Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 29, 2010,
Item 25
25. Consider and take appropriate action regarding assignment of staff at 700 lavaca as follows: a, responsibility for architectural and engineering design for renovation of floors three through fifteen; b, communications with current tenants and leasehold related tenant concerns; and c, public information and education. We started discussing this at our last meeting. And a came up after our decision to contract out floors one and two. To get an outside architect to do that work for us. So -- so floors 3 through 15, which are the other floors at 700 lavaca. Now, we have a handful of architects on staff. Specifically nine. Right.
>> that's correct.
>> [indiscernible]
>> so the question came up, if we contract out floors one and two, what do we do with the other floors? In my view, we should expect in-house architects to do that work for us. That's what a is about.
>> move that we use in house architects.
>> second.
>> your motion is to use.
>> in house architects and staff to do not only floors one and two --
>> no, no. See, we have already voted to contract out floors one and two.
>> all right.
>> so your motion is to do what.
>> 3 through 15.
>> for the remainder of the building.
>> of the contracting out.
>> yes.
>> to use the seven in-house architects. Now, seven or nine?
>> nine.
>> so if circumstances or workload is such are such that we can't do it in house, then we contract it out. But our intention, we think that we have the capability in-house to do the work.
>> that's correct.
>> we do have the capability to do all of the floor as you mentioned, the 3 through 15 and remember we have nine architect is no
>> [indiscernible] 700 lavaca, we have plan many other projects that we are dealing with at this time, but i have team on that.
>> i would like to ask when you finish let me ask a couple of questions.
>> my final word on this would be that -- that to a great extent, what happens in the future is -- is sort of beyond our control. So we think that we have the in-house capability. If they are on other projects and we need this work done, then we just have to respond, react accordingly.
>> correct.
>> see what i'm saying. But the purpose of this motion is to expression our intention to use in-house architects --
>> 3 to 15.
>> i have no problem with that. In house staff. But my question is in the situation of not using in-house staff for one and two, what would the -- if you were to make a comparison on contracting out versus doing it in house, what would the difference in cost as far as the money is concern ed?
>> do we have the theatrical space expertise to do the kind of architectural design work necessary for one.
>> and, two, that's my concern. In other words i'm trying to look at the money aspect --
>> not a problem -- problem with one and two legally, don't we, john.
>> it's not on the dag for today.
>> -- agenda for today.
>> plus we voted out last week to contract out one and two. But we haven't done it yet. Seems to me like we would have to bring that back in a separate agenda item. Not that i want to delay that discussion, but legally, can we?
>> in fact, on number 7 was the subject of that. That matter has been passed to next week.
>> so -- so that's -- that was the question that i was going to ask on seven. I couldn't because of the fact that i went back to my notes, i saw it circled it was too late, already pulled for next week's discussion. Of course i will be here briefly next week. For that --
>> we'll put it back on.
>> all right. We'll put it on early. Commissioner davis has generously consented to come in off holiday to deal with another item that we really need to deal with quickly, we'll put this one right after it, though, deal with both of them early on.
>> i would appreciate that.
>> then we will put it before citizens communication so we can start with those two.
>> i would appreciate it.
>> mr. Reeferseed and
>> [laughter] -- and mr. Priest and mr. Pena won't mind if we accommodate you this one time.
>> may want to make a comment on it, judge
>> [laughter]
>> yeah.
>> your ears may be burning as you drive down the road.
>> i'm just kind of giving you a prelude to some of the direction even though we can't talk about it too much, john. Our attorney down there. But y'all get my drift.
>> [laughter]
>> any more discussion of a? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B? B and crr we talked a little -- and c we talked a little bit about. My wording here is intended to separate those two duties. Eckstein and i guess rodney talked me into this language on c, rather, public information and education. That probably covers what we talked about. Then there are matters involving the current tenants and leasehold related tenant concerns. In b.
>> right.
>> now --
>> judge, i looked at that, when you said public relations, public information, i went through that and it just appears to me d would be an excellent candidate to do a lot of public relations stuff here. Dietz. And of course right now we don't -- we really don't have -- i know we have got intergovernmental relations, but we really don't have a pr person here in travis county, i think there's a great need for one. I might not get no argument on that. But when it comes to public relations on items within travis county, it just appears that, i call him dc, really, it's dees, i don't think he minds me saying dc, but i think that it's something we maybe need to visit, especially if he with deal with that in house. Just something i'm throwing out.
>> do you get along, mr. Rhoades? The answer to that question is yes, by the way.
>> judge, i get along with everyone
>> [laughter]
>> yeah, we can -- we can do it however you want, judge. We have been the core team has been the point for 700 lavaca, i think the court had stated that you had a desire for me to kind of field some of those questions, but we can certainly handle it in other way that you want to do it.
>> what if we give roger and legal, b, and c to rodney and deec.
>> i have a question about that proposal. With regard to b, i mean, since we did -- even though it is a -- a shooter short duran contract comparatively, but we did do a contract with the management firm and it seems like that's part of their scope, is it not, to do the interface with the current tenants and leaseholders?
>> that's correct, commissioner.
>> seems like it should go through that management contract but at such time we decide not to do a contract for management of the building, then we should decide who internally handles it. I suppose we should decide --
>> [multiple voices]
>> would be the management contract people dealing with facilities.
>> right.
>> and lil to the extent that did -- legal to the extent that there are legal questions and problems.
>> i think the intent, judge, not to speak for you, but i think the intent here was to assign a staffer to interface with the management company.
>> right.
>> see what i'm saying?
>> i see, sorry.
>> so the management company would still be there. Facilities would interface with them.
>> got it.
>> facilities and legal really and leasehold issues have been -- that's who has been dealing with leasehold issues for us anyway, right?
>> that's right.
>> are you they're accept a new assignment or to reject it, mr. Eckstein.
>> i just that you would come down and participate in the discussion if i could be helpful. Including accepting a new assignment if that's what the court wants.
>> i was just wondering when you were coming up with that portion.
>> the public information and education can get to be real, real broad regarding 700 lavaca. So we just expressed a wish for you and mr. Rhoades to kind of team up on that one.
>> absolutely. I would be happy to.
>> somehow does that sound -- how does that sound? On some of this, no matter how we try to divide duties and responsibilities, there is a reality of workplace circumstances, you know, but our intention would be for this to be the appropriate division of tasks.
>> i have a question, is the core team going to go forward while we're finishing out the building and getting moved into it, as an oversight --
>> we have talked about. I think the intention if the court has a desire for us to stay in place to kind of see everything through, this is a long-term deal. It's not something that just because we have closed means that our task is done. We still have obviously the -- the recommendations that will be coming to the court and -- in a short order on -- on those that will be going into the building when they will be going into the building. Then maybe other decisions as we go forward, roger is going to be -- going to be working through in terms of the infrastructure, renovation of floors 10 to 15 and then coordinating with the selected architect for floors one and two. So there is a lot that will be going into this. Obviously the management contract we have in place now will be a management contract, that we did for one year. Then the questions become, you know, do we do another two or do another year or do we bring in house and do it ourselves. So there's a lot of stuff that we have to get worked through and details that we envision the core team staying in place to deal with.
>> i certainly endorse that idea.
>> i agree with that.
>> and as a follow-up, though, i certainly agree that facilities and legal are the -- are the appropriate designees for b. I would add to that the public they keep the core team apprised of any issues or changes or whatever because it's relative to other decisions that you folks may be looking at as far as timing and buildout and spacing and money and everything. So i think that it's -- roger sits on the core team so there shouldn't be a problem with keeping everybody --
>> commissioner, i will do the best to keep the core team as always right there on a lot of issues. We need to chat with the the core team i think about two or three other assignments that have been pushed to the back burner. It may be the first part of august before we can get to those, because i do think that we need a full complement of court members to do that. I agree the core team needs to remain in place, but at some point we need to figure out how to deal with other issues. Three or four that really are political big, but this is a big item for us, too.
>> judge, if i can just interject, the court doesn't have to decide this today, but it might be helpful to me to be a member of the core team or at least to sit in on their meetings, i'm not sure what their structure is, if i'm going to play some role in public communications about the project and about the 700 lavaca property.
>> so you are not on the core team currently.
>> not on the core team now.
>> i think that is a good consideration, but are we on --
>> this is -- this is a discussion of the 700 lavaca, staff assignments, if that would include him being part the core team dealing with that, then true. But limited to that, that's all that we're talking about is 700 lavaca right now.
>> that would be appropriate if the court deems -- recognize a motion to that effect. I want to make that motion and that include dc on the -- on the core team. For the seven hundred lavaca, public relations end of that, so he will be right in the wagon with the rest of the folks.
>> as it careens down the hill.
>> [laughter]
>> now, now.
>> on the 700 lavaca project -- i don't know that we're posted to put him on the core team. Not that i have an issue of that.
>> it's limited just to that. If you are looking for a broader scope of duty on the core team, you need to repost that.
>> you are working on 700 lavaca along with mr. Rhoades and the core team if this passes. But for us to put you the core team as a formal member i think requires a separate agenda posting, which we can do next week.
>> yeah.
>> you are not resigning between now and next tuesday, are you?
>> no such plans, judge.
>> okay.
>> do you wanted to put that on the top two, commissioner davis.
>> so much for your day off.
>> keep opening my mouth down here. That will be fine. I just withdraw my motion at this time. The emotion is roger and -- the motion is roger and legal and working with the management team in b and rodney and deec and thoark the e team on c, right?
>> yes. Second that.
>> seconded by commissioner eckhardt. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll bring deec's promotion back next week.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> don't expect a salary increase.
>> [laughter]
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, June 29, 2010 2:35 PM
