Travis County Commissioners Court
October 14, 2008
Item 18
18. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed scope of services for the Travis County central campus study needs analysis and master plan and related issues. You should have a variety of materials in front of you. If not, I have copies. You should have a scope of service to document -- on document that is 12 or 15 pages long. What you are being asked to approve today. You should have a one-page -- two because one-page summaries of that document. One has a heading attachment a, which is in essence just a series of questions that we expect to have answered at the end of this study. And you should also have a one page document entitled management highlights of the scope of services.
>> I have this one, but I don't have the a attachment a.
>> here's a -- could you -- do you mind? Copies of attachment a. And that simply is an attachment to the -- to the scope of services that describes tasks and roles for the central campus master plan.
>> wait. This is what we addressed last week, though, isn't it? This summary?
>> the management highlights?
>> yeah
>> [multiple voices]
>> that is a one-page summary that the judge asked that I limit my overview to five or 10 minute summary. So you get the essence of it. You should also have a schedule. And a submittal requirements and selection criteria which you will be seeing again as part of the rfq that currently is scheduled to -- to be shared with you for approval on October 28th. Attachment a is just a series of questions that -- that -- an outline of the basic structure of the study in two phases. The first phase is a needs assessment and in the most simplest description is what do we need? With respect to -- to the downtown campus. The second phase is an execution plan. The simplest is how do we get what we need? Those kinds of questions that will be answered would be who should be downtown, who might be downtown or elsewhere, how does location impact operations and staffing, what departments need to be together in the same building, what departments need to be in the same campus, how do they relate to the district courts or county courts at law? How do they relate to the Commissioners court? And there are a variety of other questions. That then will produce a summary of what the needs assessment are -- is for those 30 departments and offices located downtown. We then move into phase 2, an excuse plan. An execution plan. What are the opportunities downtown for constructing or acquiring that space both in the short run and in the long run. This is a plan that would go out to the -- to the year 2035. How much land do we need? Where? What are the costs and implications of the various alternatives. There will need to be public input, stakeholder input, and a final report produced. The -- the study has four -- now I'm going to move over to management highlights, that one page document that -- that describes in a little more explicit detail what is contained in the scope of service. There are four areas of special inquiry, the historic courthouse, we are going to need to have advice from council on the preservation, renovation and restoration of the historic courthouse through adaptive reuse. There's a special attention on the courts, what are the court facilities needed now and into the future, recognizing that -- that we have the current location of the juvenile court, remote from the downtown as well as the -- as the correctional complex, remote from the downtown. General government services. What should remain in the central campus along with the Commissioners court obvious and courtroom. The i.t.s. Data center, which has a special need because it has problems with its -- the amount of space and -- and we will be needing a -- a technical advice for that particular portion of the study. Phase 1 needs assessment is to assess the current operations, reflect the past growth, forecast future growth, in five year increments. Forecast minimum and maximum square footage. So you won't see necessarily an exact square footage. It will be a range. This is an imperfect world, especially as you go out farther, the farther that you go out, the more difficult it becomes to make these projections, to forecast appropriate minimum and maximum parking demand. That is in essence the needs assessment. We then would move into phase 2 and that's the facilities master plan. That is the execution portion of this. And we would be looking at the -- at the remaining useful life and the value of existing buildings, comparing that to -- to the useful life and value of potential new development. Looking at specific spaces in the courthouse. Existing historic courthouse which should be preserved and/or restored. Looking at alternatives for new facilities that can't be made or can't be met through our existing, our renovated facilities. Finalizing sites for the development potentially along with identifying the approximate size of the buildings and the extent of the underground construction. We are probably, depending upon what happens with -- with our capitol view corridors, we are assuming in this study that the capitol view corridors will be maintained. We will likely be needing to go underground for some functions. Obviously parking will be the most logical one. Then conceptual estimates of construction and overall project costs for the selected alternatives, with a final report that would be submitted to the Commissioners court. That in essence is a summary of what is contained in your scope of service. We are anticipating that a consultant will need -- will be coming to us with multiple disciplines, multiple skills. It will inevitably be a -- what you might call a joint venture or a team because not everyone will have the same skill set. People that do planning, people that do technical data center stuff, people that do courthouse stuff, people that do historic preservation stuff, people that do engineering things, each of these have a different role to play in the -- in the project. You have a schedule. And we hope to have the rfq on the street by the end of October. It's currently scheduled for October 28th and I believe purchasing is ramping up to meet that schedule so that it would be out as backup next week. In that rfq you will see the evaluation criteria that you have a copy of the draft criteria, we are not asking you to approve that today. But you will need to approve it in -- as part of the rfq. You will also see a -- we are going to send out a draft professional services agreement. Where each consultant will see here's what the agreement will look like, if you are chosen to sit down with us to be -- to negotiate a final contract. So they see the terms and conditions even before they make a proposal. We -- we expect to have the rfq out for 45 days, receive proposals by mid December, evaluate those proposals by mid -- into January. Then have a short list of the top ranked firms by February and we will -- we will ask to have public interviews. With anyone who is interested in interviewing, we will have an evaluation team, a small valuation team of five people. But given the size appear and diversity of this -- size and diversity of this particular project we thought it would be useful to have anyone interested in participating in the final selection to ask questions of the top two or three ranked firms. I'm expecting it will be three given the array of potential consultants that are out there that are highly distinguished and I believe hopefully will be interested. We then would rescore those -- those evaluations based on the interviews. And come forward with a recommended -- consultant for the Commissioners court approval. That process will be coordinated through purchasing and -- which is dedicated to ensure that the process is -- is -- is effective and straightforward. And clean. And we then hope to have a consultant hit the ground by mid April. Because of the to my knowledge we think that we -- because of the timing we think that we should be able to have the needs assessment completed by September, that may be a little long, but during the summer and budget process we all know what that can mean. We are hoping that phase 2 could again very shortly after the end of phase 1, that would take us through February, well in advance of a potential bond election. Phase 2 may take longer depending upon public input and/or the court's role, but -- but that's in essence the general -- general magnitude of the schedule. We are having members of the planning and budget office. Analysts are beginning now to develop historic data on growth over the last 10 years. The analysts will be asked to -- to meet with each of the 30 department heads to -- to review that -- that history. Plus make projections that are the department's projections. Help them look at staff and growth and programmatic issues through -- through 2015. Not going beyond 2015. That in essence creates a data base for the consultant. So that we are doing a bunch of stuff internally to -- to -- to prepare for the consultant to come in. Take that data, validate it, challenge it, work with them directly work with each official to then further refine the information, deal with other issues that surface and make projections to the year 2035 on a five year basis. And that I think is a -- is a summary of where we are. The scope of service has been out a few weeks. There have been a variety of suggestions made, belinda has a couple that -- that can give you some wording changes here. The criminal judges had -- had one phrase that they want added. The purchasing agent wanted a word change. The county attorney had some improvements to make in a substantive way. The county attorney has also asked permission to change tents, unsplit infinitives, make sure that the gender is -- beg your indulgence with that, as we have as well.
>> you said that the analysis would put together -- analyst would put together information to go over with department heads for a plan that will go through 2015?
>> we're not expecting --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we are not asking the analyst to go beyond seven years from now.
>> okay.
>> that data would -- because it's a little bit easier to make those kinds of projections with the department. It's really helping the department to think through what's coming up in the future. What are the programmatic issues that they are facing. And to set that stage and that would be -- actually be a written description that could be handed off to the consultant. So the consultant will see both the history over the last 10 years, it's validated by the department. Work with each department to come up with projections of staffing and identify minimum/maximum square footage to the year 2015. Which would then be the departments. If the department -- that would be a departmental perspective. That then gets handed off to a consultant. Which provides a data base for a consultant then to challenge it, confirm it, validate it, work -- then start working with the department so that the consultant has a sense of all of these departments at the beginning of their entry into Travis County. That will save a lot of time, a lot of leg work. When we want to be able to collect all of that data internally first because the consultants, you know, they are expensive. We want to maximize their time and expertise.
>> okay. Just so we don't go there again, I'm just recalling the study that was done I think 1993, for the cjc, and before we finished it, it was already too small. And I'm wondering about the timing on this and the planning for it, so that -- so that -- I think it will come in close enough to be close enough to -- for the bond election to be held and if it's successful to be able to immediately begin building not letting inflation, you know, affect the price of the building. But more important as well is to make sure that we have the right size building for -- for the amount of money that we'll be asking the voters to approve. So that we don't get behind the 8 ball on this. That's why I was wondering why 2015, you know, was the end --
>> 2015 is what we're asking the analysts in the planning and budget office to help the departments make a projection for. That will be handed to the consultant who then is required to make projections to 2035.
>> [multiple voices]
>> that's where the 2035 came in, okay.
>> assuming that we're talking about a building or buildings that would be on the ground at least 20 years and have a 20 year time horizon in front of them at least, to avoid exactly what you're talking about. We have learned quite a bit as a result of our prior experiences.
>> good news.
>> well it's, you know -- yes, Commissioner.
>> I want to pose this question. This is on the flip side, meaning this. What do we do as an alternative if -- if the voters of Travis County decide not to -- not to issue debt for this endeavor. Even though we understand that the need is clear and present before us as far as dealing with growth. But there may be a time as -- as has been experienced in the past, there are some things that we have -- that we have put before the voters, I don't know if all of them have always passed. We have to kind of make things sometime -- well, anyway, so that's my concern is the flip side, looking at the economic situations the way it is now. I understand what we have projected, what we are looking at, we are looking at a schedule. Of course coming back to the voters to approve that so my concern is how do we deal with growth. If we do not post the at plan, if the voters decide that, no, we don't want to issue that for this type of growth.
>> yes, what we do is -- the first thing that we do is find out why they turned it down.
>> okay.
>> what was it -- that resulted in a conclusion that a majority of the voters had to vote no. That answer will help frame, it seems to me, next steps.
>> [multiple voices]
>> sorry?
>> are we looking at the next step.
>> yes.
>> okay. We are doing what school districts do. Voters turndown school bonds but children keep getting born. Those obligations are still there. The school districts say what was it that resulted in the voters saying no. They either lease space, they use temporary space, and they reconfigure their -- their proposals to the voters. Sometimes that can take a couple of years and go back. And sometimes that takes a while. Now, one also, however, assumes that -- that when you do something that makes sense for a community, you have -- I'm an optimist, I have rose colored glasses, one assumes that when you do things that make sense, that they get passed. I do think that that question has to consistently be there in the back of our minds. That just because we think that it makes sense, doesn't mean everybody else is going to think that it's going to make sense. But I do think leasing temporary and reconfiguring are probably the three things that ever public entity does when faced with what you have just described. I suppose this is related in some degree to what Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Davis was referring to, were referring to. I'm wondering in your capacity, as the executive who is the -- the point person on this, will you be working -- I don't expect the consultants to do this, so I'm asking if you feel this is within your scope or whether we need to discuss this further. That -- that this project would also be discussed with p.b.o. And the auditor's office as it moves forward because I do see the possible benefits of some counter cyclical capital investment at a time when building has become flat in our economy, that it would be wise for us on two levels, both fiscally and policy-wise for the government to start spending with debt on capital improvements to keep people employed at a time when housing starts are flat tenning out. So that we could get a double bang. We would be borrowing and building at an economically efficient time in our economy, but also employing at a policy appropriate time in our economy. I'm wondering if that kind of coordination if you see that kind of coordination fitting in with your role.
>> outside of the scope of service. You are talking about taking advantage of opportunities. It might present themselves over the next year. For example, that the court in it's infinite wisdom --
>> ha, thank you.
>> you're welcome. Would -- would have -- would conclude, would be in the county's best interests to pursue. I think the answer is of course. I can -- I can imagine dozens and dozens of such ad hoc opportunities should they arise. We have unfortunately not -- not been able to -- to get enough of those opportunities to make a very simple path to getting the kind of space that we need. Or else we would have gotten it by now. I do believe the capitol view corridors, if they weren't there, we probably would not be having this complex of a study. We would be contemplating something very different. But they're there and the court has landed on a strategic choice to -- to not aggressively pursue alternatives. Now this study could conceivably raise alternatives that might be attractive, but with respect to that, but I think that's -- that remains to be seen. But did you have something specific, Commissioner, in mind? Or were you just dealing theoretically?
>> well, at this point it's theoretical. But in terms of the briefings that I've had regarding our economic outlook, I do see the possibility of some benefit to us incurring some debt right for you because government can and individuals can't and we may be able to provide some -- some employment opportunities in a -- in a particular industry that is -- could be having some real difficulty.
>> and history shows us, over the last seven or eight decades, that building costs go up, landings up. It can be temporarily down in a downturn, but then it turns right back around and it's getter nearer and dearer certainly downtown. We are extraordinarily constrained.
>> but I don't know how we do that. It's too soon to determine that. Probably the worst -- the questions are worthwhile. But until we plan, I mean, even though there are probably some great opportunities from cost standpoint today, I mean unless we know exactly what we're going to do. I mean, we have got to have a road map and if you don't get the road map started and really know where you are going to go, you can't do it. I mean, in my opinion, you can't do an ad hoc well this is what we've got to do, let's jump on this thing because of costs. Now, I do think that on the short haul obviously we know that -- that since this thing is a 2011 if everything hits bond and if it passes you are really probably looking at, you know, 13, 14, 15, you know, period as to when you actually could have something on the ground. So that gives us five or six years. Obviously people are wondering, how do you get from here to there without building? Well, I mean, you do have some pretty good opportunities with rental. I mean, there is space downtown and we -- we know that we continue to hear about those kind of things I don't -- I don't know that we're going to get away with having to -- to look at saying or getting out on the short haul and saying we're going to have to have some space because we can't wait around until whatever that new thing is that we're going to do in 14 or 15 comes about. That may be a I don't know -- do you see, christian, kind of a -- of a side group working on okay -- let's somebody needs to tell us what we need to be doing, you know, immediately, I mean, to be able to accommodate some of the growth that we're going to have while we're doing this master plan. Is that -- is that kind of what you and you will see happening? Because I've had several people come and say hey, I mean, have you heard that there's space in so and so building, you know, in the cbd and -- people are probably willing to cut some pretty good deals for ya.
>> well, we have already started conversations to purchasing with a broker to have a -- to have an exclusive role in the leasing opportunities. Leasing is much easier because it's a short term kind of deal. You are not making the funding sources different. It's not debt. It can provide considerable flexibility. I was interpreting what Commissioner eckhardt was referring to was ad hoc opportunities for dirt. We have a shortage of dirt. And -- and I -- I can sense if a very major high-rise building, for example, came up for sale, there would be controversy within members much the court. You might say wait until the needs assessment. Somebody else might say grab it now. That's a healthy discussion. There's nothing wrong with that. If somebody came along and said well wait a second there is some data is immediately in our sphere of -- dirt that is immediately in our sphere of influence or interest within an immediate space around the historic courthouse that was available, I can see members of the court and you, Commissioner, saying, you know, what, if you take a -- we're going to be around for the next 40 or 50 years with, he need to own more surrounding the historic courthouse. Even if we are not sure of our needs assessment, if it's available, let's do something. So I -- I'm only dealing with the theoretical at this point, which is I think all we can do. I certainly want to play a role in any ad hoc opportunities as they surface. Just because they are ad hoc, it doesn't mean they are bad. It surfaced without expectation. Look at our economy in the last month. That will reverberate here, there will be people who push perspective on the land they obey is going to change -- they own is going to change as a result of their fiscal circumstances.
>> if we follow your proposed schedule, we get a final report in 18 months. Then there will be a need for public education. Then a need for an election. There are a whole lot of things going on. A world of possibilities. I think we ought to focus on getting this final report in 18 months. Who knows what our economic situation will be then. We may all have forgotten the economic woes of 2008. But they may be a whole lot worse then than now. I'm just -- I don't know. I have a hard time agonizing over possibilities. The reality today is tough enough.
>> where do you come up with 18 months?
>> March 2010.
>> uh-huh.
>> > how many months is that?
>> less.
>> no.
>> March of '09 is six months. 12 more would be 18.
>> that is 18.
>> you are absolutely correct.
>> I was not good at month, but I am good at counting months.
>> my brain was focusing in the amount of time the consultant will take. Part of this is the consultant is not going to come on board until April.
>> you are absolutely right.
>> thinking that if we get the final report then, we have to figure out okay, what does this mean, what do we go to our -- to our voters with, where is this a good thing to do. That would take some time. We talk about having the election. You have to schedule that in a timely manner, typically wouldn't be out there, one item on the agenda, on the ballot, we would -- we would basically piggyback another election takes taking place anyway, this would be one of the issues there.
>> tradition.
>> I'm not saying give up on the other stuff, I'm saying in terms of what our focus should be now, it ought to be implementing the various steps that -- that we have before us today and trying to make sure that -- that in March of 2010 we have a good final report that we're convinced that we should implement so we can go to voters with enthusiasm and knowledge and share that with them and get their support. But the other answer is if the voters turn it down, we don't do it. There are a lot of other ways you can implement part or all of the recommendations but typically would require a whole lot more time. Debt issuance would allow us basically to accelerate implementation. If you phase it out otherwise without issuing debt, I think that you effectively add on many, many years.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> judge, I agree with you, with that. With that approach. Kind of dove tail into what I was suggesting earlier because I really have not -- am not sure where the voters are now today as far as issuing new debt. We did something earlier today, folks must understand even when we dealt with the timber creek purchase of property, that particular property is being purchased with voter approved debt from the bond election of 2005, that's where that money is coming from. Of course I think this is something that we need to move in that same direction on because there are things that I have stated in the past where voters have not been so willing to go forward as far as issuing debt in the amount of the debt. Sometimes we are going out there and some folks are saying this is too much debt for this. We have to scale back and -- scale back and cut because the voters in the public hearings as we go through the community have said this is too much debt that you issued. So scale it back some. We've had to do that. So I just think this approach is a lot better than -- than the alternatives, to see what the voters are really saying out there. As we go through this process to deal with growth in our master plan, thank you.
>> wording changes have been suggested that we have not distributed to the court because they were important to the speaker but didn't necessarily change the overall structure. So do you mind?
>> don't mind at all.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] and I was proposing to -- to add on page 3 since we're highlighting in that paragraph with the asterisks that the sheriff's department we're only looking at function related to courthouse security and court transfer, that we would add a special note should be taken if crept capacity position for court holding areas in the downtown facility. So that that is specifically highlighted for the criminal judges. And then again to repeat the same language under the paragraph of -- titled "courts" under the area of special inquiry that I think start on page 4, and we would add the same sentence there and that highlights the capacity that they want analyzed specifically related to the courts. The purchasing agent also would like for us to refer to this -- when we talk about the contract and the scope of work to not use the word contract, to use the word project so we've revised it and when we speak to the management of the project issues. Those are the main issues. There are a few others, but with your indulgence we'll let her make those as she is helping craft the final r.f.q. And p.s.a.
>> we think those are minor changes?
>> yes.
>> ms. Warner.
>> she wanted to let you know that she would like to
>> [inaudible] with the consultant to go over our space needs and to have them give us their professional opinion. Belinda is saying each office that wants that should have that
>> [inaudible]. Just wanted to put that on record.
>> and for the record, my goal is to have all of the officials who have been involved including the county auditor and the county auditor's staff to be nodding here and going yes, this is good. We like this. And the only way to do that is to have good solid face time with the consultant. And the idea that we would not have good solid face time with the consultant is something that is totally -- it would make this needs assessment invalid.
>> but we do want to highlight that the analyst work that they are doing in data collection in advance with the department doesn't substitute for the department terrifies time with the consultant. It's just an ability for us to be well prepared and have the departments already thinking in terms of the types of questions the consultants are going to want to come in and talk to them been b. And to highlighting things like the criminal judges just asked, what are real areas of concern and that might have operational alternatives that should be evaluated. And so diane and susan make a good point that we want to make sure all departments know we want them to have face time with the consultant.
>> and the scope of service is to have minimum and maximum square footage and there is a reason for that so the departments can go, okay, yes, I can see at a minimum and others can say I can see as a maximum, and that is the data so that we don't get into no, I need 72,969 square feet. It's 69 to 72. And because when you get down into design of buildings is where you really get down to more specifics. And so the min/max is a way to avoid those conflicts so we don't deal with dysfunctional stress and conflicts, committee deal with creative and functional stress.
>> the motion is approve the proposed scope of service for the needs analysis and master plan and the schedule that's attached.
>> second. Is there already a second?
>> Commissioner Gomez.
>> no, it was Commissioner eckhardt.
>> it was so long ago I had forgotten myself. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you, see you again on October 28th.
>> number 15, we are told that the lawyers are still working on that. Do we need to just take that into executive session with the other executive session items for a discussion with legal before we discuss it?
>> I don't think so, judge. If we can maybe hold it until after lunch, if possible, or after executive session.
>> we're going into executive session in just a few minutes. There are legal issues.
>> right.
>> yesterday the lawyers were huddling.
>> yes, sir.
>> we may ought to get briefed in executive session.
>> let me go see if they are available to do so.
>> tell them the county judge will call that item up in executive session with the other executive session items.
>> yes, sir.
>> see how they respond to that.
>> okay.
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, October 14, 2008 1:38 PM