Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, July 6, 2010,
Item A1
>> a 1, commissioner davis, is a related item. A1. Consider and take appropriate action on request for the core team to consider the use of various design, project management and construction delivery methods for the 700 lavaca building renovation project and report back with recommendations.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners, friday after -- thursday or friday, i don't recall what day it was now, i had sent out a recommended list of four charges for the core team to consider or for the court to consider. At the judge's request, we sent that out and -- and our -- the core team recommended charges are as follows: to review the current statement of work for architect selection process, recommend public input process, recommend processes for coordinating renovations, and how should we begin to occupy the facility. The item is brought before you today basically to -- to request that the court charge the core team with -- with getting together, making the recommendations, and coming back to the court at a later date with those recommendation also being mindful of the -- of the schedule of the court over the next few weeks. I think we can probably -- probably address these charges and come back to the court sometime in early august.
>> i should state for the record that my recommendation was that we have an added item. It was thursday and we had missed the deadline for last week. If we thought that item 3 was insufficient. And based on the drift of the conversation, it seemed to me that 3 would not cover what we wanted to do. Therefore an added item was not only appropriate but would be required for us to take action this week. My problem now is that i seriously question whether we are ready. And based on my post july 4th thinking yesterday, this is a big enough deal for us to take a little bit more time because we need to. Now, a little bit more time unfortunately means three weeks? When we'll have at least four back?
>> 30 -- sorry, the 27th. Or the --
>> three weeks. See what i'm saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> i was kind of surprised by the conversation that we had. And who was there, i may add. But i'm not opposed to heading in this direction, though i don't know that we are not really sort of overwhelming the core team and crediting them with the expertise and knowledge that in my view historically they have not demonstrated those possess because they've not had to, you know. So we're saying branch off into a new area, but the old areas still have plenty of work to do. So -- so in my view, if we do something like a 1, i really think that we ought to give it more than a few hours of thought. That's why i stand today. Any other comments? Really, i have no problem with postponing consideration of 3 plus a 1, assuming that between now and the next opportunity to fully address it, three weeks from today, when we'll have four members of the court present, we will plan to take action then. But between now and then, give it a whole lot more consideration.
>> how does this slow down the time line, though? For instance, 3, my understanding was that we needed to move on the scope of services for the architectural contract.
>> there were those, including myself, who felt like this -- that scope of services was incomplete. And has not been revised that the point. Judge, i have a question for you regarding a 1.
>> okay.
>> is there any reason not to give, through this agenda item, the opportunity for some more thought and research in the next three weeks?
>> we can do that without the item.
>> yeah.
>> we ought to do that anyway.
>> yeah.
>> and -- and between thursday and this morning, ever thought that -- every thought that i had led me to the conclusion that i needed to think about it a whole lot more, plus have some conversations with different people.
>> well, i have -- judge, i have no problem with that request. I think three weeks is maybe sufficient. It's a lot that goes into this. And just, you know, not off the cuff type of decisions. I don't want to basically say that. But i maybe want to say decisions i think that need to be made need a lot more information. I think that would be enough time because there's still some questions that i had posed and i still haven't gotten some answers to some of those questions i even posed, brought up. I haven't seen any indication of -- of some of the -- any information, per se, from the questions that i asked. So -- so those questions are still outstanding as far as the answers. And there probably will be additional questions. So i have no problem with the delay on this for three weeks. So if that's what -- if that's what -- what, you know, you are suggesting here, i -- i can support that. Because i'm really not really that comfortable because of the fact that -- that the questions that i had laid out before, as i stated earlier, haven't got answers to them.
>> roger has done a good job of laying out four general, substantial charges.
>> right. But underneath that, underneath -- there's some underneath -- that's surface.
>> absolutely.
>> i'm talking about going below the surface on --
>> on each one of these there really ought to be some points that we mention for us to indicate how we think we ought to proceed. That will require a little bit of thought, i think. Or additional thought. So what --
>> i just wants to add, i think that it's important that the entire court feel comfortable with how we're moving forward. I know every one of us wants to have this process done right and for the benefit of the county. I think that the delay is worth every bit of the -- of the time taken to be sure that we have got our i's dotted and t's crossed.
>> i have no problem with it.
>> it's a big enough deal, i think.
>> it is, it is.
>> commissioner, you are right, we do lose three weeks. But -- but what's three weeks in a lifetime?
>> [laughter]
>> also, i think that we're able to proceed on 13 through 15 with some work, as i understand it. So it's not like we're just putting on hold everything that -- that there's process on the building going on.
>> yeah. We're waiting, but we have the mvp designer working right now, get those specs, package those and put those out for bid because the infrastructure is really important to the whole building. So that's going.
>> good morning, roger el khoury, director for the facilities management department. Just to emphasize the work on 3 through 15 we cannot move forward at the architectural design at all or engineering design for the renovation for the tenant until we get the blocking and stacking from stackingbroaddus, until that tie we're still on hold.
>> the
>> [indiscernible] recommendations will be taken to the core team this thursday for further review. There's three option that's are being worked on at this time. In addition to that, there's what's called an interim plan that looks out to i believe it's out to 2020. And that will also be presented this thursday as well, with the idea that it will be vetted and brought back to the court over the next few weeks for further discussion and direction. It's with the recommendation for not only departments, but actual physical location of the departments. Roger is right. We have been working for a few weeks now trying to get that finalized. We want to make sure that it's right not only for the long term but the short term as well. So we can address or minimize, i should say, the need for a lot of movement once departments begin to migrate over into the tower.
>> when will the departments be given an opportunity to respond to some recommendation or suggestion.
>> it's anticipated that that also will take place within the next few weeks, once we kind of get some information to present to them, again, we have some scenarios for long term, but we also wanted to do the interim plan as well and get that finalized so that we can begin to visit with departments and -- and address any concerns that they may have. With the -- ultimately to come to the court with that recommendation, both for the interim and for the long term.
>> okay. Anything else? So we're looking at 3 and a 1 being brought back in roughly three weeks and hopefully working done between now and then as well as adding a bit more meat to the four points. Set forth in the charge before us. Is that okay? We'll make it happen.
>> thank you, judge.
>> commissioner davis, feel free to leave if you want to.
>> thank you, judge.
>> so engrossed by today's meeting, and you want to stay --
>> i don't want to stay in the way of citizens communication, i don't want to get in front of those folks.
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, July 6, 2010 2:35 PM
