Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 29, 2010,
Item 15
Now, let's call back to order the voting session of the travis county commissioners court. We do have our 1:30 group here. And that's the broaddus gang. Broaddus person
>> [laughter] 15. Consider and take other appropriate action related to the travis county central campus master plan scenario evaluation matrix. Blaine, we'll get you next, okay.
>> good afternoon, judge, commissioners, i just have to say that i thought that i was your favorite employee, judge.
>> i was thinking the same thing about myself.
>> [laughter]
>> i would never joke about something like that with you, mr. Rhoades.
>> thank you, judge.
>> judge, we are before you today to seek your approval on the valuation matrix that had been discussed a few weeks back. Steven colston is here from broaddus, he will be over the highlights, the criteria of the matrix and then the evaluation factors that will be considered. We won't get into a great deal of detail of the particulars there in your backup. We do have one correction, and i'll let leslie kind of give you that correction once steven walks through the evaluation criteria. With that, i will just turn it over to steven.
>> great, thanks very much. I think what we walked through a couple of weeks ago was a powerpoint that outlined all of this. But you have the details of the backup in here. This has been distributed among -- among all of the different representative groups, court teams, subcommittees, steering committees, associated with the project so far. All incorporated comments back into this. So we basically organized the -- the overall -- or the genesis or the intent of the criteria matrix is essentially as a reminder we're in the process of developing three different scenarios to bring before the community, the court and the county for consideration in terms of moving forward for preferred concept for the master plan. In order to -- to help in better evaluating those, we have identified -- instead of -- instead of qualitative criteria, whereby you can look at -- look at each of these through kind of an objective lens as possible as you look at each of the different characters, characteristics of the plan. We have organized it into four separate criteria by category. And if you look across the top, we've also categorized the way that those could be scored by excellent, average or minimal accommodation as it relates to meeting the intent, the plan meeting the intent of the various categories. So the first category is associated with the space program and we -- we talked about all of the different aspects that were incorporated in your -- as an outcome from the february vote on the projections related to the space program and how well each one of the different scenarios accommodates the need of the program as projected and -- within. The second category has more to do with the adjacentsies in terms of both locations, physical location and relationship between the various departments and offices. And whether they are achieving the optimal, functional adjacency between each one. The next incorporates a lot of feedback that we got from our public participation process, having to do with the physical site planning, bus also in contribution to the urban planning environment and reflects issues such as, you know, how well of a civic presence does the -- do the buildings in the plan portray. How much does it accommodate the different civic amenities. Then the last category has to do with the real and very legitimate criteria associated with cost and economy and efficiency. And -- basically looking at the -- on each of these different scenarios we will have an overall cost criteria that looks at each of these different development options and outlines the order of magnitude costs for the 2035 year projection. I think the clarification that leslie was talking about is there is a -- a discrepancy on the very last line item on the very last page, the highest cost and the lowest cost should be switch places there. Obviously lowest cost would be the most excellent rating.
>> what --
>> so with that, i think that covers the outline of this. It's the intent that this be used as the basically the evaluation rubric for each of the different scenarios when those are to be developed.
>> questions, comments?
>> good work. I suppose from -- from the user perspective of this matrix, the eye is in the beholder with regard to each one of these line items whether it's the highest priority for, you know -- using myself for an example, i may have a higher priority on provides landmark civic buildings as another user of the matrix and we don't venture a prioritization among the line items, we're only saying of these concerns that have been identified, how well does plan a, b or c address those, correct?
>> right.
>> so in the past, when you've used these little circles, fully shaded, partially shaded, empty, people are able to follow those directions?
>> yeah, yes. It's not intended as a -- as a weighted evaluation criteria where you end up with a physical number, numeric score at the end. But rather more as the qualitative tool to help look at the scores in the aggregate. Because you're -- commissioner eckhardt, you are exactly right. There's some criteria that would score higher on some folks criteria list than on others, but a tool to be basically used by the commissioners court when we bring back these three different criteria -- now, as we -- of the three different scenarios for consideration. As we bring back the scenarios for consideration, it will be at the end of our next phase of a very robust public and county-wide involvement process, we will also be sharing with you incomes and outputs of the discussions that we've heard from the communities and from representatives within the county administration and staff and -- and elected and public officials as well.
>> any other input?
>> i have a question with regard to the first criterion on the fourth page. Could you all clarify for me a little bit the statement "drierable use of real estate to meet the county's needs"? It just occurred to me that the public seemed too general and -- and that some of the more specific line items actually go to how things are desirable with regarding to meeting -- how they are meeting county needs. I was just wondering how that -- how that adds to -- what value add is that particular line item to the matrix?
>> commissioner, leslie strict land, facilities management. The -- the purpose of that particular criteria is to try to evaluate how well we are using a particular asset. It is general, but that is a primary criteria for the master plan. We want to know are we getting for the county's purpose the best use out of our property in the way that we would most desire to use it.
>> uh-huh.
>> so -- so if you desire to have central booking on a site, and that site works well for central booking and it is -- it is only developing half of that site's potential, that might be a different score for that scheme than putting desirable function of central booking that we have to have on a site where it -- where it more -- more appropriately absorbs the development capacity, development potential. Uses the development potential for that particular site. That's what we're trying to measure with that criteria. We can work on a better way of phrasing it if you have any suggestions about that, please let us know.
>> it makes sense to me now, actually. Now i see what the value add of that line is. Then the line underneath it, we have
>> [indiscernible] expansion options beyond the 2035 planning horizon. I was wondering how that is distinguished from the second criteria, criterion under space program, allows for anchor tenant expansion. I'm assuming the anchor tenant is the key component and distinguisher of that second one.
>> those are very similar criteria and we could look at whether one of those needs to drop out if it belongs more in one section or the other section, but we wanted to make sure that -- that the plan gives value for not painting us into a corner with where we are in 2035.
>> commissioner, the idea under the
>> [indiscernible] program portion, the idea there was to -- was to address the space needs for those anchor tenants beyond 2035 if possible. Whereas the other criteria included the efficiency of that facility in general. It wasn't specific to an anchor tenant, it was specific to the facility.
>> i think both those first two criteria under number 4 have a lot to do with what in the real estate industry we sort of refer to as highest and best use of the real estate. Are we maximizing the asset that the county has to its fullest potential to address the mission and the needs of the county as it relates to the central campus growth plan. And the second one really saying without specific regard for any one of the tenants, do the scenario approaches that we've -- that we're proffering have the opportunity for expansion beyond what's that, without specific regard for what the individual tenant might be therein.
>> that makes sense to me, thanks for the clarification, y'all.
>> anything else?
>> let me make sure that i understand exactly who is supposed to use this evaluation form. Who uses this?
>> you will use this.
>> and who else?
>> we will use it as a qualitative tool as we go through the scoring with each of the groups. Right now we're in the process of working out the schedule in august, i believe, for -- do you have your cheat sheet of the schedule there?
>> yes.
>> the project team, the community involvement process and we're actually working out some of the logistics of the charette process and best way to get qualitative feedback both in survey form and online to get input from the community, to get input in the public charette sessions and get input from the county. Welcome quantify that information so we can present it back to the commissioners court. But this is essentially developed as a tool that will help be a -- a guide for our conversations with each of those groups. But it's ultimately the tool for you as a commissioners court to make a preferred recommendation about what you see as the best choice in terms of moving forward on these scenarios. Once you have rated that, what we may end up finding out is that there's some crossover let's say between scenario a and scenario c that are similar enough in some certain aspects that we can actually refine and find some opportunity for a combination of those aspects. Then we will come back to you with sort of a synergistic concept that basically melds those together based on your scoring of this particular matrix.
>> okay. Anything else? Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:29 PM
