Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 31, 2010,
Item 31
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the travis county commissioners court. Item number 31 is to receive presentation from the broaddus and associates team regarding the civil and criminal courts program for the central campus needs assessment and master plan and take appropriate action.
>> good afternoon, judge, commissioners, rodney rhoades, executive manager of planning and budget for the central campus master planning effort. Flip to my notes real quick. Back in february we had come to the court with the phase 1 needs assessment and we had preliminary approval on the courts, both criminal and civil. At that time we had requested a little more time to go back and do some more analysis regarding courts and are back with you with findings, revised program and request for approval. Did i see judge livingston? Judge livingston is here. She took part in some of the site visits that we went on. Judge, did you have any comments you would like to make?
>> let me interject a question also. So did -- does judge dietz plan to come, do you know?
>> i believe he's on his way.
>> there they are.
>> as usual, he's just on time and judge shepherd only runs about 10 minutes late, but thanks to judge dietz, he's on time today too.
>> i think the question right now on the table is to report briefly some of our site visits. I will tell you we visited courthouses in florida, saw two courthouses in the orlando area. We saw the gold standard, i think, of courthouses in mecklenburg, north carolina, which was amazing and fantastic, cost effective, gorgeous and functional above all else. And so i can tell you that of all of the places that we saw, we learned something new at each location. We learned something about how existing old buildings had been renovated. We learned something about buildings constructed from the ground up. We learned about security, we learned about things that we really hadn't thought about before when we were working on the program the first time and so we appreciate the opportunity that you've given us to come back to you and say we've done some homework since then and we've created some, we think, efficiencies in the way we've asked for space to be used and we've scrubbed it and pared it down as best we can, but i think that we learned a great deal on all of those fact-finding trips. And what you have in the revised program i think reflects great deliberations and thoughtfulness in terms of what we're going to need the the future. I'll turn it over to judge shepherd and dietz.
>> if i can add, one of the efforts we've had in addition to working with the consultants is to consult the building standards. You know that the federal government has had a -- over the last decade, has had a substantial courthouse building effort throughout the united states to try to catch up. And it is has also spurred number of states to states to develop building standards and standards in terms both of square future age but also how to program. And so we have taken this program and compared it as a bench mark with california's standards, the state of ohio and the national center for state court, and virginia, and we've annotated it to where we feel like -- that we're asking for things that are bench marked and used in different states. And as judge livingston had said, this additional time that you have granted us has allowed us to really kind of study and to deliberate quite a bit about the program that we developed. And we -- we really feel like we have been able to hone down with richie green and broaddus' help to really hone down to the program, and we're really pretty confident that -- that what we've expressed within this detailed space program is what we need by 2035 and will handle us on into the future.
>> ditto.
>> [laughter]
>> just to revisit just a couple of the things that we looked at in some of our site visits, we had originally talked about a colleagual and what we realized in doing these tours and talking was that that concept probably would not work because of travis county's centralized docket process. And it helps us to be more efficient in how we expedite cases. So one of the things we started looking at in terms of, you know, how do -- now that we don't think the colleagual courts will work for travis county, then we went back and started looking at our courtroom configurations and things of that nature, and what we have landed on in the program before you is a program that standardizes for the most part our courtrooms, it allows for the judges to have assigned courtrooms, and it also provides -- and as a part of our due diligence, if you will, efforts, what we found was combining all of our family courts together made a lot of sense. And so now what's before you is the civil and family justice center proposal which combines the four d courts and it also provides for an expanded -- things like an expanded self-help center for the law library, a children's waiting area which we didn't initially envision. It also accounts for some multi-function spaces and some meal services that weren't accounted for in the original program. So all in all, the program size is increased by about 12.1% with the inclusion of the family courts, the inclusion of these child waiting areas, and these other amenities that we talked about in the program. We anticipate that the overall 2035 program will require approximately, if adopted, will require approximately 450 to 500 thousand square feet. And what you have in your backup in the memo on page 2 is a list of 12 component pieces. What we're asking is approval of the updated program and the e component pieces that are included in the backup as well, those 12 component pieces. With that what i would like to do is turn it over to steven broaddus -- or steven coltus and associates and ask steve tone run through, we've got about a six slide, i believe, presentation that kind of gives a general summary of the program and the most important slide being the changes from the original program that you had back in february to the program that you have before you today.
>> great. Thank you, judge, members, commissioners court. It's a pleasure to be here today and we'll just walk through here quickly to kind of encapsulate what rodney just summarized for you which has been a lot of work that has been done amongst a lot of people including no small part by all of the folks from the judges side who really have engaged in this discussion since we first brought the full program to you back in february. The key program updates are what we'll be sharing with you as well as the programmatic elements that we wanted you to look at as it may relate to specifically a new facility. In terms of those updates, one of the significant discussions that have occurred were the notions of the family court functions getting incorporated into the civil courts program, and that included the four d master court and the associated space with that. The children's waiting area, as rodney mentioned, as well as in-custody holding. The space standards that we looked at were actually across all of the courts, not just the civil courts but across all of the criminal courts. Minor adjustments in there, but i think right sizing and the program overall to fit program requirements in terms of space need. And then the refinement to the functional requirements involved elements of the civil, jury panel waiting, the judge's courtroom and chambers for the visiting judge, the flexible courtrooms in terms of creating a uniform size amongst all of them so that we have the multiple -- the maximum flexibility. We talked about traditional chambers versus the noncollegial as we related to -- as we gathered more feedback following the tours and the review from the judges. A significant component was new law library programs for uncontested family and housing as well as dispute resolution center. What we found coming out of this process as we've -- as we've also, as you know, just having been with you even in the last week, stacking and blocking and physical planning within the center campus, we've discovered with the adjustments to the program and the adjustments overall, we're actually -- and the limitations, this is -- this is sort of foresightedness on the program updates knowing where we are today that we have some physical limitations on our site real estate in the central campus area and some limitations there that are actually really gravitating towards the combination of the civil and family justice center actually being in a separate building in and of itself. And the list of those i see before you here, i won't read them all for you. They are, of course, in the backup and outlined in your presentation backup as well. But those are the components that are identified as a part of that civil and family courthouse program. The full court space program, i know you've got reams of paper kind of backing up with all of the detail, but this one slide here shows the overall summary of the full space program identifying what was identified to the 2035 plan. The full buildout of our overall master plan projections. Prior when we visited with you earlier this year and based on the update reflected here. And as rodney indicated, that represents a change from about 800,000 square feet to about 900,000 square feet, which is about a 12.1% increase overall. And then, of course, the -- as the backup describes, the impact in terms of netting that up from -- grossing that up from the net assignable square feet take us to 4.4 to 4.5 million square foot facility range overall. What did i say? 1.4 or 1.5 million square feet. And with that, i think we're -- we're hopeful to get your comments specifically today on related to action on the program modifications and updates and the components of the civil and family courts piece that we'll use actually to integrate into the planning scenarios that we have scheduled on your commissioners court agenda for september 30th. September 30th. The very end of september work session followed by our internal staff meetings the following day and our community charette workshop on october 2nd. So we'll be using this information to further inform those discussions.
>> actually page 2 of the backup up at the top of the page is the recommendation with all of the functions that follow with that recommendation, correct? And then the -- well, page 6, a summary that is basically what goes along with that plan as well. And so i'm ready to move on this, judge. May i make a motion that we move forward on this recommendation.
>> you may.
>> that's my motion.
>> seconded by commissioner huber. Do the other counties provide the ag four d court space?
>> we have an obligation for them now.
>> i understand, but do the other counties?
>> as far as i know.
>> you say we have an obligation to do it. We have mandated by the state to do that?
>> that's my understanding, my understanding for the last 18 years. I haven't checked statute though.
>> currently they are at post road facility.
>> judge, i think that's something, another one of those unfunded mandates by the state with respect to the 4 d programs. But as i'm aware of 40 contracts within the central texas area, counties have to provide them space. Now, if the question is is the space within the courthouse or out of some other location, i think that remains within the county's discretion as to how to do that, but it's a -- it is an unfunded mandate by the state.
>> okay. If we must do it, we may as well do it at the courthouse.
>> that was the thought.
>> but for 18 years i put my left shoe on first.
>> yes, sir.
>> then i injured my right hand and i use the criss-cross approach so i started putting my right shoe on first and i've been doing it since then and it's worked fine. That one.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] ed my life. -- that one change changed my life. That was my only question. When i look down there, now that with our legislature coming to town and our friends from the state questioning some of our -- some of their investments here, i think it's only fair that we question some of ours. Any discussion on the motion? Judge?
>> if i could respond to that, in the times as president of the texas district judges association, we have reminded the state -- the state generally provides less than 10% of the cost of maintaining the judicial system within the state. The only thing the state picks up is a portion of our salary. And it's only because of the hard work and the tax base of the counties that we have a judicial system within texas. So we appreciate your efforts.
>> well, i'm going to have to vote for this since you put it that way.
>> [laughter] any more discussion?
>> i just have a question that doesn't have to be answered to me now because i feel that it has been answered in previous sessions to the court, but when we move forward into the public realm, i think that with regard to the 12% expansion from the february estimate, i think that we have to have a very clear response to the public why that 12% increase in this building means less of an increase over time. I think we need to quantify that for the public. Because i am convinced that the additional programming and the law library, the inclusion of d.r.c. In the building for greater utilization, the inclusion of offices of child and parent representation, that these sorts of things while it may have and did contribute to the increase, although the 4 d court is the big contributor.
>> we've had had discussion about going out to the public and talking. We agreed with the 12% increase we'll be able to do that. I think the key word is function and one-stop shopping. What we saw in a lot of different places was to bring people to the courthouse and be able to get them in and process them through as quickly as possible so they did not have to go to a number of different places and that was one of the places we learned at mecklinburg and other places. If you are going to bring them to the courthouse, let them be able to do their business and go on. That became a focus point as we went through and i can tell you that most of the increase if not almost all of it probably had to do with that function of bringing people in, getting them there, letting them process and going on about their day.
>> and like i said i am convinced of that. I'm just saying as we go out to the public, if we can both quantify it in terms of how much it costs to us and the cost benefit, but also the real benefit in customer service so the folks who are coming into the family court type dockets.
>> having space for them to bring their children for the period of time they are doing business at the courthouse particularly in the family court is essential and we saw that done very well in all of the places that we visited and it's not something we do well here and so i think this is going to be something we can easily justify and explain to the public.
>> thanks.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you, judge.
>> let's indicate our intention to call up the
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 31, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
