Travis County Commissioners Court
September 2, 2008
Item 5
Item 5 is consider and take appropriate action regarding space options for 910 lavaca and related impacts.
>> good morning. I have with me the senior project manager leslie strickland. I just would like to mention that we went back at the direction of the court and looked at all possible departments that can occupy the
>> [inaudible] building and we listed some criteria, but those criteria we took really from when we bought the rusk building, what was the criteria or what was the motive to buy the rusk building at that time. And one of them is temporary use of rusk to low public traffic and minimum remodel, less than $50,000, and optimizing the space in that space. Leslie is going to go over those items with you and she did take very, very comprehensive analysis. And we came out with three offices or departmental programs. We would like to recommend to the court that the rusk building to go for
>> [inaudible] if approved by the court. So this is in term of the cost, temporary use, it met all the requirements. If
>> [inaudible] does not approve and is delayed tore postponed, then we have two departments can more to rusk. Facility management department and p.b.o. So I'll turn it loafer to over e for the presentation.
>> thank you, Commissioners. Attached to the backup memo is a spread sheet that has gray and white banded areas that summarizes the findings for each of the multiple user groups that we looked at how they might occupy the rusk building so if you want to follow along, this is the document that I'm -- am going to read from, immediately behind the memo. We lettered the options a, b, c, et cetera, just as a way of numbing. That's not any prioritization, it's just an identification number. Option a was for the treasurer to occupy the first floor and we found that not feasible because p.b.o. Needs to not be constrained to the second floor because of accessibility issues primarily. That's problematic in that building because we don't have an elevator to have any department be limited to the second floor. There were several departments that fell into that same circumstance. Also p.b.o. Is concerned that they would not have sufficient expansion space at the rusk building if they were sharing it with the treasurer, who would take up all but two offices on the first floor. Option a-1 was for panhandle and cash management to take the entire building and that is feasible. That's one of the two options roger mentioned. P.b.o. Would put approximately 15 current staff into the building with a moderate remodel and this would be six or more offices available to them for future expansion. Fmd's analysis raised a concern that there are may not optimize use of the space as much as some other occupants might. Option b was records management. They were found not feasible to move into the rusk for the similar reason as the treasurer because the records management is a small group that would be available to move over there, only seven f.t.e.s, they could only take up the first floor and there's nobody we can find to use only the second floor so that underuse the building. Option c is for the auditor. Auditor a large department and it would split them into two locations to put part of their department over there, even if it was a whole division. That was not appropriate for the auditor's operations and the reason why the auditor is not feasible as an occupant for the rusk building. Option d was the county attorney, and for the same reasons as the auditor it was not feasible to be split and go to the rusk building. And also the county attorney gets a larger public traffic coming to their offices. Option e is for purchase to go move to the rusk building. This was found nonfeasible because of the public traffic issues. So much of the county attorney for people not being able to get up to the second floor, and also because of the loss of critical proximity for the purchasing office to the county attorney, the auditor and also to Commissioners court. Commissioners court, option f, along with the executive managers was found not feasible for the reason of public visitor traffic and accessibility. Option g for i.t.s. To move there, it was found not feasible because this would split the department and also i.t.s. Would require an open office arrangement. Right now the rusk building has many private offices and one of the selection criteria was to find someone who could occupy that building with a minor remodel. And i.t.s. Would require a major remodel. That's another reason why i.t.s. Could not go into that building. Operation, g.r.o., the reasons are public traffic and accessibility makes that not feasible and it would also split the d.r.o. Department so d.r.o. Would not fit. Same reasons for option i, hrmd. Due to public traffic that hrmd has, they could not occupy the rusk building because of inaccessible second floor. Option j, t.n.r., parks and natural resources false into the group of departments that would only fill part of the building, would not be an effective use of the space and also the accessibility needs for both and public would revent the use of the rusk building, options k, k 1-k 2 is facilities management. Occupancy of the rusk building. This is found to be feasible. Facilities management has little public traffic with 20 or 21 f.t.e.s to fill the building with minimal remodel. This would be a good optimization of the space. Option l, which is for the c.e.f. Office located at 1100 nueces, they would only fill the second floor and due to public visitors they would have accessibility issues. And also they would lose their critical proximity to the c.j.c. Functions and client traffic that comes out of the c.j.c. Which works well for them in their current location at 1101. Option m, new financial project team is the third function that we found feasible to occupy the rusk building. They have a 40 person project team that would fill this building with a minimal remodel. It's good optimization of the space and it is a temporary function that if we didn't have the rusk, we would normally be looking at putting something like that into lease space. But because they fit so well in there with hardly having to do anything, it's a very minor remodel. And because the life of that building may be temporary as the master plan plays out for downtown, facilities management has recommended that be the use of that building. We have cost analysis attached to the spread sheet. Cost analysis spread sheet is attached to the memo. And the three options are presented, options k 2 is f.m.d. Going to the rusk building with p.b.o. Backfilling the u.s.b. Fourth floor. The yellow lionesses what line s what total costs would be. You can compare that yellow highlighted total with below it the yellow highlighted total for option a 1 if p.b.o. Were assigned to the rusk building. You can see there's a very small difference in the cost. Then for both options k-2 and a-1, you see three other colored bands that give the cross totals if bfif were approved but would have to go to b space because we didn't have rusk building for them. Those can be compared with -- on the second page of the spread sheet, the three colored bands for option m, which show the expenses the county would have if bfit goes to the rusk building. One of the consequences for it going to the rusk build ing is that nobody is moving out of the granger building and we have to find new places for people within the granger building. We have two intergovernmental relations, new f.t.e.s being approved for next year, and we also have anywhere from one to five new i.t.s. Staff subject to your actions during your markup discussion who would have no place to go. So in order to accommodate them, we would be proposing to place the new i.t.s. Staff plus move several existing i.t.s. Staff out of the granger fifth floor in order to make room for the two intergovernmental relation staff on the granger fifth floor and accommodate the i.t.s. New and existing f.t.e. Needs. As you can see, comparing the green and orange and gray colored bands under option m, that these are significantly lower costs than -- for bfit than if you were to put somebody else in the rusk building and put bfif into the lease space. That's the reason our conclusion is bfit would work best in the rusk building. We also had as a correlary if you had to put somebody into the rusk building and had to put bfit into lease space, that one of the options for bfit in lease space was shown in the green colored band and that's at 9th street and the space that we look at for them at 9th street that would work for them there actually works better for the child protective services, public defender office. Answer have recommended separately that there are group be considered the best use of that potential lease space.
>> thank you, leslie. On page number 2 it gives a summary of all these options, page number 2 of the memo and places all the criteria and the department options that leslie was talking about. Again, we recommend that bfit go into that space if bfit approved by the court and the other two departments would be facilities management and -- if bfit is not approved, would be facilities management and p.b.o. The cost is not that much between p.b.o., it's negotiable, it's just a few thousand dollars. The issue is optimization of space. But what the negative on that p.b.o., they have to move to u.s.b. Where we have to move to rusk. If p.b.o. Moved directly to rusk building, then facilities management stay where they are. We don't move. So the choice is to the court and I think I will yield to p.b.o. If p.b.o. Wishes to go there and have some space on the first floor.
>> what happens with parking? I mean what happens with the parking spaces around rusk regardless who goes there. If people are in that building, do they get those parking spaces or these people on -- I guess that's i.t.s. Do they keep their parking spaces they have in this building? What happens to the parking over there?
>> I believe that if anybody who has a parking space already here and we wish to move to rusk building, then that space will be vacant here for other people, you know, that the parking committee or
>> [inaudible] has to assign. Anybody doesn't have parking doesn't mean if you move to rusk will have parking. We have to stay within the guideline of the county within the parking situation.
>> it would probably have a couple -- you need to have several handicapped designated, and depending we had -- on who goes there, for example, we had spoken to the auditor about vendors maybe having a space tore visitors a space. I think that is still in flux in terms of actually determining how many spaces would be for vendors if bfit went there or you need to have handicapped space if p.b.o. Went there or f.m. You may not need vendor spaces, you may need a couple of visitor spaces and the rest would go into the pool.
>> what's the plan for dealing with the a.d.a. Issue?
>> the a.d.a. Issues on that building, we have -- we have to renovate the critical items, like the entry doors. We have to change the entry to the building. And we do have on the first floor, we have a.d.a. Restroom. That's okay. But the issue comes that if we wanted to go ahead and do full a.d.a. Renovation to that building, we already had a cost estimate we have from -- we have an assessment from a specialized a.d.a., defined items, and also we have a cost from a courter. That costs about $365,000 back then. Now I think the cost would be about 400,000 plus if we have to do all the renovation issues, have to correct all the a.d.a. Issues in that building. Mainly is elevator. The elevator costs about $50,000 out of the -- you notice, what the contractor gave us before. So I can e-mail you the list of all those items we know about for a.d.a., correction, I don't have the list with me, but a lot of -- specially on the special floor.
>> in terms of utilizing it for bfit, how much of the a.d.a. -- would we have to do the full on a.d.a. Renovation or a partial?
>> I could ask for susan to reconfirm what she advised me that they can use the building as is without an elevator to the second floor.
>> okay.
>> is there like a law that we have to follow regarding the elevator? Access to the second floor?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, judge?
>> we're not required to put an elevator in if we occupy the building? That's at our discretion? Or do we know?
>> well, if we -- if we take it as is and I don't think we have to do any more renovation to it, but the issue is we have to keep it below $50,000. On the renovations costs.
>> as far as the federal americans with disabilities act, what is our state obligation?
>> Texas --
>> we haven't looked at that for a while, but it's my understanding there is a minimum amount of renovation beyond which would trigger a.d.a., full a.d.a. Compliance.
>> and we have a budget of $49,500 to renovate the building.
>> you believe the law is as long as we don't exceed 50,000, we don't have to follow strict a.d.a. Guidelines?
>> I think so.
>> let's get a legal confirmation of that.
>> I'll look into that.
>> remind me of the number of offices in the building.
>> there's about 20 -- 20 offices in the building. Including some conference rooms.
>> plus conference rooms.
>> plus conference rooms. I'm sorry.
>> okay.
>> there's two conference rooms, two work rooms and -- two conference rooms and three work rooms on the first floor and 20 offices. For some of the scenarios we looked at some of those conference or work rooms could be converted into office space. For the bfit option, we're talking about a population of 40 people going into there, obviously we need double and triple occupancy of those spaces. On the mezzanine level there is an open space that's going to be used and barricades as the war room. In order for them to fit into the rusk building, which has other advantages for them, they actually agreed to having a smaller war room than what they had originally requested. It would only seat about 26 people as opposed to the whole 40.
>> but susan, you are in favor of this, susan? It's a no brainer if -- I mean if this is --
>> I think it fits given the options we have and the money we have to spend. It's not too far because we need that group to be, you know, walking back and forth. With regard to parking, I would say our people would keep the same parking spaces that they do now, but the advantage of that building from a security viewpoint, from our viewpoint is we can put a lock on it like this without having to get a receptionist out there, you know, where you use a card to get in. And then when our people work after hours, what they can do is they can move their cars and park next to rusk so everyone in the day is gone so if they are working late, they are real not walking several blocks to their parking. The other thing is it is a temporary group in some regard and so -- and leslie is right, you know, we'll have multiple people in some of those offices. So we're not contemplating everyone needs their own office. So the other thing is that because of the light space, the light coming in the windows and that, I think you can put more people in those offices. It doesn't feel so closed up. And these are project oriented teams. I think alicia is exactly right, if we could allocate a couple of spots for vendors because we will have probably 20 vendors in there most of the time once we start on implementation, they will probably be from out of town, they will probably be staying in a motel, but, you know, they could carpool on over. And if we can give them a couple of spaces. So I think that it works out very well. The other thing is I think from a timing viewpoint, as you get the downtown campus planned and start looking at probably that building is going to go. If all goes well, we'll have a new financial system up and that team will dissolve. To make that work, what we are doing is the systems people that we already have on staff will give up their office in granger. And so we will move their furniture and them over to bfit and the backfill people will take -- I mean we'll rearrange who sits where. But we'll take care of that. So, you know, it's not the ideal thing where we're all on one floor and we all have perfect space, but I think that works very well for -- it's the least money for the best space and I think it works well for that -- that team. If you go over there, it kind of feels good about that. We want people to be excited, go there and work together. So I think it will -- if facilities has
>> [inaudible] getting the lines over and we have to look at that getting the computer lines and things like that over, everyone certainly does not need a desk. So I think we can reconfigure some of those things in a cost effective manner that suits the work project for this project. I think with the options we have, it is essential my preference.
>> I was just going to add to parking, the only parking we would contemplate would probably be no more than four spaces and those would be for the vendors. If we had 20 people, I think it would be reasonable to assume they could have five people.
>> for that limo that the auditor uses on occasion?
>> yeah, that limo.
>> trying to get me in trouble.
>> [laughter]
>> p.b.o., I guess looking at the work sheet that we looked at as far as the budget is concerned, was this particular issue and this item we've been discussing today, new financial system I guess may have come up, I don't recall, this is some type of interrelationship and I'm assuming. Was there enough, I guess, to warrant discussion?
>> I'm not sure I understand.
>> preferences on the sheet.
>> preferences.
>> yes. Yes. There was. There was about four -- I think there were four of them.
>> three.
>> three?
>> yes.
>> on the bfit there was four.
>> one of those things we'll probably end up looking at.
>> look at bfit.
>> as far as the space issue, it's a separate component.
>> yes. This is another one of those chicken and the egg. We really don't know until you get to markup whether all the positions will be funded. , but you wanted us to bring you a presentation on what the possibilities were before you got to markup.
>> so this is just disclosure of that possibility at this time. That's what I'm hearing.
>> judge, I move approval --
>> I think we ought to hold off.
>> hold off for markup.
>> that's why I brought the point up.
>> clearly they have to have some space, but --
>> yeah, they've got to have space. That's fine. Hold for markup, then.
>> 9:00 tomorrow morning. Will we have a quorum of court tomorrow at markup?
>> I'll be here.
>> I've scheduled a vacation for tomorrow.
>> [laughter]
>> thank you.
>> anything else?
>> cyd and I are going to be --.
>> it's a big day.
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