to move them and not have to pay costly lease space in the downtown area or in other areas. You are prepared for the exodus out of downtown and have a place to go. Even if you don't have the actual building you know what you can construct and you know the north building -- it's not anything new. You've been talking about a north campus now for at least five years. You have amassed three parcels of property. The last parcel of property you paid $2.8 million. The question I think that Commissioner Davis put out is did you -- how long will that building sit as is. How long do you plan for it to sit as is. For two years, five years? This gets you down the road to at least determining when you get ready to build what you can build. Not only there but it gives you a good perspective of the entire area.
>> let me be more specific about my recommendation, is that we postpone talking about this for approximately 168 hours, which is one week. We see what this -- how this thing fares this the markup and we move on from there. That would be my motion.
>> you withdraw your first motion. Second is to basically consider this as a markup item. How many checks they got?
>> they get one check and it is reference number 105-b.
>> one check from the county judge? Yes, sir. Second the motion. Markup starts tomorrow. Is to have it on the agenda next week and see how it fares in markup.
>> but if we put this off, then when does the needs assessment get done?
>> that's what -- that work needs to be done. The other question really is if we have county staff working on this project, does that mean they are not able to work on the big downtown needs assessment.
>> well, I don't know, was this staff going to be the one working on that?
>> there's going to be different teams.
>> yeah, see.
>> it really is a markup item though.
>> yeah, it is, but you know, the other thing is what I get frustrated about is we do kind of talk about all these plans and we talk about them a long, long time. And meantime, no matter who we have on the team, the information does get stale. And so then there's this deal with starting over again. And so, gosh, I mean we've been talking about the downtown campus longer than we have about this north campus.
>> markup starts tomorrow morning at 9:00. We're posted for the next three days. We can surface this issue any time we want to notwithstanding the one check that it got. With all those items there, sometimes it's easy to lose one item.
>> but let's remember that those check marks are not votes, they are to discuss. So there's no guarantee that there are can still remain as one check given the opportunity to discuss --
>> all it takes is a motion and second and three votes and it becomes a yes.
>> just want to remind people those check marks on those reference sheets are not votes. They are just preferences to bring the issue up for discussion.
>> just for comparison purposes, that's all, we are asking for planning and master plan for north campus in the amount of $125,000 because we're going to lead and management it and do it in-house with some kind of consultant. Compared to the master plan for the redevelopment of downtown campus is between 700 and 900 suppose though sand dollars. We are doing it in house to save more money.
>> roger, wait a minute, wait a minute. You are not telling us that the master planning, the entire effort to master plan the airport boulevard campus will be limited to $125,000.
>> I'm say the master plan is $125,000.
>> that's not the design.
>> that's the master plan. You are talking about the downtown campus you are talking 700 to 900 thousand donned dollars.
>> would you say what you are proposer for airport is the scope of work regarding the central district?
>> any discussion of the motion. There is a motion and second.
>> judge, I would like to say a couple things before we take a vote on this. Is it discussion of the motion?
>> discussion on this motion. And my question is still back to square one. We purchased a building and, of course, the motion is almost -- and we have a certain time to deal with the markup situation. I don't know if it's going to make the discussion or not since only one person indicated that it needs discussion. I don't really know. But I hear that we're going to come and revisit this next Tuesday. Well, hopefully -- hopefully everything will be satisfied this week as far as the budget is concerned. Hopefully. I don't really know how this is going to play out. And it may come after the fact. What we need to do is address something before the fact and, again, since we're going to deal with that situation out there, we need to expeditiously move forward, in my opinion, on the north campus, whereby folks can start gearing themselves ready and geared up to get moved from downtown. Now, that would be an appropriateness, in my opinion, to do just that, but again, we have a motion to not do that and also take this up, it appears that it may come after we have budget discussions this week. Because next Tuesday may be something that, you know, we need to look at and take action that has -- well, apparently the action won't be relevant. Next week. Because of what may happen during markup this week. So I'm kind of concerned about that motion whereby we almost handcuffing ourselves whereby we may eliminate an opportunity to take some appropriate, necessary action for the north campus. So that's my concern.
>> judge, my comment does go to the motion. Again, the item was brought back at the court's request. I believe it was appropriate as these are complex issues. The court wanted additional information. In the past when we had these sorts of projects and they were part of your budget, we would present them ahead of the budget and not have, you know, an hour and 30 minutes to present 10 projects that were the sort of complexity. So I think overall I thank you for the opportunity to have been able to discuss it. We will wait until markup if that is the pleasure of the court. And then the future will bring those sorts of projects way before budget or in work sessions so that we have an opportunity to discuss them and then they are not all kept to the budget where you have very little time to make significant choices along with other issues that may not be so significant.
>> if we approve this today we have the same issue as during markup which is source of funding. Seems to me it would be wise to do some plan, but if it's important we ought to do it during markup, in my opinion. All in favor of that motion? Show Commissioners eckhardt, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against --
>> yes, basically because of the fact of what I stated earlier. I think we need to move forward.
>> Commissioners Gomez and Davis. It will be a budget markup
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, September 2, 2008 8:37 AM