Travis County Commissioners Court
March 9, 2010,
Item 26
Let's try the broadest item next and after that we'll go to the health and human services items.
the broadest item is number 26, consider and take appropriate action regarding various matters related to the downtown central campus master plan, including, a, phase two steps for the master planning process as outlined in the county's contract with broaddus and associates.
b, proposed community outreach process.
c, proposed collaboration diagram to help guide the process.
d, proposed contract modification for named project executive.
and e, other related items.
>> morning.
>> I'd like to introduce steven colston, vice-president from broaddus, our primary consultant leading a team of a couple of dozen people to begin phase two.
as you know phase one is over.
that's the needs assessment.
we now have a good articulation of the county's needs between now and 2035.
phase two of the broaddus contract is essentially to take the necessary steps to develop a plan to meet those needs.
we have a short presentation to you're brought up to speed on what the phase two steps are.
we would like to get your input on a variety of different community groups and individuals who we need to listen to in a series of focus groups over the next months so their input is in this process and we want your approval of a collaboration diagram which outlines a number of groups that are critical and officials to help guide the process.
and I can walk you through that.
and then there's a contract modification that we believe we need assuming you wish to continue to have the project executive, yours truly, continue in his role next year, because my contract with you is up at the end of may.
and I'd like to continue next year if you're interested, and if you're interested, I would work with the county attorney's office to simply modify the contract with the only change being the date.
and that's what today is about.
unless you have some questions I would like to pass the ball to steven colston.
steven.
>> thank you, christian.
good morning.
>> good morning.
>> [ inaudible ]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I guess it's been two weeks ago now in our initial kickoff meeting with several other folks who are identified in the collaboration diagram.
and the steering committee for the project.
and I believe from the Commissioners court subcommittee there was representation there as well.
and so we appreciate that.
and so the intent of this effort today is to really kind of bring you up to speed on what we've covered.
the agenda that we shared was kind of a general overview.
we went into a bit more detail with the rest of the committee in terms of what had been -- what ground had been covered with you.
very deliberately in our last session where you took action.
and then orient them to the last step of the project and cover what that scope is.
so phase world cup, which I'm not going to revisit with you guys, was walking through the needs assessment component, and as a reminder, phase two was the reinitiating the project, doing a physical analysis exercise, which is really happening in a parallel task with -- in parallel with task 2.
task 3 is developing con accept twat planning alternatives and ultimately developing that plan and turning it into the final draft recommendations.
we walked them through essentially the information that you all took action on at our last Commissioners court, so everybody was starting from the same page as we began phase one.
but essentially this was the space program summary that you approved at our last session here together that represents where we were -- what we're using in terms of the parameters to help us define the needs for developing the master plan physical approach.
the overall schedule for phase two is indicated here when we had our kickoff the first week of February by the red vertical line.
it indicates each of the tasks that I just described previously to you.
we have identified some key locations where we think with the red star that there is likely some Commissioners court approval or some kind of action.
and then indicated in blue are some key locations for some community forums, public outreach sessions, which I'll talk a bit just a little bit more about in a moment.
in terms of community involvement, there's -- the three major blue milestones are credit cet points for us -- critical points for us to get nmps that feeds back in.
they're really generated around the notion of kind of listening sessions which we anticipate happening in April, and then followed by a charrette in late July.
so we kicked off the meeting with our public outreach subcommittee on the 22nd of February.
and we have identified through the course of that work session approximately 14 focus groups that have been identified for premeetings before we have our first major public listening session that is anticipated in April.
the intent of that is to bring together some key stakeholder groups, many of whom who have expressed interest in this project over the course of the phase one needs assessment.
or others that we have collectively identified as parties that may want to have impact, influence or will be influenced by the outcomes of whatever the master plan may result in.
and I would direct you to an attachment that was provided in the backup, which is a list of community involvement meetings that are identified by each of the small green arrows, which are these focus groups.
we have identified several key categories in there, breaking those down into some of the judicial categories, some that are a little more business oriented, some that include neighbors, whether it's governmental entities or private ownership entities, social services, transportation and access, downtown plan representatives, and then also through this process we anticipate engaging a group of citizens that are potential participants that might be a part of a future blue ribbon committee associated with any future bond initiative.
engaging the media so that they're apprised of the activity that will be occurring over the forthcoming schedule.
and making sure that they're aware and informed so that we can solicit as much cooperation in terms of getting community engagement in our larger public forums as the project moves forward.
and then finally, of course, traditional methods of having a public forum right here in the Commissioners court context.
>> what about lists of people who have shown interests in the past about what we did downtown, such as the regency apartments?
were they included?
have they been tapped yet as having some kind of say?
>> not particularly the regency.
the homeowners group within which they are located has been contacted, but it may be beneficial -- this is one of the reasons why we wanted our input.
if there are specific contacts in the neighborhood that you know as a result of your experiences are individuals that you believe we should be contacting and specifically inviting, then we would like to have that information so that we make sure that, for example, an appropriate representation of the regency apartments is invited.
>> I mean, I would think we would include them right away because they are our next-door neighbor.
i mean, right across the street.
and so they were included when the jail came up, and then I would think that this is major, major work that's going to be done, and they need to be told.
if we're going to be a good neighbor, they need to be brought in.
>> we've already had a meeting with the neighborhood association representatives, the leadership --
>> of which they are a part?
>> that represents them and the other businesses and homeowners in that neighborhood.
but we'll specifically identify regency and ask them to include and get a name for the regency apartment.
the name of that group is the original Austin neighborhood association.
and we've met with them and we definitely want to incorporate.
we'll incorporate the regency too.
>> I know the leadership has probably changed.
who are we contacting now?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> well, it's ted sift is the primary contact for the original Austin neighborhood association.
>> but residents of regency.
>> we haven't contacted them yet.
>> okay.
we were contacting somebody over there specifically from that --
>> what we'll do is we'll work with the neighborhood association to find out the appropriate contact.
i don't know who it is at this moment, but we'll make sure that we incorporate them.
i don't know if it's the property manager or they may have the apartment renters association, we'll find that out.
>> the list is provided as a part of your backup.
and it has also been more broadly distributed within -- to other folks within the county.
and I believe there was a time frame identified through this Friday to provide feedback on this list.
and the requested information is reviewing the categories that are identified in the gray areas, the focus groups.
if you see someone that is on -- that appears to you from your perspective to be missing and should be added to that tbrowp, please advise -- to that group, please advise us of that rye right away and we can add them on there.
and we know in talking with folks that they have specific contacts, name, telephone number and e-mail, and we ask if you have that information to please share that with us.
we'll comprise that information by the end of this week and we'll begin going ahead and scheduling these focus groups as quickly as possible.
>> I just thought we might have kept a list from last time.
because there was a list of people that wanted to be kept in the loop whenever we did anything downtown.
i was wondering who kept that list.
i was wondering where that list wound up.
>> we said we would contact all of the chumps who are our neighbors -- all of the churches who are our neighbors.
i see religious groups down there, but under social services.
what I have in mind is I don't know whether they do social services or not, but there are three or four churches just within a stone's throw, and it would seem to me that we would contact them.
>> group number 6 is the neighborhood -- there's first united methodist church, central christian church that are immediate neighbors and perhaps we should add more.
the religious groups, it may be that Austin metropolitan ministries or there may be other umbrella groups that you believe should have representation, not just for a specific church that is a specific neighbor, but more the broader question of social service and individuals that are needy, that may be in our neighborhood that may need to be accommodated in some fashion through the physical modifications that will be made.
and your guidance will be appreciated.
>> two separate categories.
the one for neighbors, and we broke the neighbors' category down into public sort of governmental entities, and private landowners or not for profit entities.
that's where the churches were identified.
and then the other religious organizations was more posed as a question for input related to social services as christian alluded to that might -- that there may be some folks that feel might have appropriate input.
so if you have any information to provide us on that, we welcome -- we'll welcome receipt of that by the end of this week and then we'll go ahead and start progressing forward.
we're doing these focus groups in advance of a larger listening session in April.
our intent of this first session, which is our first major public forum session, will likely be an evening program.
not to really come back and provide plans and comments and diagrams and responses for folks other than maybe sharing a little initial analysis about what the planning area is and what some of the considerations are.
we want to certainly share with the public at large some of the outcomes that occurred in the phase one process.
but really the intent, much like the intent of the focus groups from an agenda perspective, is to allow folks to have a seat at the table at the very beginning of the process and provide information before we started developing concepts so that the information that they provide at that early phase when we're kind of in a listening mode helps to inform the outcomes of our recommendations.
after each one of these sessions, we will have documentation that comes along with that.
we'll also have in advance of each of them a series of preparation that occurs in terms of communicating information out and in terms of surveys, feedback, mailers, collateral material that gets the word out so we get as much engagement as possible.
and we'll report the outcomes after each of these.
in the next step as we start developing concepts, our intent as we go through the process is to develop three different plan alternatives that would meet the programmatic needs within the 2035 time frame of the overall master plan.
and as we develop those, we will have -- once preliminary alternatives are developed, we would engage the community as well as the county, but in particular as part of this public outreach discussion, the community is a part of the charrette process where we would designate a location, probably on a Saturday morning to afternoon time frame where we would engage them to get input, feedback and community insight into some of the preferred options that we would be developing, which would certainly help inform some of our discussion and outcomes and discussions with the Commissioners court.
and the result of that would be reported out as well.
so we would be following up, providing additional insight and then finally presenting the outcomes of these in a final report presentation, which would be our final community outreach session where we will have collectively received input from the community, from the county, from the Commissioners court, giving insight and direction on the preferred options.
and nen finally -- and then finally presenting the outcomes of the multimonth iterations of development of the plan to the community overall.
now, it's our intent in terms of looking at the overall schedule that we scheduled this last reporting session before we bring the final plan to the Commissioners court for a vote, so we allow the community one last opportunity in the public outreach session to have input in case there is for some reason some input that -- of information that was not yet received.
recognizing that we want to build as much consensus and buy-in and really inform the public to the process as possible while at the same time recognizing that maybe alignment of 100% of all the stakeholders, behind one particular initiative might not become the true reality, but we'll try to get as close to that as we possibly can.
once we have -- that kind of walks us through the initiation phase in terms of getting the community involvement as well as each of the other blue dots that represent our community involvement phase.
task two is the physical analysis, which we have already initiated.
in the the second phase of the work we actually start envisioning or we have envisioned a scope where all of our technical, engineering and other subconsultants from started evaluating the physical aspects of the downtown area.
we have also dpn to look at how some of the impact of the space program will associate on the physical environment and the land ownership and property of the county.
as we go through that physical analysis in task 3, we begin the process of developing conceptual plan alternatives.
the intent of task 3 is, as I alluded to a moment ago, is to develop a concept-- to preliminarily develop a concept for three different options that meet the long range build out to the 2035 plan within the downtown area.
we don't have any preconceptions about what those look like today.
they could involve property acquisition or divestiture or building remodeling or renovation or repair without any preconception, only having just initiated the physical analysis phase.
but the intent is that we would come back with options for the court and the county to make a decision about a preferred choice.
now, we also recognize that had often times one alternative is not the single preferred silver bullet, and we might find between an ab and c that b is the preferred option overall, but we would like a little bit of this aspect in a and a little bit of this aspect in c.
so ultimately we take that nmps into our task 4 phase of master plan development and we kind of have broken that down as you can see into two subcategories.
the first is taking the preferred alternative and taking that concept and developing it.
and then ultimately refining that into the final plan, which would be associated also with the requisite phasing strategies over the 2015, the 2025 and 2035 horizons with impact associated with the cost related to those as well.
and finally, as we're doing that, we had actual began the initial documentation phase and so we can kind of start preparing some of that information early on so that by January 2011 time frame we anticipate coming back to the Commissioners court, albeit probably several times in between now and then, but coming back to the Commissioners court with a final plan for your recommendation for your approval.
the following diagram before you represents the central campus properties, including one of the properties under consideration, which is the 700 lavaca site that was not included in our initial scope of the parameters.
and again, just as a reminder, we're looking very broadly at the overall county context as we look very specifically at the central campus context.
as we go through that -- as we go through the process of developing needs assessment, one of the things that we're asked to share with you today is some of the language in our contract refers to stacking and blocking.
and the notion of stacking and blocking is really taking some of the spaces that were defined compartment ali and start looking at how those fit together on a horizontal plain, like a flor plan kind of perspective.
and the -- stacking is taking those blocks and incrementally building them up.
in some cases maybe within the context of tacking those up within existing building structures in some cases.
perhaps on a new site development scenario.
and then as you see, kind of described before you, as we come up with three different alternatives.
this is just sort of a diagram example of how some of the programmatic need can be met and that we would anticipate your response on.
and I believe that's essentially the overview of that, if you have any questions or comments about how we would be proceeding forward.
>> judge, I have a question because I think the last time I got the review of what was going on, we had the issue about the judges wanting to make some trips to see if indeed what was, you know, in the plans, I guess, you know,, were those going to be able to fit in to the overall plan.
and I think that's -- I'd like to get an update on that to see how much of that has occurred, how much more needs to occur and where that fits in to, you know, this phasing before we go too far down the road.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
steven and rob and another gentleman from their staff met with a couple of judges and the court administrator and the ones who do the setting of cases, and me, we talked about a number of issues.
there are new operating modes out in courts now to look a and they recommended that we look at that.
and the judges were perfectly willing to do that.
and one of the misconceptions was initially that really one was a whole lot more costly than the other.
that meeting, it wasn't really a matter of facilities cost, it was really a matter of a different way of operating your court system.
so we had asked steven to come up with a court or two where the judges and the court administrator and the people that work with the dockets could go and see how they work.
so there is a site visit that we are scheduling, a very quick site visit, on I think it's March 24th and 25th, to go look at a court that has sort of that new design and just see how it's working where everyone gets to talk to their counterpart.
and then another one is scheduled early April.
but the judges I think are still very much trying to meet the April 1 deadline.
and I think steven, correct me if I'm wrong, we kind of agreed that there probably wouldn't be a whole lot of change on what they would be looking at because the space wasn't going to change that much.
so I don't think that the judges looking at something on April 7 and 8th is going to put you behind.
i think that's going to work just fine.
that was a good meeting talking about specifically what things work, what don't.
how to look at other areas.
and if we've got any new ideas that will work here, meanwhile they've done quite a bit of research on courts that operate in different ways and looked at that.
i thank you for allowing them that opportunity.
i think it will be a better process.
i don't think it's going to hold -- correct me, steven.
i don't think it's going to hold us back at all.
>> the issue at hand was that of collegial chambers and what the impact of the early decision by the judges to take that approach was when they started thinking about what the operational impact was going to be on them and whether changes in operation would impact changes in square footage.
the difference between those two operational models and approaches were virtually negligible in terms of the impact on the space square footage.
certainly not enough within the context of a 2035 year plan to be able to accommodate those changes.
in fact, certainly under a different judiciary, a different model or approach could be taken as the specific building moves forward, but into of particular interest to the judges is the fact that they have a very immediate need for additional facilities needs that could in all likelihood become one of the first phase priorities out of the overall plan.
and so they are hyper intent on making sure that the approaches we take are very thoroughly -- they're thoroughly thought through and that they've had a chance to amply consider them.
so we appreciate that feedback, but I don't think it's -- I don't think it's a setback in terms of the schedule or the program impacted by it.
>> so we have made room for that to fit in, whenever it comes in, so that we meet that need.
because I did explain to people throughout the last few month that one of our mandates is the criminal justice system.
and it goes across cities and counties and villages and towns, and so I think -- and if it's going to last us through 2035, I think we need to plan really, really well ahead of time.
irkt I think the judges feel much more comfortable now.
>> they do.
and it's an exciting chance to look at other ways of doing business.
i think what they felt at first is that it was a much more inexpensive operation facilitywise and they weren't sure that they liked it, but in the -- for the sake of money they were kind of willing to look at it.
and this just is much better because it is kind of cost neutral.
and they now get to look at what is the best way to operate with their dockets and what they know.
so I think this is a win-win.
>> okay, great.
>> any other questions about this?
this phase two approach?
did you want to talk about the collaboration?
>> there's a collaboration diagram.
you may remember we had what we called an organization chart for phase one and that was because it was internally focused of internal county officials.
this is more external as well as internal.
and so we've put together a collaboration diagram to help guide this process.
and essentially it is identifying a number of groups that really already exist.
we've got the court subcommittee, Commissioner Biscoe -- Commissioner Biscoe.
i'm showing my age.
that was true at one time, I guess.
judge Biscoe and Commissioner Eckhardt.
a steering committee, which we -- we distribute this had collaboration diagram widely and we've had a number of individuals suggest -- offer their interest and their expertise and their perspective in a number of areas.
and so in the steering committee both the district attorney and the county attorney and the purchasing agent have offered their expertise and interest to participate, and especially with respect to the two prosecutors.
a courthouse is a home for judges and prosecutors, and it would be appropriate for the prosecutorial family and its leaders to be part of the steering committee.
they definitely wanted to participate, and the purchasing agent because of any number of issues that are important for her radar screen.
that steering committee is composed of judge Biscoe, Commissioner Eckhardt, judges dietz and perkins, and the prosecutors, purchasing agent, the county auditor, the executive manager of planning and budget, the head of facilities and then the project management team, which is composed of a project executive, yours truly, leslie strickland from facilities and belinda powell from the planning and budget office.
and we also have a real estate coordination group that is already existing and that's the broker as well as the executive manager of planning and budget and head of facilities at providing staff assistance to that particular-- anything dealing with real estate issues as they surface.
and then we have four different groups with four separate areas of interest.
we have a justice focus group and that is really to make sure that our individual, internal, elected and appointed county officials are involved deeply in whatever the master planning effort results in, and that is essentially the leadership of the justice and public safety area, the judges both on the criminal and the civil side, the sheriff, the prosecutors, the clerks, and the staff of county administration, courts administration, and then obviously they will bring in whoever they feel they must or should, but that's really intended to ensure that there is a separate focus group so that as this goes forward they have the ability to land on providing their perspective on what we all know or expect is at least a new courthouse.
we have the 700 la rack ca core team that has a life of its own.
that's the leadership of county officials that are ensuring that that transaction goes smoothly.
and that's led by the county auditor and executive manager of planning and budget, the head of facilities, the broker, real estate broker, and then the purchasing agent is also participating in that.
and that has also other officials on an ad hoc basis participating to make sure that that particular transaction is smooth and successful.
we have the data center team that has been meeting throughout phase 1 and we'll just essentially continue to breathe life into the data center needs.
and then we have a community outreach group that has met once, and that is the judge Biscoe, Commissioner Eckhardt, judge dietz, and the county attorney, david escamilla, has expressed interest in participating in that, primarily for the relationships with the bar.
he is deeply involved with a variety of individuals and leaders that are part of the bar, and he would like to help out.
and any time, as I said in my cover letter, if there's an official that is interested, they are encouraged to participate.
and then external focus groups, which have already been discussed.
so this collaboration diagram is -- we're asking for your approval.
it essentially has already -- is already being used now to make sure that individuals are involved and their leadership and their perspective is appropriated.
>> what is the scenario -- as you stated earlier, we're encouraging people to participate, elected officials, whomever.
somewhere along the line if that does not occur as far as participation by officials that are a part of this process, when would a cutoff point be whereby we've gone too far down the road to go back and retrofit?
that can get kind of costly if you have to sometimes go back and retrofit after a certain period of time going downhill.
has that been maybe highlighted as we go through this process?
because --
>> Commissioner, it's an interesting question because it's a little -- I've likened this in the past when we had the budget process to a plane that circles the landing field, and it's very easy to change direction to 30,000 feet and it's okay at 20 and then at 10.
>> exactly.
, and at 500 feet it's real hard.
and we are landing this plane in January of '11.
and so to the degree that there are substantial issues -- and this is not a design process.
this is a master planning process.
that is the day when that plane lands and we can now say we are ready for a bond election.
we know what we're doing and we know the direction and we know some rough order magnitude of costs, and if indeed there is a stop the plane, and then it becomes very difficult to do that.
all we're trying to do is encourage, offer, ask, listen, and to the degree that you can be helpful in that, that is -- it is wonderful.
Commissioner Gomez is --
>> we've been -- that has been echoed and voiced from this dais for quite some time as far as the participation level.
i just don't want to be left out, but then there are time lines that you've got to adhere to.
so that's what I'm kind of concerned about are those time lines until you get so far down the road that it will be too costly to go back and sometimes fix some things.
but anyway, I just wanted to lay that out again.
>> judge?
i would like to mention something with regard to that.
actually this is like getting your husband to help you out with picking the paint inside your paint and you keep saying ew, and you pick the paint and he says I hate that!
>> [ laughter ] we've got I think 42 separate electives and 800,000 people in Travis County.
so that's a whole lot of husbands to get involved in the selection and the paint color.
but I want to say to the extent that we can get folks both enthusiastic and engaged early and stay engaged throughout the process, we will have a much better product.
and so I wanted to alert people to the nifty website for the central campus project.
it's a very, very helpful website.
if you just type in Travis County, Texas, go to the main website for Travis County and scroll down.
and toward the bottom of the homepage there is a jump to the central campus master plan.
and when you go there, there is a spot to contact belinda or leslie as a point of entry into this process as well as an overview, a schedule.
it gives you pretty much everything you need to know to figure out at what point you can jump on board and how you can stay on board.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
leslie strickland with facilities management working on this project with christian and belinda.
we're excited about using the website as a project tool and it will be a supporting stage for community outreach process.
i think steven mentioned that as his specialist in the community outreach activities prepares.
before and after meetings we'll have those available to the public at our website.
also on the outcome of your consideration today of the collaboration diagram, we'll be updating that information on the website as well as posting the new schedule for the phase two.
thank you.
>> is any court member ready today?
>> I have one additional question.
with the purchase of 700 lavaca, how did that impact the master planning downtown?
in terms of space that we don't have to look for anymore?
i guess that's most of it.
our space deficit.
that was the big one, the big reason that we had to do some master planning and make room for a civil courthouse.
how did that impact?
this master plan?
>> well, I answered it in kind of two different ways.
one it simplifies and complicates thing in the same process.
it accelerates a need to address the space needs for the general government functions, which are the -- we kind of wrote the overall needs assessment down into two categories, general government and the courts.
it's -- someone could liken it to a silver bullet for the government space needs projection.
it's ideal in that regard.
it comes with its existing complications.
in the respect of rather than stacking and blocking within a hypothetical building that doesn't exist, now we're working it around existing -- an existing facility.
and existing uses within that building as well.
so it's a good thing, I think, generally speaking, in terms of the general government needs.
what I think -- I want to be cautious that we don't understate is there's a gross deficit on the judiciary side right now, in particular in the civil courts and the criminal courts side.
and while it's a great help in terms of, you know, giving us very specific area to focus on, we're not going to be looking as deliberately at how do we put courts on one floor and how do we put the general government function and are there other courts related functions on other floor and kind of stacking and mixing all of those different entities within the building?
the simplifying factor with all that, we're still left with a complication of finding space for -- state-of-the-art space that can accommodate the real programmatic requirements of your judiciary.
>> so I guess my next question is can we accommodate that needed space for the judiciary in the area that is being vacanted by people moving to 700 lavaca?
>> well, we've begun to look at that, and I don't want to go too far out on a limb because we're only at the very beginning phases of that right now, but having been a part of prior studies that were involved looking at least very deliberately at two of the blocks that are within the area of planning that we're considering, we know there are some fairly significant encumbrances for those.
if we're looking at a new court site, you know, ideally having -- having an unencumbered block of property that we could appropriately deal with the movement of -- without going into the detail, all of the things that are associated with the courts from the public side to the criminal side, to all the personal and family-related issues that are associated with those, as well as the office support components that are associated with those, prisoner transport and everything else there, there's an impact to that.
the other thing, despite fact that we are looking at a master plan that is a 2015, 2025 and 2035 increment, we're planners, so we're always thinking about the future.
and even as we develop plans for near term solutions, we also recognize that we are continuing to live in a dem demographic that still anticipates growth beyond our planning horizon.
and so we try to be cognizant of saying, okay, your silver bullet for this next project is going to be this last empty parking lot site.
let put our building there.
and I know that's been a road that county has been done before as we looked at the cjc.
so we're trying to think not only about the incremental 10 year horizons, but what the impact will be on the county in terms of the future likely anticipated growth beyond that.
so the short answer to your question, I think we have some definitive constraints within the central campus area to accommodate some of the judiciary need, but we'll know more shortly.
>> let me add one overview on that.
courts are specialized facilities.
they're like building hospitals or jails or classrooms.
the general government offices are going to be vacating various spaces to go into another general office space.
general office spaces do not lend themselves to easily being retrofitted into courtrooms.
that's something that we just have to face.
at least courtrooms that people will be proud of and will honor and salute.
that is for the decades to come.
>> we have seen that previously with our utilization of gault for a period of time for courtroom spaces.
we retooled gault from a sheriff's department facility to criminal courts and they were not optimal.
and we no longer utilize that building that way.
>> because I think there was reaction to needing another courtroom versus needing it for office space again.
and -- but is there room for another cjc in this area?
to deal with the civil courthouse?
>> we will know soon.
>> [ laughter ] we're at the jumping off point right now.
we'll certainly have some ideas and thoughts about that I think as we start to move forward.
there are some limitations in our existing areas.
>> move approval of 26 a, b and c with the inning that these are fluid and we may have to revisit them in the future.
i.r.s.
second.
>> discussion?
my attention is to deal -- my intention it to deal with d later.
another opportunity.
>> okay.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and in d, d probably in a couple of weeks, okay?
thank y'all very much.
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, March 9, 2010 2:53 PM
