Travis County Commissioners Court
May 12, 2009,
Item 10
10.
a, consider and take appropriate action on the need, scope and site search for the new Travis County medical examiner's office and related issues; and b, receive briefing from the county attorney concerning real property issues at 1213 sabine street and take appropriate action.
if we need b in executive session, we will have to take that when we take the other executive session items, okay.
this item is posted for discussion but no action.
>> we would like to have action on -- on some of the pieces in a.
we will go through those.
>> we would like to go ahead and begin with -- with a and as you said, it is consider and take appropriate action on the need site search for a new medical examiner's office and also discuss the scope of services of an r.f.q.
coming for next week.
and -- and as you know, we've been working with the medical examiner's office for quite some time on a continuous improvement plan.
in 2006, the court approved a plan to have the medical examiner's office accredited by the national association of medical examiners.
and that is a gold standard for the practice of forensic medicine and science.
it has certain requirements that are -- that are reviewed on an annual basis and are adopted nationally by the national association of medical examiners.
we have made significant improvements to this facility.
on sabine street.
the current location.
but have found thank you all facility, the area does not lend itself to expansion.
and to meet the need of a growing service area.
with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to danny hobby who is the executive manager for -- for emergency medical services or medical services and --
>> what I would like to do is just start off with a quick overview of where we are and -- and -- and hopefully try to put things in place here and steps so that we can kind of work into the actual recommendations for you today.
if lieu at the history of the medical examiner's office.
i began in 1977, in '78 we began to reach beyond our borders, we have basically been a regional service facility since 1978.
what's unique about this, though, is that we're not alone.
if you look at the state of Texas, traditionally, urban, large urban counties, have served their regional constituents, the outside regional counties.
so to think that we have not been a regional facility is going the wrong direction because these particular smaller counties cannot afford to build facilities.
so as a result they rely on the larger counties to do that.
we currently have 42 outside contracts.
this past year if you remember we revise those contracts to where they stipulate a little bit better guidelines for how we provide service.
in some cases we streamlined it, in some cases we have better defined it.
so we feel more secure with that.
however, the number 42 is also something that we need to recognize that it's not large numbers coming out of those 42.
in fact, you will see that there's a very small number that actually have the largest of the -- of the work that we do.
most of the other counties are one to two to five to 10 a year.
so even though you say that you have 42 counties, that seems outstanding, that seems large, but when you really look at the amount of work that's done, it's mainly just supporting those that can't support themselves.
today we want to try to look to where we are today, where do we want to go tomorrow in the future.
now is the time to do that, we have been in this current facility since 1996.
we replaced -- we were placed there due to hardship circumstances if you remember, corporate, that were needed to be done at that time.
now we are finding today with our growth patterns, you have seen the backup material, we will be more than happy to go through that with you again, we kind of have gone over this before with you, we kind of want to bring you up to date.
especially for Commissioner Huber.
since she's new to this particular piece, we want to answer any questions that you have today, too, Commissioner.
what you are going to see is that it's not going to be practical to stay where we are, to be able to meet the demand that we think will occur in the near future.
we currently have five pathologists positions and we currently have a good strong workload.
in fact for the first time we are now seeing we actually have more Travis County work than we do out of county work.
we see that the trends are beginning to turn somewhat.
however, I must emphasize that it is still important that we consider those outside counties.
so I will be promoting that throughout this whole process that -- that we stay working with our partners, however the study that we will get into in just a moment, the scope of that study, which leslie will go over with you, is going to have certain component in it that I think we really need to have for you.
to answer the question do we want to continue operating with 42 counties.
so you are going to see that -- that in the study, it's something that I really have requested, also in talking with p.b.o., really has to be parent of building a new facility.
that has to do with -- with who are we going to serve?
and so we can look at Travis County, we can look at the capcog counties, we can look at the outside of the capcog counties, which are the 42 counties.
along with that, come cost projections of financial models that needs to be placed to see what it would cost us to do those.
so irthink this is good time for us to examine all aspects and options for a new medical examiner facility.
however, I will stress to you that I think regardless of whether you decide on which area to serve, you are still going to need a new facility.
one of the things that was brought up the last time we spoke to you, you asked some very good questions in regards to how come you can't go build here at the current facility, can't expand the parking lot north, can't go up to another story, how come you can't utilize the existing space.
and an analysis was done.
if you remember, all of this highlighted -- I will highlight it.
there were multiple problems with the existing facility.
one was development restrictions.
you can't expand north before the parking lot is because of Austin energy utility easements, so many restrictions are there, the capitol view corridor.
if you ever ever tried to deal with that, that's a very lengthy process, usually very expensive process.
do you try to go build different aspects of that building that's already there.
we found we ran into major court functions if you try to do that, because the current entryway in which people come in and provide us the service it's already crammed, already at a place where it would not be reasonable and would be inefficient to do it that way.
the parking, if you ever tried to park at medical examiner's office or visitor, it's very restricted.
we have had to come to you to ask for off-site parking for the employees.
anyway, we did, though, go through the effort.
which we should have and you requested us to do that to look at the current facility.
but we do not feel like it at all would be available to us for what we need for the future growth.
next item that I would like to get into is -- the scope.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] the study will evaluate current m.e.
operations and identify opportunities for operational improvements that might occur at the new m.e.'s office, including possible changes suggested by the county and changes in response to anticipated future technologies.
so the study will be comprehensive and not just carry forward doing business as usual where they have had to adapt their procedures to the current space constraints.
better space or new space might allow for them to advance their methods and become more efficient in ways that will let us be efficient with county resources.
review information technology tools, both hardware and software and recommend state-of-the-art systems.
managing medical information is a very important part of the m.e.'s service, and we want to be sure that's included in the work.
a feature that is -- was added to the scope of the we had started talking about the scope several years ago after the review of the forensic center was done in 2006, and the need for having a mass fatality capacity has come on the radar, so addressing that capacity and also the surviveability of the m.e.'s operation during various scenarios will be part of the study.
the study will develop a proposed architectural program defining the space needs for the facility, how large it will be, what types of spaces and their arrangement.
and that will be based on the proposed operational plan and staffing projections.
and also on current industry space standards for those functions and operations.
it will also evaluate the appropriateness of whatever the proposed site for the m.e.'s office is, which will be taken up separately this morning after I finish the scope.
and that evaluation will be in accordance with whatever the site evaluation criteria are, which will be confirmed by the county before that evaluation takes place.
so the identification of a proposed site based on roughly size and various other criteria which the county has already identified, that site selection will be validated by the consultant team to make sure, yes, this site works well for medical examiner based on that outside expert's opinion and experience.
the study will also develop a proposed conceptual building plan for the site with overall footprint, height and size.
we'll develop a conceptual site plan.
we'll analyze alternative buildout scenarios.
the planning time frame through 2045 does not presume that they're going to build out a building to meet all the needs through 2045.
that might not be fiscally prudent to do so.
they'll probably project building out a building that would meet needs to a shorter time frame, but then plan for expansion in a logical way so when that buildout is fully occupied.
if, say, we build it out to meet needs through 2035, when 2035 comes, that we're not back in here saying oops, we need a new place.
that we have a plan in place.
what happens at 2035 to make provision for growing at least another 10 years.
and whether that's just simply to say we're going to allow for the building to be expanded on its existing site or that there may be some shell space built out or a combination of those streamgz that that's thoughtfully considered in this master plan.
the study will also include cost estimates and a conceptual schedule for the development of the project and advise the county on development strategy, whether this should be a designed-build project or a design-bid-build project.
that's our scope as proposed.
so do we have that in the backup today?
>> no, sir.
you will get the scope -- the rfq next week.
what we needed from you is some direction in terms of your interested in moving forward with the project and then we can discuss that after we talk about the site, that would be the next issue where we would need direction.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> all right.
so she just generally described what would be contained in the scope.
>> yes.
on the scope of services for the rfq.
>> all right.
we'll see that next week.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
so in terms of actions that the court needs to take, what are they and in what order do they fall?
>> okay.
what they are is -- we'd like to get direction from you to go ahead and bring forward the scope of services, which is scheduled to come next week.
given the information that you have, if you have any questions, then the other issue is to inform you that the scope of services and the rfq, we expect that the cost of those services would be around $150,000.
and I think we determined today that that would be in fy 2010.
an fy 2010 request, so we would be able to release the scope of services.
those would not come back in bak and negotiations would continue or would commence in October.
is that correct?
>> if the court aproves release of the rfq in the next couple of weeks, that it would take until the end of September to complete the selection process.
so funds would not be needed until the beginning of October of fy 2010.
>> part of the scope of services would be a needs analysis.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> judge, I would like to say this maybe an opportunity for us -- although it may be projected to fiscal year 2010, that dependent upon how this process goes that we may want to go ahead and try to get the funding this year and encumber it so in case anything breaks between now and October, so we don't delay the project, so even though they're indicating that it may take that long, again, I would leave that to pbo to work with you and to encourage what would be the best strategy, judge, in order to do that.
once you make the commitment to fiscal year 10, that means you're waiting until October to do anything.
so it's just one of those things we don't know who is going to respond, what their demands will be, whether they want to wait until October to do the study.
i'll let rodney talk about that.
>> there are still questions to be asked and I'd like an opportunity to get those questions asked before we proceed too much farther down the road.
>> sure.
>> while we're talking about finances, as part of the scope, one of the things that's very important is you'll see that through this process, through this study it will allow us to see the subsidy question.
and that is, yes, we serve 42 counties.
yes, Travis County serves Travis County, but what happens in regards to whatever costs we come up with in regards to who should pay what.
and as part of the study that's what we really want to try to do is try to come up with all the options so that I'm then allowed to go work with those county and talk with them about the fact that here's the need, here's what we're going to try to grow and do and we need to try to do it together so it's not a situation of where we try to place any kind of burden just on the residents of Travis County.
it should be a negotiation.
it should be working with our partners, giving them plenty of advance notice, but also giving them good information.
right now this study will provide that.
i feel this study will provide that where I have something to talk to them about and that we're committed as a court, committed as a county into looking at the future needs of medical examiner services.
so that's part of this study too that I wanted to highlight.
>> I appreciate all those things that's been said today.
there is probably a definite need for what you're saying, but there are still I think some questions that need to fleshed out and I would like to go back to the scope of service that will be looked at and say brought back before the court next week.
part of that scope of service, even though we don't have a copy of it, was mentioned about evaluating the site or the location.
and of course within that you also stated that there are cite onthat will also be -- criterion that will be looked at in this particular study.
can you tell us what the criterions are?
>> yes.
we're getting ready to go into the site now.
>> I know, but --
>> let's go to that part.
>> all right.
that was your next piece, Commissioner.
i'm sorry?
>> on the rfq, I'm just curious why the cost is doubled from the original one.
has the scope of services changed?
>> the original estimate two years ago did not include geotechnical environmental assessment and the survey work.
also the time frame for the planning study expanded.
the original scope was anticipated to cover projections through 2025.
so we lengthened the time period that the consultant would be doing staffing and operational and space projections for, and also added other particular issues like the mass fatality issues.
and then also elapsed time impacted the cost of the study.
all those things added up.
the 75,000 actually increased to 110,000 and then we added 40,000 for the site-related technical services.
>> who came up with the criteria?
who actually approved the criteria?
who came up with it.
>> the court.
>> 1 through 6.
who came up with that criteria?
when did the court take an action on that?
when did the court take an action on those six criterions that we have here before us now?
>> there is -- roger is going to go into that for us, Commissioner, and give you all the information in regards to that.
i did want to make one little thing that was also important is to why we delayed from last year.
if you remember I took about eight months when you allowed me to in executive session to go look at other alternative ways in which we could deal with this new facility.
and one was a primary desire was to try to connect with a medical school.
so the doctor and I began talking with university of Texas, we began talking with representatives that were with the a&m medical school in Round Rock.
so I would like to let the doctor just briefly -- we'll get into the site questions, Commissioner, if that's okay, but I think it's important that I bring that up.
>> hold on one second.
i would like to have my question answered.
and my question is this.
it looks like we're dancing around it.
my question is who approved this criterion before us today.
part of this, this criterion will be imbedded into a study and used in this 1 some-odd thousand -- 100 some-odd thousand dollar study that we're going to do on location and some other things.
i can't recall as a Commissioner that these six criterions -- I'd like to say what they are to the public.
i can't recall the court ever approving this.
if someone has --
>> Commissioner, let's go right into it.
>> thank you.
>> roger el khoury, director of management facility department.
regarding the site selection, in 2007 --
>> criterion is what I'm after.
>> I'm coming to owe.
>> the criterion.
>> that's all I'm asking for.
>> the criterion.
let me start with that.
the criteria was presented to the Commissioners court back in June of -- July of 2007.
and the criteria, there are six criteria, give us some guidance on how we select a site and how we recommend a site to the Commissioners court.
one of the -- for the first criteria is the six-acre of land.
why we need the six acre of land is because we need -- yes, sir?
>> did the court approve the six criterion categories that's been brought before us today?
that's what I'm trying to get to at this point?
did the court approve this?
if we did, we did, but I don't recall approving it.
you may have to jog my memory a little bit.
>> Commissioner, what happened is we presented the criteria to do the search.
the court did approve and direct us to go ahead and go out on the search.
i'll have to go back and take a look at the minutes to see if the criteria was approved.
what I can tell you is that the criteria was presented and with that criteria the court directed us to go do the search of 28 properties.
some county-owned and some not county-owned.
whether you specifically approved the criteria I'll have to go back to the minutes.
>> I'd like to know that.
thank you.
okay.
go ahead.
>> back on the site.
in 2007 we hired a broker to help us find potential site in all precinct.
and for the new Travis County medical examiner office.
the broker presented list of 29 potential sites.
out of those 29 potential sites, the staff visited 10 sites.
in addition to what the broker list, we visited six county-owned sites.
all of the sites, as I mentioned, were presented to the court in June and July of 2007.
in order to rate this sites, the staff presented to the court again as she mentioned and used the following criteria.
the first criteria is a six-acre of land.
we needed six acres of land to have a footprint of the facility, plus landscape around it and plus the parking lot and the road.
and in addition, three acres of expansion.
and we have anticipated that land would be in the suburban watershed area in the city of Austin, which is dictated to have a 65% impervious cover.
the second criteria was --
>> roger, I want us to be real clear for the Commissioner.
Commissioner Davis, you're asking for the criteria.
and we're going over the criteria now, so there's going to be six of them.
and so what I would -- what I would like to make sure before I leave here today, of the six I'd like to know if there's any that you have a problem with or concern about, and please ask questions about them.
because these are very important criteria for us as far as the operational aspects of this new facility.
so he just went through the first one and so if you have any address that you would like to make, we would like to hear it.
>> I'll reserve that, danny.
you know, I hear what you're saying, but I'll reserve that to when I need to ask questions on it.
thank you.
>> okay.
>> criteria number 2 is to have access to primary road.
without going past -- through the residential area, I want to minimize any traffic -- any travel in the residential area.
this is number 2.
number 3, if it's in the city of Austin, we'd like to be zoned industrial or commercial.
and staying away from any multi-family zoning or anything to that effect.
criteria number 4 is all utilities should be provided to the site.
including within several tiles angela miles.
criteria number 5 is location within 15 miles.
actually, we're down to 13 miles of downtown Austin.
and the last criteria we looked at is the location should be near a primary hospital, medical facility.
with all the 16 sites we visited, 10 from county owned property and six county owned property, we rated those sites and we come up with the two sites.
one of them is non-county owned site is in manor next to 911 emergency center.
it is no longer available.
it was three years ago.
so now we have one site meet all the criteria.
it is a county-owned site.
it's on 7815 springdale road and that piece of property is about seven acres, next to starflight.
we own a seven acre adjacent to starflight.
it has access to springdale road and also closer to 290 and 183.
and it's within the city of Austin limit.
the zoning is industrial.
and also the travel to hospital is about like nine miles.
and I think that particular land will fit very well the criteria.
now, saying that, if the court can give us a go ahead, at least on a tentative basis for that particular land, we would like to start going through the neighborhood association and present a neighborhood meeting process in which we would like to have several neighborhood meeting to be held to obtain community input prior to the Commissioners court have the final decision on the site.
the reason -- the purpose of the meeting is to inform the citizens to understand their concern and to provide a forum for discussion about what a new facility could beni like and what impact it might or might not have on the surrounding neighborhood.
and that it's before y'all make a final decision on that.
in order to move forward, we'd like a tentative okay to look at that site and do some due diligence and get the process started.
>> roger, my whole point is this again.
i want to go back again to the criterion, but I need to also let you be aware of the neighborhood concern, the neighborhood process.
eight of the 13 sites that we have here are located in precinct 1 to begin with.
and that's why I wanted you to list the criterions out so the public can hear what you're basing your location on, based on these criterions, even though I haven't heard the court approve these criterions.
secondly, the neighborhood -- how much weight -- in other words, here the court is -- the location, this fits all the criterion, the location that you just specified offspring dale road, it fits all the necessary that you have just described.
what weight does the neighborhoods have -- l.b.j.
we've got the folks over at the -- not cavalier park, but the adjacent neighborhood.
i can't think now exactly what this is.
but anyway, colony park sitting on the other end.
just to name a few.
what type of say would they have along with the schools there, the high school along with the other new gus gar tee I can't school, what weight would those persons have in providing input to you, whoever go out there and talk to them, and as far as, say, well, we don't know what that meeting it going to be like.
you don't know, nor do I because it hasn't been held.
but let's say there is approval.
let's say there's strong opposition.
if you have strong opposition from these folks, how much weight does that yield as far as what we have here?
and even though this is a perfect situation according to this criterion that meets all the six categories.
in fact, this is the only one that meet -- of all the 13 sites, this is the only one that meets all six criterion that you have laid out this morning.
so hets say the neighborhoods -- let's say the neighborhoods are in strong opposition and the schools, the neighborhood associations say we don't want this in our backyard.
we have enough.
let's say that say that.
i don't know what they will say, but if they say that, then what happens at that point?
>> Commissioner, we would do, and I have the answer to your previous question, but what we would do is we would take that information, we would certainly invite you as Commissioner of that precinct to teantd the meeting, but we would bring that information back to the court for consideration in their decision to select that site as an appropriate site or not.
court, as you well know, has always been very respectful of the neighborhoods and the constituents in that area and their particular desires.
so we would bring that back to the court as one of the considerations in -- before they decided on a particular site.
>> I beg to differ with you on that last statement you made.
there's been a lot of things that have been brought before this court and we've had a lot of opposition brought to this court from that part of the community, and this court has not supported that sentiment that's been brought to this court regarding things that they say they don't really want in their backyard.
so that's not always the case of what you just stated.
that's what I'm concerned is what kind of weight will this yield from neighborhoods?
that's the bottom line there.
what kind of weight will it yield?
and I don't know.
we haven't gone out to the neighborhoods yet, roger and see what the folks will say, but I figure y'all are going to do your due diligence very well.
>> yes.
>> in response to your question, I have here before me the minutes of the July 10th, 2007 voting session.
motion was made by judge Biscoe and seconded by Commissioner Gomez that we authorize the staff to get with purchasing to secure the services of an appropriate broker, services provided free of charge with a commission later on to help us identify potential sites that meet the criteria that we listed today.
>> those six criterion was specified?
>> yes, sir.
>> I can't recall that.
i just can't recall that at all.
but anyway, that's -- if it's there in the minutes that those criterion were laid out in the minutes, then that's another story, but the minutes should reflect the criterion if that's the case.
>> but as the Commissioners court of Travis County, we are empowered to modify those criteria today as we see fit.
so if we want to delete some of those six, we can do that.
if we want to add to them, we can do that too.
let just think about that between now and next week.
and if we -- if it's appropriate to change them, then we can do it.
>> Commissioners, the reason -- Commissioner Davis, the reason why I brought it up as far as the six that were listed is that as those were developed you will see that it addresses some of the comments that you just made awhile ago.
and that is that we weren't thinking selfishly about what it is that we need as a medical examiner facility.
we were also thinking about the placement of where the facility would be so that it would accommodate in the best possible way of dealing with residents, of dealing with the aspects of neighborhoods, of buildings of highways, of streetways, of making sure that we had adequate access that would not in any way try to interfere with people's day-to-day travelling and business and schools.
so that's why you see some of these listed, and that's why I was requesting that if did you have a concern with any of them, then we really need to know that because they were put there for the purpose of, yes, here's what would best serve the actual operations of the facility, but also what would best accommodate what surrounds it.
and I think we'd be very sensitive and I think you know me, Commissioner, that when we go talk to the neighborhoods and we go talk to the residents that we do want to listen, we do want to hear their comments.
we do want to make sure that whatever we do that we do it in association with working with people and not only in what is in our best interest, but what is in the best interest of your precinct and any of the residents we start talking to.
>> before I take any action, I want to say that I want to hear from the folks that I represent over there.
and if they say hey, Commissioner, that's a great thing, da, da, da, but I normally yield to the folks who I sit up here and speak on behalf of.
i normally yield to them.
and of course I haven't heard from them one way or the other.
no meeting has been conducted.
all the stuff you're bringing up today, which I think is appropriate.
i'm not knocking it, it's just the fact that the process appear to be a little backwards to me.
in other words, I think you need to see what people are saying first before we spend all this money and then you have a lot of situations where folks are very uncomfortable about the situation and yet we're approving money on studies and things incorporated in the purchasing of this evaluation and scope of services, things incorporated and they just look like it appear to put the cart before the horse.
so it's just -- it just doesn't appear to be the way it should be, in my opinion.
>> yes, sir.
and in fact, because we are sensitive to that particular perspective, our proposal here today is exactly that, to go out into the neighborhood and present this medical examiner's office, but it is -- today we call our medical examiner's office a forensic center.
it would be a forensic science center that would be -- we would be presenting.
and we would like to have the court's approval to commence that process in that particular neighborhood so that we can go ahead and hear from the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses as to what it is that they think.
we have a process that provides notification of the meetings.
it has a process for conducting the meetings and also access to information.
so that would be our first step is to go out and get that information from the residents of that area.
in the meantime you have an rfq that is out and that will take about two to three months for those proposals --
>> a little more.
>> about three to four?
>> three to five months according to my friend -- four to five months, thank you, marvin.
>> four to five months for those proposals to come in.
and you really don't have to award that contract until those proposals come in and the money is in place.
and you have already by that time then heard from the neighborhood to see if this is an appropriate location or not.
>> so we won't be committing the funds for the contract award until after you're satisfied that you've heard what you need to hear from the neighborhood and the neighborhood issue is resolved to your desired criteria.
>> and may I just make one note regarding the funds?
i did talk to purchasing regarding when the funds are supposed to be in place in the process.
it should be in place at the time when we start the negotiation with the selected firm.
not after the negotiation.
it's before the negotiation of this elected firm.
>> for the last decade or so, the funds are required to be in place at the time the contract is executed.
you can negotiate forever and there's no commitment -- there's no commitment as to a certain amount of money during negotiations.
but the legal advice we've been given -- and I thought purchasing's position too heretofore was at the time that we execute a contract, funding needs to be identified and a line item so that purchasing the auditor and other affected departments and officials can know that when the invoices start coming in there is money to satisfy them.
>> yes, sir.
judge, Commissioners, marvin bryce, purchasing office.
you're connect cr, we will not nut putt an item on the agenda before funds have been identified.
we typically in most instances like to see funds ahead of time before we even put the solicitation out on the street.
but that doesn't prohibit us from putting solicitation out.
i spoke with roger this morning and I said best case scenario for me would be before we go into negotiations, I'd like to know the funding source, how much we're dealing with.
it helps our negotiating position.
but as you said, you're correct, mandatory that the funds be in place before we bring the contract to the court for award.
>> kind of close there, but the problem with negotiating is some take a few days, some take a few months.
and typically before we agree to an r.f.p., though, we have kind of committed to do the funding unless the amount of the contract comes in way beyond our expectation and ability to afford it.
so typically we kind of work our way through that and it's easy to say the funding will be this amount and in this line item.
so we work together on that.
>> I have one additional question on the rfq.
r.f.p.
>> rfq.
>> rfq.
can you refresh my memory about what you said about the site analysis component of that?
because I thought I heard that they would evaluate the appropriateness of the site.
>> there are levels of detail that you can do in a site analysis.
and the general evaluation of the appropriateness of the site that we do at staff level in order to identify a potential site is at a higher level.
the level of site analysis that the consultant would be involved in would be looking at where are the utility lines in the street and particular things about set backs and that sort of more detailed site analysis.
than high level general site selection criteria that we were talking about a little while ago.
>> so it's not -- it's okay to target the site before you have the site analysis.
>> yes.
the high level site selection criteria that we have are appropriate for identifying potential site and then the consultant site analysis would validate that, yes, when you look more closely at this site, it will have not have problems and will work well for the development proposed.
>> so judge, what we're asking for today in terms of direction from the court is one, to go ahead and bring forth direction to purchasing, to bring forth the rfq for posting next week.
appeared also approval to have us -- and also approval to have us move forward on the process, to talk to the neighborhoods, notify the neighborhoods, neighborhood associations, residents and businesses in the area at springdale road that we're looking at that site as a possible location for a forensic science center.
invite them to a meeting, share with them the information on the operations, on the building, on planting, and have them participate in that -- get that feedback and then be able to bring it back to the court way before you make a decision on a contract for an rfq.
>> but to not prejudice this thing.
we have 13 sites.
eight of them are located within precinct 1 as a proposed location.
again, as I stated earlier, I did not want to act on anything until you guys talk to those folks and let me know.
that would give me a sense of what's going on, whether we should invest money or not invest money for studies and everything else.
i think we're putting the cart again before the horse by not asking the neighborhood's input prior to spending money.
so again, I'm not going to act on this today.
it's important as far as I'm concerned.
i'm not going to vote for it until you do, as I stated earlier, get with the neighborhoods and all the other stuff is third, fourth, fifth, sixth down the road.
they'll come first.
like I said, you've identified these 13 proposed sites, and I'm just speaking for precinct 1, but eight of the 13 are in precinct 1.
and in the precinct I represent.
so --
>> I think we ought to give you direction next week.
let's look at the criteria and figure out whether we should modify it, and if so do that next week and then decide how to proceed.
>> okay.
>> and we will discuss the sabine location and legal issues when we go into executive session this afternoon.
okay?
>> okay.
>> anything else required today?
>> no, sir.
and I guess that includes also placing on hold doing any contacts with any organizations in the neighborhood also?
>> I would hold off on contacting all of them.
in my view, we ought to go ahead and get the rfq on the street because we will need a different site no matter where it is.
and we committed to the city of Austin -- we looked at expanding where we are now and cannot.
we're hemmed in down there.
the city doesn't want us to expand.
and on top of that, the city wants that property back.
and when we went there, we went with the understanding that if we relocated the medical examiner's facility, we would give it back to the city.
that was not the best deal from our perspective, but it's not like we had a whole lot of options at that time.
in fact, that was the only option we had.
more about that this afternoon, I guess.
>> is that part of the executive session stuff?
>> yes, sir.
>> so we'll do that next week.
>> excuse me, I'm sorry.
judge, you just made the statement, you said in your view we should go ahead and get the rfq on the street.
you still need to bring that posting back to you guys.
>> right.
what we're doing today is just leaving as informed as we allow ourselves to be with an eye towards next week.
okay?
>> 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, May 12, 2009 2:30 PM