Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 17, 2010,
Item 7
And that is item number 7, consider and take appropriate action on the blocking and stacking alternatives for 700 lavaca proposed by the broaddus team as a part of the travis county central campus master plan.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. Rodney rhodes, executive manager, planning and budget. It's been a year or more in the making since we have started going down the road of acquiring 700 lavaca. During that time we've been working behind the scenes with broaddus and associates on a 2035 blocking and stacking plan. You have that before you today. In addition, you also have the interim designation in terms of some of the moves that could occur, and commissioner, to answer your question on delay, some of the things in the towers that could be occurring during the renovation of the first and second floor to enable us to begin migrating to the building in 2011, and so one thing that i would ask, if it's okay with the court, is if we get into the discussion on the interim moves, because there are lease implications, if we could take that into executive session under real estate, that would be greatly appreciated. And i have consulted with mr. Hille on that and i think we're okay to do that.
>> if you need to discuss individual tenants and what their leases look like and how it will be influenced in this, there's no reason why we can't discuss that in executive session. I can provide them advice on that.
>> with that, just to highlight a couple of the assumptions that we used as we began the process of developing the 2035 blocking and stacking plan, we as you know have completed phase one of the master planning effort, and that phase one effort showed square footage requirements, adjacentsy needs for the departments and as we acquired 700 lavaca and began looking at that, we decided we needed to stay as close to those needs and square footage requirements as we possibly could going forward. And so that was one of the assumptions that we used and the criteria that we used. We also looked to a great extent at we we could begin to migrate into the building with minimal moves, that being preferably one-time moves for the departments. And again, using the adjacent si matrix that was developed in phase one of the master plan. We also looked at how we could minimize wear and tear on the elevators through stacking the high traffic departments on the lower floors. And then also for those departments that that needed to be on multiple floors, we we could do that on contiguous floors so you didn't have separation of departments. For the most part we were able to do the criteria of majof the criteria, but for the most part we were able to do so. We want to run through the plan with you, run through the assumptions and answer any questions you have. Two questions before you today, two departments before you, its and itr, you've received information from both of their desires to be in the building. You have that before you today. In addition to that, the question of a cafeteria before you, and if the decision is made that yes, in the long range we want a cafeteria, then that will be accommodated as well within the stacking and blocking plan.
>> let me ask this question before we go any farther. The departments that we're looking at as far as the stacking is concerned, are there any -- is there a deadline, i guess is the question i need to ask, as far as departments that are not included here, but later say, well, you know, i think i may want to be part of the location at 700 lavaca. Is there any room for adjustments if that happens to occur? And if so, then how do we accommodate late arrivals or late decisions with those departments that really haven't clearly come out front and say yeah, you know, i think it's a good idea for us to locate there strategically because of. Is that being taken into consideration?
>> we can certainly go back and revisit as we move forward. Again, this 2035 plan is like we talked about last week in the context of the master plan. It's a blueprint for us moving tbashed. And so if we need to go back and revisit at any point, we can certainly do so. Obviously there's going to be some space constraints. This is a general governments building, and we have tried to accommodate the uses of this building as a general government building. So to answer your question, commissioner, we can go back and revisit within the space constraints that we have. The one thing that we want to avoid going forward to 2035, as we begin to migrate into the building, is we want to avoid a situation where we begin to overfill the building to a point where we have space issues. Much like we have now that's been identified through the phase one process. What we don't want to do is just start stacking people into the building for the sake of getting them into the building. We want to be very methodical and we want to look long-term as to how we go forward ultimately stacking the building. If we need to go back and revisit -- let's say, for example, there is a department down the road that as tenants begin to roll out that we see that maybe we didn't necessarily identify the need for them. Then we can certainly go back and take a look at that within those space constraints. What we've attempted to do in this building is look to 2035 and begin to build an interim plan that accomodates that ultimate buildout and then also provide adequate conference space, adequate meeting space for public use, and really try to make this building the centerpiece for the seat of government. So that's what we've attempted to accomplish.
>> okay, thank you.
>> if there are no other questions i'll turn it over to steven and the broaddus team and they'll run through the stacking and blocking and then again you also have an interim move plan in your packet that if we need to discuss we can certainly do so. Thank you.
>> thank you. , r.
>> thanks, rodney. So you have the list of the planning assumptions. I believe rodney has run through most of those. The program square footages are, just to reiterate, they're out to 2035. So as we've met with the different community groups, one of the things that we've shared is the employ news about the acquisition of 700 lavaca is it solves a lot of the 2035 space need requirements for the general function. So what we have to share with you today, kind of as a decision point about which of the two scenarios we're providing are really kind of coming down to pretty much filling up most of the building with the exception of a couple of minor spaces for the 2035 plan for almost all of the departments in the general government function. From a planning perspective we're trying to maintain the exterior walls, columns and the building core, including the two hour fire separation. Basically the building core structure just like you would in any kind of downtown tenant office building, would remain the same. To reiterate rodney's point, we're really trying to make -- ideally look for an approach that would minimize disruptions and expenses from moving departments multiple times. We've looked at the lease structures over and the expirations of those leases over the 2035 plan, so while we're ultimately going to be working backwards into our plan for 2015, 2025 and 2035, by default of the fact that there are leases that are currently in place and will be expiring over time, we've had to look at the lease expiration impact as we've looked at the 2035 plan. We couldn't just look at it as an empty building in 2035, which is what it would potentially be in terms of the lease, and put anyone willy-nilly in the building. We really had to look at it through the lens of the current lease. So the structure, the scenarios you see today take into consideration what happens over the milestone time periods. With that, the reason we placed people in certain locations in the building are very specifically griffen by the leases that are there. And as well as the criteria that we identified in phase one, which is the adjacency matrix that identified strong desirable adjacencies interdepartmentally and also looking at some of the programmatic functions that deal largely with the external public in terms of locating as many -- to the extent possible the high traffic departments on the lower floors in the building. Multifloor departments, of which we have several when we start looking out to the long range growth of 2035, we've really tried to kept those multifloor departments on contiguous floors to extent possible, not really bifurcating different departments separated by different departments in the building. And then ultimately to look at implementing sustainable practices in terms of reallocating opportunities for partitions where feasible, really maximizing interior light to the existing spaces in the facility. In terms of other planning assumptions and criteria, the best use of building amenities, we've tried to think of some of the existing functions that are in the building that have been of benefit in terms of the acquisition of this facility. And rodney made mention of the access of the elevators using the existing exercise rooms and showers and also on street access and between first and second floor level stairs. Other assumptions include that the county attorney and hhs would not be in 700 lavaca, but would be accommodated in the rest of the central campus plan. That the health and wellness unit clinic that was also identified in the needs assessment program would not be at 700 lavaca and that many data center component, which is a backup remote center for the primary data center, would not be located in 700 lavaca. So as we get out to 2035, we're pretty much able to accommodate the primary general government functions that we have identified in the phase one needs assessment with the exception of one department. And so as rodney indicated, we really have two scenarios before you today that is the outcome of about somewhere between 12 and 20 different scenarios that have been vetted and revetted over the last several months to narrow it down to this decision for you today. Based on the outcomes of that, we think there's also a potential to accommodate the cafeteria and i guess that's another question for you today. In terms of kind of general highlights as it relates to this, the lease studies -- we have considered all of those to 2035 and those assumptions can certainly be updated as new information becomes available with those tenants over time. We have identified the commissioners courtroom located on the first floor on the plaza side, on the east side of the building. We recognize that's done to accommodate not only the grid structure within the existing configuration of the building, but allowing for population -- kind of populating the circulation in that facility. Only looking at it from a testing perspective, we're really not trying to design that for the master plan perspective. It accomodates some of the large two-story volumes and allows for back of house circulation for commissioners court members to the commissioners court offices primarily located on the second floor. The multifunction spaces rodney mentions, public access for those spaces, we have accommodated on the first floor as well. Something that was identified in our needs assessment as a primary requirement and something that also came out in a lot of our public sessions as desirable, being able to have movable partition walls located along a grid structure in a two-story open air perimeter space along the first floor as well. We have located the treasury on the first floor in terms of security and access. We have media services located on the first floor in close proximity to what will be the replica of this space, the commissioners courtroom, with the remainder of records management being located -- it's one department we weren't able to accommodate immediately on an adjacent floor. Then finally the executive hoteling suites and the county attorney hoteling suites are located on the second floor in close proximity to the stairs on the north and south end of the building to allow for quick access to the commissioners court on tuesdays and work sessions. With that, i'd like to have dana steinburg and lori greer talk to you a little bit about each of the scenarios in terms of the stacking and blocking.
>> are we including the law library as part of records management? Does the law library stay here?
>> the law library will ultimately end up with the civil courts, the civil and family courts functions. That's part of the master planning process for the central campus. And then interim it will stay here.
>> okay.
>> i'm going to go through the whole thing in entirety and then we have more detailed floorp floor plans. On the first floor is the mail distribution center with easy access to the loading dock and some expansion space for the county treasurer. The first floor has the multifunction space, treasurer, media services, function of records management and the commissioners courtroom and support. Second floor commissioners court members' offices and the two hoteling suites. The third floor is where you start to see some differences between the two schemes, the constant issues are records management --
>> can i ask you quick on the hoteling suites on the second floor, how many individuals in the hoteling suites accommodate at any one time?
>> it depends on how they're configuring the range. We had multiple offices as well as workstations.
>> range, just give me a range.
>> well, you've got just as a frame of reference, commissioner, you have about 2100 square feet in your commissioners court suites to accommodate four to five ultimately individuals. You've got about 1800, 18 to 19, for the hoteling suites. So roughly probably three to four, i would think.
>> it's about eight to 10. We work closely with the persons in the department with jim and they wanted it configured, so we did a layout for them so it was similar to the office this they have now with the secretary and receptionist right outside their office.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> the third floor. The departments that remain the same are records management, the office function, the two campus amenity conference room, an igr, its is in the building, there will be some unassigned flexible space. And if tnr is in the building there will be two its scrum rooms. Fourth floor also remains the same with administrations at hrm. Floors five through seven will be either ics or tnr. Floor eight is purchasing. Floor 10 is facilities management. And floor nine being expansion space for those two departments in between. Floors 11 through 14 are the auditor. Floor 15 is pbo, cjp and presing 4 commissioner office suits sweuts. So that's it in the entirety. The basement floor plan has a large mechanical room and maintenance shop that we would like to keep intact. Expansion space for the auditor and the mail distribution center. The first floor has the commissioner courtroom on the plaza side. Support spaces with good back of house circulation. The treasurer on the first floor for good security as well as public access. The multifunction space on the bank side, the smaller two-story area works well for the movable partitions and the media services. The second floor, three commissioner office suites and the judge office suite, including future expansion space. The two hoteling suites have access to those two the north and south stairs that do directly to the first floor. And then the third floor, the rest of records management, campus amenities conference rooms and igr. And then with either some flexible space or two its scrum rooms.
>> that essentially outlines the alternatives of those two scenarios. As i mentioned, we went through several different options to get it down to this as we looked at the lease expirations of the tenants and have a question for you today about selection of the scenarios so we can move forward and then start working back.
>> let me ask a question on -- could you give a further explanation, i guess, for the use and intent of the hotel suite scenario. Someone might ask commissioner davis, hey, you've got a building over there and you have a hotel and suite and the justification for it.
>> sure. Well, there are a couple of things for the hoteling suite. One is we went through the -- there's two hoteling suites.
>> first of all, it's not a hotel.
>> [ laughter ]
>> right. We need to explain that publicly. Go ahead. I want to let him do it.
>> no.
>> [ laughter ]
>> go ahead.
>> okay. It is a temporary space for occupancy related to functions that happen in correspondence with functions associated with the commissioners court. We recognize that not all and part of the reason that you're doing the study is not all of travis county government functions can remain in the downtown central campus location for the long-term buildout. And that there will be folks coming from further abroad for agenda items that will come up on a regular basis related to commissioners court. As you look at the current use of the building today that you're in, i was noticing earlier every time the door opened all the noise going on in the background and every time you have an executive session people get shuffled out of your executive session office over there. There's really no effective staging and holding space for folks that are getting ready for preparing, especially when you have outside participants or guests who are working together with county government to really prepare and to continue business associated with the activity for the agenda item. Likewise we recognize that there will be people coming from outside central campus or more remote locations within the central campus as we start looking at the fact that just by -- just by means of physical locations, let's take the executive office building, for example, is now several blocks away from the 700 lavaca. So it's not as easy as just running downstairs when you see your agenda item coming up. So if someone ends upcoming completely across town or across several blocks across town, it allows your executive managers and department and staff that might be coming for a particular agenda item to remain productive and be able to plug in, have computer access, technology access, and be able to work while commissioners court remains going without having to run back and forth, especially if you were to break at lunch and their item gets delayed to an afternoon, they don't lose a whole day's worth of productivity.
>> and -- i'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> and i'm glad you broke it down like that. Because really when you first mentioned that and i heard it, i said i'm wondering what the public is really thinking right now when you say hoteling suite.
>> [ laughter ]
>> excellent point.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> i wanted to break it down because really there are a lot of situations when we discuss items on this agenda, we use terms that the public don't really understand the terms thoroughly. And so we need further explanation of what that really means. It's a good point and you just mentioned right across the top, hey, what is that hotel suite? Goodness gracious, what is the county doing with taxpayers' money? But again, i wanted you to explain that thoroughly so the taxpayers, the people who have got to pay the bills, understand what this is all about.
>> very much about maintaining the efficiency and use of staff departments and things that are coming so they maximize their time despite the fact that they may be on an agenda item.
>> and i want to add that the purchase of this building does not create this need. We have this need right this instance and have for years. And what we currently use for our hoteling suites is a little bitty room back here, just so the listening public knows. We have a little bitty room right here that we use that doubles as our executive session room, our conference room, and the hoteling suites for executive managers who are waiting for their items, and a green room for the public waiting to give testimony, and an area where people can come together and negotiate on particular items that come up in court. And it's simply inadequate. It's a tiny room, there's no computer hookup, that's one telephone. And so --
>> i just wanted to be clear that this isn't a need that has arisen because of the purchase of 700 lavaca. It's a need that we have and have had for a long time.
>> and if it doesn't happen in there, it happens in the hallway.
>> if it doesn't happen in the little tiny dark room with bad circulation, it happens in the hall.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what we're asking for today is some direction in terms of acceptance of the 2035 plan, some direction in terms of tnr and its, and then direction in terms of whether you would prefer to see long-term a cafeteria in that building. So that will allow us to begin the process of going through the design work and get moving in terms of getting things -- getting progress made on the tower floors in particular while we're renovating the first and second floors. And just as a frame of reference, we've talked -- jim barr and i talked as late as friday of last week regarding kind of timing of things. We talked about roughly -- these are very rough numbers, three months of design, a month to get under contract, and then another three months of renovation work. So you know, it's a six to seven month process. So what we're hoping to do with your direction is to allow them to begin that process and start getting some definitive answers in terms of design. One of the things i'd also like to point out is that this has been -- as i said earlier, this has been well over a year long process that we've been working on this. And the core team consisting of fmd, pbo, the auditor's office, purchasing, the county attorney, and all of those affected by this particular move have been -- played a huge part in pulling this thing together, and i'd be remiss if i didn't acknowledge their work and their efforts that they've put into this thing.
>> i just want to say --
>> the cafeteria you mentioned, cafeteria earlier. And i'm just trying to see what -- how that will play out. Some type of service where you would have a variety. And if the court i guess decides to go in that direction, i guess my question is how would that process be achieved? How do we get there to make sure that what we're asking for is the pleasure of the person that will utilize the service?
>> can we take that item up in executive session since it may implicate lease holders?
>> okay.
>> okay, that's fine with me. I just -- i'm just trying to come to an end.
>> no, i agree. I think the question needs to be asked.
>> we have had a lot of conversation about that, commissioner. And how we could do that. And really try to begin to look at if it's the court's desire to have a cafeteria, a healthy menu, things that are in keeping with some of our risk management initiatives and things like that. So we've had a lot of conversation about that.
>> i think three would be a good candidate, but obviously we need to go back and run some numbers, but it looks like right now that three may be a good candidate for that space.
>> commissioner huber?
>> well, regarding cafeteria, i -- i think it sounds just initially like a good idea, but one of the concerns i would have that i would like addressed up front is what's the venttation laition in the building? I kind of like worry about the whole building smelling like chicken fried steak or something like that. Can we accommodate a cafeteria that works with the building itself from the standpoint of that kind of --
>> as an ex-restauranteur and a ren in a son of the third floor for a number of years, i can tell you that cleaning the grease trap on the third floor has a lasting impression.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and one of the --
>> this is an item really geared towards our master plan discussion, so we need to decide whether it's something that you would like to try to achieve because that helps inform your design scopes and your engineering scopes to see if it's feasible, number one. But we aren't carrying that right now as an objective in the master plan for this building and we would want to do that if that's your direction today. The other thing is that we -- in reference to timeline, we are trying to finalize the overall downtown master plan scenarios and be back in front of you at the end of september. And this building is a key piece of that, but it's not the only piece. So with your decisions today, we will go back and inform the other massing and stacking going on for use at other county sites before we come back in september as well. I wanted to make sure that we didn't lose sight. That yeah, we've got immediate work that could be done, but we also need to close out some more scenarios for you.
>> i would also suggest that in our conversations with the community, there was a great desire to have public -- publicly accessible food services on the ground floor of facilities that are owned by the county, and so i wouldn't personally say i would not be in favor of a cafeteria on the third floor. I think that office we are going to -- if we are going to provide food services we need double gaining baing for our buck. They need to not only be available to those in the county, but also have accessibility to the public.
>> i think we ought to have a cafeteria and i don't know that we're ready to decide today where to put it. But i do think we ought to decide today to include it because i think we ought to point to affordability and convenience for county employees.
>> absolutely. You want to add that to the list. The cafeteria.
>> i would say we plan to have a cafeteria there and then the question becomes that we can answer later on, where do we put it? And the question too is how do we design it in such a manner that it is not offensive, but it's a positive for us. And my guess is that whoever operates it, the more customers the better. Our employees as well as members of the public. It's kind of located where in the general area if it's a pretty nice cafeteria, i don't know why you wouldn't attract customers from some of the adjacent buildings. Not that you want to compete with gumbo's, which by the way is a very fine restaurant, but there are good cafeterias with affordable prices that i think employees and the public would find attractive.
>> could i get clarification on the term cafeteria? Is it the need of the working committee to know whether or not we want a cafeteria, per se, or whether we want affordable, good quality food service in the building?
>> one of the things that again we've been talking about is a cafeteria much like what you have today, only more robust, if you will. Something that provides adequate seating, something that will provide a variety menu for those that would seek a healthy choice option other than just salads, things like that. So those are kind of the things that we've been mulling over as we've been talking about this.
>> and perhaps i'm being too detailed here, but our current cafeteria we have -- we have at the commissioners court level decision making criteria over the pricing of the menu and what is on the menu. Is that what's considered in the term cafeteria or are we just looking to have food service on a lngs or a lease -- a license or a lease spees spais in a space that we provide?
>> i think what we would have to do, commissioner, is we would have to go back and working with the broaddus team and with facilities taking a look at space, number one, and then bring back some ideas for the court to consider. If we know today that it's the desire of the commissioners court to put a cafeteria in, that is a good step because we can then go back and begin looking at available space to accommodate the cafeteria long-term. And then how we begin that process. So all of those decisions that are being -- the decision on a cafeteria today gives us the ability to go back, regroup and start talking about those things. And we can come back with you, with more specifics at a later date.
>> and i would like to take this up in executive session with regard to specific space, lease and whatnot.
>> are you ready to discuss specific space today?
>> we are.
>> if we decide on a cafeteria?
>> not today, but we are ready to request approval of the massing and stacking plan that you have before you --
>> my question went to the cafeteria. What i have in mind is a healthy, hot meal. Affordablely priced. To which employees have access primarily, and members of the public who choose to enjoy it.
>> i would second that that should be available at 700 lavaca.
>> right. As i stated, i just want to get to that end.
>> we can certainly use that as the criteria.
>> it look like we are coming to that end.
>> maybe come back with different options.
>> as far as getting -- providing that type of service in the building.
>> it sounds like the first or -- first floor probably is the more appropriate space. So we would have to go back and get with steven and his team to try to see how we could make that happen.
>> okey-doke.
>> that was my motion. Seconded by commissioner eckhardt. Any more discussion?
>> i would just like to say that having been in the build a restaurant in a hi-rise office building business in my previous life, that there are things like floor loading and exhaust and fire safety and things like that that could determine one way or the other whether or not we could even have it and where. So i don't think we should say absolutely we're going to have it regardless until we've answered some of those questions.
>> but that is the intent.
>> the intent, yes. I think it's great if we can do it.
>> i have been an outstanding food customer for years and i can tell you these come in handy.
>> [ laughter ] so if we can do it, i think we ought to.
>> yes, sir.
>> if not, i can live with that. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll discuss this further, that's one of our consumptions, though.
>> yes, sir.
>> now as to its and pbo, -- i'm sorry, tnr.
>> unless you just don't want us there, judge.
>> do we need short statements from each of you? Joe gieselman wonders why for only a short-term basis both departments cannot go there? He's got in mind five years or so short-term, and he's optimistic that the county could construct additional quality office space within the downtown campus in five years or so. Joe and joe -- mr. Harlow and mr. Gieselman?
>> well, i'll jump in first. Currently its' problem is we're located in five different locations downtown. Including sixth location of our training center at airport boulevard. This is an extremely difficult process for us to work with the departments and especially when we have issues that require the pulling together of internal resources to fight problems or to deal with outages and those type things. And if we can get everybody in one location, it will certainly improve our productivity and our operations. If we're not located at 700 lavaca, we will have people there working with the departments in the hoteling space and in the scrum rooms. Scrums room being an area where we actually bring users and our staff together to resolve problems and define and develop new applications. So we will be separated from staff in that sense if we're not there. So that's my issue is that we need to be located in one place.
>> so what about deployment, though? I guess as far as getting persons to go and fix the problem wherever they may be in the county, deployment of -- in other words, are you saying that we have -- you want all the employees that deal with its on -- at 700 lavaca? Every employee?
>> if all the employees were located at 700 lavaca, then we could work with the main departments that we work with that are located there as well. Of course we support departments in the rest of the downtown location as well. But we spend a lot of times with departments that are planned to go there now. And then at the same time we would be able to troubleshoot issues and problems with the same folks.
>> well --
>> if we're located in two different locations, then -- then there will be a deployment problem.
>> there was another situation i think if i recall, another situation where i know you wanted to be close to -- well, i'll revisit that before i make comment on it. But it was another situation where if i can recall correctly that you wanted to be located in an area that was of another setting, especially in the financial type of situation that we're looking at in the future. I'm trying to wrestle with all this and i don't have all my facts. I don't want to make comment, but i want to review some facts on some other locations that were suggested in the past that you wanted to locate. So this is what i'm wrestling with.
>> most any discussion that i've had in the past about other locations is to try to get us together. It hasn't been to -- to pick any particular location other than try to have the staff so we're not so split.
>> i guess my concern, though, is still deployment. And i guess looking at the troubleshooting aspect that we need to deal with, i want to -- i want to hold up on that. Give me some time to look at it and see what the impact will be on deployment of employees to take care of our needs throughout the county when it comes to failure or dysfunctional operations with any setting that we have that's computer related. It's just like -- just like putting out a fire. The fire department -- we have them all over the city, all in the county. And what's the purpose of them? The purpose is to get to a place as quickly as possible, reduce response time to deal with that particular situation. So i'm kind of looking as far as deployment is concerned.
>> i think i see where you're headed.
>> and that's -- having everybody in one umbrella and you have fires all through the county, as an example, deployment and reduction in response time, response time in this particular case meaning getting that system back up or getting that person back to where they're actually functional dealing with their computer shortcomings that go down. But give me a week. I need a week --
>> let me try to answer that this way. Technology is in place today for us to troubleshoot most problems --
>> [phone ringing].
>> i thought that was for me.
>> our telephone still will not go on mute.
>> [ laughter ]
>> how dare you challenge joe like that?
>> 2010 technology.
>> [ laughter ]
>> that is technology for you, isn't it?
>> wrong number.
>> [ laughter ]
>> again! But i'd like to explore that a little bit more because there was other opportunities i think that -- and i'd have to revisit that. Right now i don't have the tangible information, i'm just trying to rekindle my brain here as far as going back into other discussions that we've had on similar type situations. But i want to revisit that. I need an opportunity to revisit it. So i definitely don't want to act on this one today. Until i'm able to revisit that. But again, my whole -- where you have technology, yes, that does a lot of things, but there are some times, and i know for an example, we have had instances in our shop that we actually physically have to have a person there out of its. And there are conditions that happen when your computer go down, printer go down and any other type of failures that you may have, we need immediate attention to get that person productive or get the physical equipment productive again because when the person is idle, they've got idle time there, we need to be functional. So that's why i brought that scenario up. And i need some time. I need --
>> commissioner eckhardt?
>> yeah, i wanted to ask with regard to -- i hear what you're saying about a need to gather your folks into one area. With regard to that need, does it matter so much whether it in 700 lavaca or some other central business district location?
>> no, it does not. If it's -- we just need to be where we can work with our departments and still have everybody together. The issue is that most of of the time if you have an issue in your office we can manage that remotely. I have people in different buildings, i need them to be able to converse to solve the problem.
>> let me take it one step further. Does it matter from your operational standpoint whether everyone is together in the central business district or, for example, at airport boulevard?
>> most of the departments that we service are located in the central business district.
>> so that makes a difference to you. You really don't have a high degree of preference for which building in the central business district, but just a business in the central business district that can accommodate your full shop.
>> and we would need to have space as they are planning for the hoteling type space and scrum rooms in 700 since there will be so many departments located there.
>> and let me ask you a question related to that. I think i know the answer to this, but why not ask a leading question. What --
>> a true lawyer.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what kind of hardship would it be for you to have some of your shop together for sometime -- for us to get more of your shop together, but not all of it in 700 lavaca and then move you again once we -- because we will undoubt lid have to build an office building on block 126, and probably do sufficient renovation to this building as well. So what would it do to you programmatically if we could get more of you together, but not all of you at 700 lavaca, only to move you again in five years to another central business district building where you could all be together?
>> the more we can get together, the better it is. And if all we can get is a limited amount today, then that's better than where we are today.
>> but having to move twice in a five-year period, would that visit hardship? I mean, to what degree would that visit hardship?
>> it wouldn't be any different than what we've lived through for the last 10 years.
>> you're a trouper.
>> commissioner huber?
>> there was early on talk of building an off site data center and locating i.t. Out at that location. What has changed from that perspective?
>> we are looking at several alternatives and will be coming back to the court to discuss the options relative to the data center. One of the options that's on the table now is a -- what they call a lights out type data center that is located outside of the downtown area and we were manage it from a location here where we could have our people together with the user community and yet still manage the data center from here with a limited staff out there.
>> okay. By wait, i should say i've been kind of watching what joe and his planning efforts are, and i applaud the direction that he's going. Because i think we all know we need -- we have i.t. Needs and i think he's being very proactive in looking at that. So i'm here to support that effort. One of the questions i have on kind of relative to what commissioner eckhardt was asking is if we were to put one place and then move you again in five years, i mean, joe's suggestion, for example, if everybody could be in -- both of you could be in 700 lavaca in the short-term and then need to move, perhaps move you at a different time, what kind of technical infrastructure would be needed when you are all housed together that then would -- may be a cost issue in a move.
>> well, if we were operating out of lavaca, we would have the connectivity to the current data center and then as the plans unfold to build a new data center, we'd have to put connectivity to there as well. So the total net sum increase in cost to manage that way, but we'll have that priced out as we go through the options.
>> i'm also sensitive to what you are talking about from a hardware versus software management capacity. And also i'm sensitive to the need to have a concentration of your people. But it seems to me like with.
>> i don't think we're there completely. We are in many ways, but as we improve our technology resources here within our travis county infrastructure, i think of the other -- every time i make a call for a service on something that's not county, but personal techwise, i'm talking to someone in india or pakistan or somewhere like that. So very mindful of the ability to service from a remote location. Even as it relates to some of the hardware troubleshooting. So to me it seems like that the most important thing is to get you folks, as many of you need to be clustered, in an appropriate location, and i can certainly see the need to have in the downtown area where you have high usage clients, internal clients, the need to have perhaps a person or so scattered throughout the downtown area to be readily available. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i can see that need, but i just really question whether or not your location for grouping of the magnitude that you would like to have is appropriate for 700 lavaca given other adjacency needs that we may be looking at. Any comments on that?
>> well, i think we've talked through it and the -- my issue is to get everybody -- as many as we can of our staff in one location. And as i've said, we could manage most problems remotely through technology that's available today. And if you have a problem with your desktop, we can take it over and as far as the technician is concerned, it's as if he were standing there over your shoulder. So most of those issues can be resolved remotely. My issue is getting everybody where we can -- sam can talk to harry about that problem and we can figure it out.
>> if we're talking about transition too, a question i would have is given your current location in this building and the fact that the commissioners and pbo would be moving, what kind of incremental space would you need for what you have now to get the majority of your people together?
>> well, we would have to take a look at that and see, but probably two or three floors would get most of our people out of the ninth street and most of our technical staff out of the data center up here.
>> we do have some 2015 numbers that we could go and pull to try to get you an answer tow that question, commissioner. Just as a frame of reference, i know the discussion joe in his memo suggested, the potential of a short-term --
>> we'll let joe articulate that in just a minute. Mr. Harlow, what's your response to mr. Gieselman's recommendation? About its and tnr getting together on floors five, six and seven on a short-term basis? Maybe for the next five years.
>> i think that would be ideal compared to where we are today.
>> mr. Gieselman, your opportunity.
>> well, first of all, joe and i share some of the same objectives.
>> joe harlow and you.
>> joe harlow and i, yes. The joe's. I mean, it really boils down to wanting to be next to your client. And just the efficiency of that. And consolidation. Tnr probably not as far flung as its is in terms of staffing. We are split. And it's always better if a department is all co-locate understand one place. So i think joe and i share those same issues. And like joe, we don't have to be in 700 lavaca. I think we should be in the downtown area. Because we wear a path between eob and the granger building, not just myself, but my managers, my financial staff. We're doing business routinely, and i mean daily, with the departments that are in this building. So if those same departments move to lavaca, i would want to be fairly proximate to that, if not in the building itself. I bring kind after separate dimension to this and that is i have public that we interact with very routinely also. In my memo i said if we do go to lavaca, i would want to make sure that there was public parking in the garage so that people could come and park and do business with the two various tnr functions. So in all of that i just want to make sure that that's not left behind. It's not just employee staff, it is keeping those relationships with the outside customers as well. 700 lavaca is quality space. It's not often that the county gets the opportunity to move into quality space. And what all of us say without saying it out loud is that we fear going into some box with no windows somewhere remotely and, i hope that's not the default. That's what i meant by default office space. I don't think joe and i, either one of us, would have any difficulty moving into a quality spaition in the downtown area proximate to 700 lavaca. Enough said.
>> we always thought you were pretty happy at the eob, joe?
>> it is. You know do you know? The morale of my employees went up considerably when they went into a building where they could see sunlight during the day. And we designed that building so that all the employees no matter where in the building could look out and see blue sky. That means a tremendous amount to your workforce. I'll stay in the eob, in part for that reason, because it serves -- it makes the employees happy. They're happy with their workplace. And they've got the things that they need to work with.
>> but without significantly more public parking, you withdraw your request to be at the 700 lavaca?
>> i'm saying right now the -- i get complaint about not having -- they park on the street, depending on what's going on around eob at that time. There may not be parking available. I don't know quite frankly how many spaces and whether those spaces are already there in 700 lavaca garage, that you've set aside for general public parking. And except perhaps on a tuesday that may be just adequate for the needs of tnr. I don't know if there's any other -- i know purchasing certainly has openings. They have the same need for public parking. On court days you have the need for public parking. Actually throughout the week you have people visiting your offices all the time. So you may have already accommodated that need in the parking garage. I just want to make sure that if tnr moved into lavaca, we wouldn't aggravate that where you would then have a shortfall on public parking.
>> mr. Rode rhodes, you were about to say a minute ago?
>> yes, sir. The proposal to co-locate its and tnr into the building, at least on a short-term basis, is a little bit problematic in that just as a frame of reference, their current square footage needs are about 28,000 for tnr, about 22,000 for its. There's about 16,000 square feet of net occupiable square feet per floor. So you can see right there when you do the math there's a very limited amount of square footage that would be available on those three floors. Also something to consider is there could potentially be some lease implications as a result of the notion of co-locating the two offices in their entirety over in 700 lavaca. So i just wanted to make that point that it -- it's problematic from the standpoint of getting both offices in that building even on a short-term basis.
>> so their current square footage needs are 50,000 square feet and there's only 32,000 square feet available?
>> yes, roughly.
>> three times 16,000?
>> well, there's the half a floor that would be available, but there are current tenants on that other half.
>> so we're at least 10,000 short.
>> you've got a deficiency already trying to co-locate both offices in the building.
>> okay.
>> i just wanted to make sha point.
>> commissioner davis says he needs another week. What will that do to our planning?
>> well, if it's -- if the court is in agreement with the stacking plan with the exception of tnr and its, on the short-term -- on the long-term, if you are in agreement with the stacking plan and the court would be ameanable, what we would like to ask is that for everything except for five, six and seven, that we ask the court for direction and a consensus on, if that is possible. That way we can begin the process of having facilities begin to design those floors because we will have some definitive answers. They can start that process and then we can revisit the tnr, its question at a later date if that's okay.
>> may i ask you about five, six and seven? What in terms of the central business district master planning -- what are the indications so far in our central business district master planning as to what the next building for -- building for constructing or for renovating would likely be? Would it be block 126, would it be granger?
>> that's part of the analysis that we'll go through after we actually select a preferred scenario. Because the moving pieces and parts are different based on the location of some of the key elements. For example, the civil courthouse or where you elect to have criminal court expansion and where you have a general office use facility. So once we know the preferred scenario, which we are -- our schedule would indicate we would bring back to you at the end of october, then we would be able to phase it a little better for you. One of the things that we can assure you that there is space for either one of these, either tnr or its, in general office building that is proposed in the scenarios. It's just identifying which tenant that is and making sure that we have an appropriate mix of other tenants in the building with them.
>> so we expect to bring a decision on those scenarios at the end of october, is that what you said?
>> we'd like to bring three scenarios to you for discussion at a work session in september and we would like to go to the public for feedback on three options october 1st and 2nd. And then we'll take the information that comes out of those feedback sessions and broaddus will generate what appears to be a preferred scenario to bring to you towards the end of october so that before thanksgiving we can have a decision from you about what it is we're phasing and pricing as a master plan ultimately.
>> and then in terms of the financial planning for the capital improvement necessitated by whatever we select in october, when do we -- do we expect to -- i know that these questions may be premature and you can tell me that. But i -- when would we expect to either a, break ground or b, do substantial renovation? What is the earliest date that that would occur on any of the remaining properties?
>> we would bring a phasing plan back with the financial -- the funding strategies for each of those phases in the january-february time frame. Our objective is that one of your first pieces, which is likely to be a civil courts building, would be -- have your authorization to appear on a november 2011 bond election. So we're still working under the assumption that that would be one of the first pieces and we can't determine if there's anything else that would go with it until we look at those phasing plans.
>> we've had numerous discussions on that very item. Even yesterday we were kind of brain storming scenarios and how we could make it happen over a period of time. And the one thing that's -- i've said it before, but it's important to remember is that from a master planning standpoint, you know, you move a card over here and the whole house begins to crumble over here. So it's very important that as we go forward we develop some phasing scenarios that will allow us to both plan financially and to be more -- again, more method kel in how we migrate into either new facilities or renovate existing facilities. That will take a lot of effort, a lot of work with internal departments as well as the broaddus team, and it's going to be an ongoing thing that's going to last for a number of years.
>> so i'm reading between the lines, but y'all are pleading with us to make a decision one way or the other and that doing the hybrid will mess up your very delicate calibration.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> at least for the -- at least for what we need to have in the master plan documentation. The early phases we understand -- we have 2015, 2025 and 2035 milestones that we're working for from a planning perspective. And we understand that your picture may shift a little between 2012 and 2015 and those are decisions you're trying to make today as well. But for the long range objectives, your building is substantially different in 2015 than it is in the earlier years. And we need some sort of direction to build those milestones off of.
>> and between its and tnr, which is the more disbursed of the two departments?
>> its.
>> its is more disbursed? And the eob, we're not likely to do anything with the eob for how long?
>> well, we were kind of talking about that too yesterday. It's one of those things that depending' how the scenarios play out in terms of this building, block 126, all of those are going to factor into the eob and its long-term future. We also have the san antonio garage site that's in play that is also going to impact this building in particular. If the scenarios play out. So it's hard to say at this point. I think you're probably looking at a minimum five years, maximum seven to 10. But it's hard to say at this point. One of the things that we've talked about is, for example, block 126. Let's say that block 126 is -- one of the preferred scenarios is to redesign -- rework the block. I don't think that's the appropriate word, but anyway. To go through and completely change the landscape, look, feel of that block. How we can make that happen --
>> revision that plok.
>> repurpose. How is that? But making that happen and how we can go about making that happen both financially and as we begin to migrate into 700 or out of this building and how that would play into it. So there's a number of things that are still moving on the development.
>> and in addition we -- part of our scope is to -- the reason we looked at physical assessments of the buildings themselves is to determine which of your assets really are worth recapitalization, reinvestment or whether we should be looking at redevelopments of the site for the taxpayer's benefit. And the eob is certainly one of those facilities when we look at it is that you're looking today at some major expenditures on that property, and we can agendaize that separately and have more detailed discussion, but we did have water penetrate again in the last driving rain. We do have mechanical issues. So we're trying to factor the balance of --
>> i missed that last part.
>> i'm sorry?
>> i missed the last part about the rain.
>> the last driving rain we had, we had water come into the eob around the windows, around the glazing. So we know we've got repair work to be done. We know that of conditions this building is in better shape than that one. So there are also choices in that regard that we're trying to balance with your decisions of how quickly we build something into the phasing strategies. That would certainly play into as rodney said perhaps trying to redevelop a site like block 126 sooner rather than later. So those will all be things that i'll analyze and bring forward to you with the phasing.
>> we are definitely coming to you with a series of incremental decisions, all of -- i hate to say all at once, but in very close sequence over the last few and forthcoming weeks.
>> and the decisions are dependent upon decisions that were made just previously.
>> right. And then all of these are going to impact a house of cards, domino effect, whatever you want to call it, the rest of the schedule that belinda was talking about. So there's pros and cons to either -- either/or of the departments in that location. But they have implications conversely on where we might associate the accommodation of those programmatic needs in the rest of the central campus master plan. So just like the parking discussion that we had over the past few weeks, they're incrementally having an impact on how we would build out the incremental scenarios that you can consider and then ultimately will impact how all of that ends up phasing out over time. Little decisions that are going to impact the scenarios that we bring before you in the aggregate.
>> so all departments that we have listed here today with the exceptions of its and tnr, which -- which i'm requesting. I've got to get some more input into this to try to make a big foot fit into a small shoe without hurting. And that's basically what i'm struggling with. And trying to see what we can do. But i need some time on that. And i heard the shortcomings this morning, and i -- so what pbo is suggesting is there's not enough space. And how do we make adjustments accordingly? What do we do? I don't know. Today i don't know. But i want to get with some folks and see what can come out of this.
>> we'll take another week on tnr and its.
>> yes, judge.
>> we're asked to approve assumptions regarding blocking and stacking.
>> yes.
>> it would help me to see somewhere the language to this effect, that approval of the blocking and stacking alternatives as part of the central campus master plan is based on current and projected space needs. The court may modify this plan and these assumptions based on future space developments and needs.
>> yes.
>> i think that's real important and i think the message that i hope that it will send to departments is we are making the best decision we can based on the information available today. Information and projections. But who is to say what will happen three, four, five years down the road? And based on that, it may be that court members at that time will decide that actually some of the assumptions ought to be modified. So we ought to try to give notice that that may happen, and if so, we will do it and people won't be real surprised.
>> that's what we're asking, judge, is for what we know today -- it's much like the parking discussion that we had last week, the assumptions for planning purposes. That's what we're asking for.
>> with that i move that we take out its and tnr and plan to land on that next week.
>> second. Icialtion and we approve the other assumption and assumptions and criteria.
>> with the caveat that you just stated before the motion.
>> right.
>> is there a second?
>> i already seconded.
>> i'm sorry, seconded by commissioner davis. A quiet second. Any discussion on the motion? Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner huber.
>> the -- in looking at jay adjacencies -- not that, but the use of different departments spacing in 700 lavaca, i'm not an attorney, i kind of muddle through. Have you looked at the external need for parking spaces for the different people? I mean, we keep talking about having public parking available and we've got a number of departments that have that need. Has that been an evaluation criteria in this blocking and stacking at 700 lavaca?
>> absolutely.
>> do we know what the number --
>> is played a critical role in how we begin to evaluate both tenant assigned parking, visitor parking, and county space parking needs. And so those are absolutely a part of the scenario development and a part of the consideration as we look at this.
>> do we have that data per department that we're looking at that needs to go in 700 lavaca?
>> in terms of the number of spaces?
>> external spaces for public use.
>> yes. We've got the -- oh, you're talking about for visitors?
>> right.
>> oh, no, we don't.
>> because i see some departments using a lot more than others, and that could be a factner our decision making, maybe even between tnr and its.
>> we have incremental information on traffic volumes for the department. What we would be looking at is a recommendation from our parking consultant about given the scale occupancy of the building, size of the building, what would be a general use type of in and out traffic visitor parking, if you elect to provide visitor parking.
>> we know today what the lease space requirements are for the tenants that are currently in the building. We know today what the departmental needs would be for employee parking. And -- but that is one piece that we do need to pull together.
>> we need to land on the tenants that will be in the building so they can actually analyze the visitor traffic. Tnr will have a different demand on visitor parking than its would. So before the consultant looks at visitor parking for the building, we need to have a pretty solid idea of that. We have some general information based on the traffic volumes we used on placing within the building, but for example we haven't looked at how -- how long a visit usually takes. So you would know is it a 15 minute turnover rate on a parking space or is it a 20 minute, half hour, those types of things that would really size parking to go along with that.
>> things like that is a critical part of the whole. We've got our adjacencies, but -- i'm just using this hypothetically. I don't know. But if you've got, say, facilities management and they're always meeting with contractors that are coming from somewhere else that's far, they will need parking place. If you've got a tnr who has the majority of their professionals that are coming from a four-block walk downtown, that kind of thing needs to be analyzed because that can make a difference in where we site those people if we have issues related to park blik parking.
>> and we do have a meeting later this week with the city about on street parking and what's going on in that area. So that is part of the analysis that we'll need to complete in the scenarios.
>> can we get an update? Is it too much to ask that in the next week we could look at it it with regard to its and tnr and their non-county employee visitor parking generation?
>> i don't know if it would be -- we would have to make sure that we had looked at that in the whole of the rest of the building, would be my only concern about isolating it, but we can certainly --
>> at least on a thumbnail we can say that probably the two largest traffic generators of our --
>> of the mix.
>> of the mix are probably health and human services and transportation and natural resources.
>> that's exactly right. Then on tuesdays would be a draw for the commissioners court as well. So as purchasing, it's spread out throughout the week generally. So --
>> of those who we just voted the massing and stacking for, it's probably purchasing is the highest traffic generator other than the commissioners court?
>> right. For a single type of event, right, not spread out. For a single type of event. It may take us longer than our week to have that information.
>> all right. Scratch that.
>> if it's something that is critical to the decision --
>> no. I can thumbnail it just knowing the --
>> anything else today?
>> no, sir.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank y'all.
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, August 17, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
