Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 26, 2010,
Item 24
Number 24, consider and take appropriate action regarding the executive office building hvac upgrade which is partially funded by an arra grant and which is potentially impacted by the recommended central campus planning scenarios.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
roger el khoury.
let me give you background, October 2009 the -- energy efficiency and block grant, arra, in the amount of $2,200,000 for energy efficient improvement for executive office buildings.
and this is to renovate the hvac system and upgrade it.
also the Commissioner court approved $192,000 to provide additional funds to finish the project.
the construction.
the total cost is 3,699,900.
let's say $3.7 million we have.
this is our budget.
the design is completed.
and we finished all the design to upgrade and -- and the design item is listed in the backup.
however, under the requirement of the d.o.e., we must spend about 50% of the grant by June 30, 2011.
we can meet this milestone if the construction will be started in December 2011.
now, in late September the county central campus planning team briefed the Commissioners court on two scenarios and the central campus -- and the redevelopment of central campus facility.
both recommendations scenario shows that
>> [indiscernible] is going to be sold or demolished, so what the facilities management department would like to do, would like to ask the court is this.
if d.o.b.
is going to be disposed of or sold off one the next five years, then we recommend the county should abort the project.
if it is going to be disposed of or sold more than five years or can go used for swing space or anything beyond five years, we think we should continue with the project.
now, if the county aborts the project, we propose all the money, the $3.7 million, to shift with the court approval to shift to 700 lavaca.
we have identified items can be used for energy efficiency which meet the guidelines of the d.o.e.
requirements and those are listed on your backup.
and we have talked tour point of contact with d.o.e.
and we got an email from them, they said yes, they will shift the project.
we have to do some kind of application, reapplication and all of that, but we can move the fund and do it at 700 lavaca as long as we do all this work under the energy efficiency requirement.
and still the requirement to spend 50% of the d.o.e.
funds by June 30, 2011, and I think we could do it if we can get the okay from you all today or as soon as possible to move forward with it.
this is my recommendation.
>> roger brought this to my tension and I told him I thought the court should decide it.
if we end up demolishing that building within the next five years, that's a lot of money to invest to see go down the drain.
and one option I guess is to demolish it and build it as a garage.
the other one is to sell it to somebody else and we think if somebody were to acquire it, they would probably demolish it and rebuild.
but if you are looking at $3.7 million, you can put it to good use in another facility.
but if we think we may be here long term, it may make sense to just continue with the improvement.
>> I agree.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I just have a question.
did they give you any idea how long the paperwork trail would be to transfer the designation?
>> we started talking to them, you know, kind of lake like July of 2010, and they say they have to -- they didn't give me a specific time on how long would it take, but they said they could move on that pretty quick.
I have an email from them that said that their request for -- I知 reading what the fed guy said.
this request will most likely be approved by d.o.e.
as long as we spend the money of 50%, you know, by June 30.
just to let you know, we did spend about -- from the d.o.e.
fund $200,000 to reimburse the designer, you know, who designed the project, you know.
the federal government said as long as we
>> [indiscernible] pay back the grant for that design, that would be fine to move it forward to 700 lavaca.
>> which I think is appropriate.
I think in either case I believe that we've -- we've reached the end or close to the end of our useful -- of the usefulness of the eob and we should transfer this money whether it's federal tax dollars or local tax dollars is put it's towards 700 lavaca instead.
>> roger, can you tell me how this process would actually work if the court decides to -- let's say the court decides to say, okay, let's abort the e.o.b.
involvement and we look at this -- this arra money and invest it into the 700 lavaca setting from the united states department of energy, how would they ensure that, okay, the requirement is 50% of the money be used by this date.
how does that process work?
does the actual department -- united states department of energy come down and check and to see how we propose to spend the money at that time or must the money be spent at that time of June 30, 2011?
how does that work?
be clear on that.
>> yeah, I think the guy, you know, his name is todd allen, our point of contact from d.o.e.
he comes every three months.
and what he -- what he would do is he would look at the project at the progress right then about what we did based what we submit for the scope of work for the project.
for instance, those items I listed in the backup, we send it to them, you know, to d.o.e.
for them to approve those items right there so we can move forward.
so once we get the approval from them, those items will be approved and then we and the Commissioners court shift the money to 700 lavaca, we can start working on that and start implementing those items. However, we will notify them to come and visit, you know, to see the progress, you know, how it's going.
and this is really how we deal with those guys, you know, at the level of d.o.e.
they will come once every two months or they come any time we ask them to come too.
they've visited us twice so far.
>> so they are pretty responsive per request if -- because what I would not like to see happen is if you have delay on whoever is coming in, especially the federal government, there are probably a lot of these particular requests that may be out all over the country, not only here but everywhere else, and I知 just considering the response time that the u.s.
department of energy would work within that time frame as far as being responsive in that time element that's been suggested here.
this is something that we're suggesting, but -- and if these particular criterion this is what we would like to spend the money on, blah, blah, blah, blah, I知 trying to get the assessment and see if everybody is playing on the same level of the playing ground.
that's what I知 trying to get.
the county in this particular regard, but also depending on the federal government to make sure they do the necessary assessment in a timely manner to make sure we comply.
>> yeah.
Commissioner, all I can say from the history with working with them, this is our first grant with the federal government, they were responsive to our, you know, questions, you know, any time we ask them something through email, they rerespond right back.
that's all I can say that we have the guys are eager to start spending money to create jobs and all of that stuff to make sure that stimulus fund is --
>> I think move that money over to to 700 lavaca.
>> I have one budgetary question.
we have one budgetary line item for 700 lavaca.
will this go on top of it or replace?
>> it will go on top.
>> I think it is a good move right now to move it to 700 lavaca.
only if that e.o.b.
is not going to be used for a long time.
>> would we contract out with external vendors to get this work done?
>> we haven't yet.
we haven't completed the solicitation documents, the i.f.b.
with the specifications and all of the federal -- boat d.o.e.
and the arra requirements.
that's kind of ready to hit the street and you would have to take that bid package and just basically revise it to incorporate the new project.
however you wanted to call that.
>> anything else?
any comments?
>> make sure it comes back within the time line of June 30, 2011, even this particular instrument that's being used, this all taken into consideration.
>> yes, I mean we have to work with facilities and with the auditor's office and our office to make sure that the contract is drafted in such a way so that the performance specifications and the schedule for the project is in keeping with whatever the feds require.
and they are also very stringent reporting requirements in both the arra act, the american reinvestment and recovery act as well as d.o.e.
has its own requirements with respect to reporting that I don't see would be waived or changed in any way by changing the project.
>> well, do we have any idea, if someone were to ask me today, Commissioner Davis, how many jobs will this actually embrace as far as an opportunity to just some of the stimulus money to -- under this particular concept under the department of energy, what would we project as far as jobs created under this particular scenario?
do we have any ballpark --
>> we do have to have an estimate of jobs created as well as actual jobs created as the job progresses.
I can't remember what the number for the e.o.b.
project -- 38.
>> 38 jobs.
>> for e.o.b.
I don't know what it would be --
>> I知 talking 700 lavaca and e.o.b.
do we have any idea?
>> we will work on that as the court gives us the go-ahead to move forward.
>> it would be good to know in case somebody asks me that question, I would be able to have an answer for them.
>> we will work on it.
give us great help putting everything together and I believe she will help to us put everything together.
>> is it a reasonable speculation that since this is a list of 12 very -- rather disseparate items as opposed to the hvac that it has the potential of creating more jobs than the other project?
>> you can look at it this way, and I believe all of those items cannot go to one contractor.
>> hvac people don't you recallly do lighting or roof installation.
>> you get some lighting, you know, lighting control fixtures, this can be one specialized group right there on a job and energy recovery, hvac and hvac system and the chiller can be done one contractor.
the roofing is another contractor.
not going to be only one contractor working on it.
>> thank you.
>> susan and rodney?
>> we just need to move very quickly because they were here on a monitoring visit in early October and like roger said, we had already spent $200,000 on d.o.e.
and it's not a problem on our end to reclassify that expenditure, that's not really a problem, but you really kind of have to reapply.
so I mean it really -- we need to not make any mistakes.
they want everything obligated by February 2011 and 50% of the funds drawn down by 6-30-11.
we need to just really move on this to make sure we don't miss any of those guidelines and lose the money.
>> okay.
>> as relates to 700 lavaca, we had a number of projects we identified as infrastructure related projects.
and a lot of the items that roger has identified kind of fit within some of those infrastructure.
there's some that are outside of it, but as long as it's energy related, I mean it obviously would fit within this grant, but I think that this will -- when I say go on top of the existing budget, it will supplement for those items that are not currently funded.
so that's -- I just wanted to make that clarification.
>> so they are not funded in the current line item.
>> right.
what we had done is kind of broken them down into the priority infrastructure projects, and then we had anticipated that we would fund the remainder of the infrastructure projects either in fiscal 12 or fiscal 13 depending on how the cash flows worked out.
what this provides us with is an opportunity to accelerate getting some of those infrastructure projects completed.
>> which is -- that fits very nicely with the intent of the arra money in speeding up expenditures and jobs -- and job creation.
exactly what it's for.
>> anything else?
>> I just want to introduce rick avery, he's the project manager and he will be working on these particular items for 700 lavaca.
>> good to meet you.
all in favor?
that carries unanimously.
>> thank you.
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, October 26, 2010 2:00 PM
