Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 13
Number 13 is to consider and take appropriate action on request for information, rfi for public private partnership related to dopment of a new civil and family courthouse and authorize purchasing agent to issue the rfi.
>> good morning, judges, Commissioners, cyd grimes, county purchasing agent.
danny hobby, rodney rodes, who else?
tim Moore of the time.
purchase the court's direction we got together and worked on a request for information to go out and get sort of a broad brush information on what our best option might be for financing, constructing and operating our new civil family courthouse.
the public private partnership has been discussed, and what we are doing is sort of throwing the net out there to see what we can educate ourselves on the process.
there's so many different models that we have to start narrowing down.
this is to educate ourselves and help the Commissioners court make the decision whether to proceed with a public private partnership.
I apologize.
what you are getting, the three page document that has yellow or the three changes that were made and there really weren't any changes, there was a reorganization of some paragraphs.
we did on page 3 of that, second page of that document, the bottom in yellow, you can see we had nonpermitted uses within the same budding structure and we had hospitality, hotel, residential, especially oriented and divided saying no sexually oriented business would be permitted on the block.
that was a change.
on the third page of the three-page handout we also reserved our right to meet with any of the respondants to discuss further information we might need to educate ourselves on the process.
the request for information is just that.
we are requesting information that this is not an offer to contract, there will be no contract after this process.
and so you have--
>> and there is the notice that this is for us to educate ourselves on the process.
and we may or may not continue down this path.
will this process also be open to the public so this e can understand the things we are considering and know what alternatives we have on the path to making a decision?
>> yes.
we certainly want to educate ourselves.
of course, all of y'all are going to be the ones that are going to get people asking questions.
we will get it, but y'all will get most of the questions.
so at the to educate us and the public on where we are going.
we still need to develop our internal team.
we think we kind of know who most of those folks are and we also have some members on external team that we need to financial--finalize our external team.
there's no telling how many of these we will get.
we might want some of the terms to come in and do a work session for us and the public, you know, at some point.
that is certainly up to the Commissioners court.
that is why we added the paragraph that we reserve the right to meet with any of them.
as far as a process, if we get, you know, 25, I suggested throwing all the names in a hat and pulling out three or four.
you know, we wouldn't want 20 people to come in for talking.
once we get the information back in and meeting and deciding how we want to proceed.
>> obviously, this process of educating ourselves is really important to me because although a subcommittee of folks have gone out to see the examples, I guess, of some of these buildings that have been built under the p 3 process, you know, that is good for the education.
and I totally support the open meetings act.
so I wouldn't say that I object to them not being able to share with me.
I totally support that.
but it leaves me in the dark.
so I have to look at that so that I can reach the point of being educated as other members before I can make a really wise decision.
to me, I have to be able to make a good business decision.
it is not going to be a political decision for me.
so I'm trying to learn from all of the mistakes of the past so that we don't repeat them.
and so I think the public really has expressed, to me, that they would like to be able to get some of the information that we are receiving for their education as well.
so that when it comes to having a vote on here, whether we go co or bond elects, this know exactly where I'm coming from.
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask that of me.
so I just want to make it real real clear that this is not going to be a promise or no one will expect that this will lead to another process where they would bid or submit proposals to move forward in this path.
>> Commissioner, if someone does not submit information that, that does not preclude them.
if we decide to move forward on competing the next round.
>> but it's no promise that we're going to go down this pat.
>> they don't get points.
>> exclusively.
>> it's just to educate ourselves.
>> I could like the way you put this out to the public.
that no one should contact any member of the court or any judge or any other party who will benefit from this project.
again, I think the public deserves to know that this is going to be on objecttive process and that we're not going to muddy this up with politics.
but it's nothing more than a business decision.
it has to be.
and I fully support the public on that point.
>> Commissioner.
>> go ahead.
>> I guess my concern, as usual, is that if we move forward today as far as the rfi is concerned, request for information, my concern is how long is it going stay out there to receive this information, and to make sure everyone has an opportunity to get what they need in.
then after the information is received, of course there is a process.
and we are trying to go by some format, some kind of process.
>> yes, sir.
>> what are the time lines that you feel are included in this particular scenario to make sure that we capture as much information as we possibly can before it comes back.
>> our plan, Commissioner, if y'all approve today, we would send it out tomorrow.
we do not have to do a public notice, by which I mean advertise in the newspaper.
there's no legal requirement.
however, we have a long list of probably over 20, 25 firms who have already contacted us, who are interested.
so we know there are some firms interested.
the word is out and people know we are doing this.
so we as a team decided that we would have them out tomorrow until the 29th.
so that is almost two and a half weeks.
>> two and a half weeks.
>> and again, the information that we are going to get is not going to be detail detail detail but it is going to be a lot of, I think they can get together in two weeks.
I don't think that there's so much, this is what they do, they can pull their experiences and ideas, I think they can pull that rather quickly.
if the court would like it out longer, it is your call.
so for right now, we issue tomorrow.
we open on the 29th of the month which is a Friday, I believe.
>> right, the reason I ask is because somewhere along the line you know, I want to make sure enough adequate time is allowed, but also we don't want to be forever with it.
>> yes, sir.
>> so that is my concern, the foreverness of it.
>> uh-huh.
>> versus enough time to make sure we get the proper information to proceed.
so that was my concern at this point.
>> of course, what I want to do with the information once we get it, I think the way to proceed is to have a work session where we would share the information that we have received from the pro e possers --proposers as to how you would approach a p 3 or which one, my understanding is there are several manners in which to approach a project like this.
I still believe we ought to not leave the public out.
this is a huge huge project.
I know it's needed, it was needed yesterday, but I guess we should have begun planning day before.
or week before.
so it's huge.
at what point would we then share the information we get, judge, with the public?
>> I think ought to be a public document.
when we get it, if the john doe calls in and wants to see it, I would send it to him.
>> if they have questions about what the process is.
>> I think we ought to, to the extent we make that decision, I think we ought to divulge it.
the work session idea makes sense to me, the other thing, while this is out there, nothing to keep us from having weekly postings to allow in court discussions and private executive session stuff.
there's still some legal issues that need to be addressed.
I wount sit around and wait for the two and a half weeks to expire.
I would get as much done without the answers as we could.
so we would be increasing the education process for ourselves.
I think that any member of the public that has questions, wants some sort of presentation, whatever we have, I would send it.
>> okay.
>> it has amazed me that, and I have visited with several firms, you know, they kind of bring their own marketing stuff.
but some parts of the country, I guess some parts of the world, this is pretty much how you do it.
>> you had you.
>> what the marketing stuff says is the various ways to get it done.
and these are, you know, major development projects that we are talking about.
>> sure.
>> so, I mean, I didn't know that many firms were doing projects that size.
if you believe the marketing materials, I mean, plenty of them aren't.
>> I guess I'm with you on whatever the public wants to know about this.
I think to the extent that we know it, we ought to share it with them.
>> I think that will make me feel much more comfortable.
>> we have to get comfortable ourselves.
>> I have to get educated and I really think I need to educate the public as well.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I think we definitely need the answers to these questions at some point.
sooner is better than later from a standpoint of the voters and whether or not we are looking at a bond referendum in the fall.
I would offer up that I believe that we are getting the cart before the horse.
as cyd has already said, we don't have our internal team together, our external team together, we don't have a methodical plan to work through on this.
we don't even know who going to evaluate this information when it comes in.
it's a bit like, this is probably the biggest project Travis County has ever done facilities wise, no questions about it.
I think that we need to be method call and careful that we do it right.
one of the reasons we got in trouble, from my understanding, on a previous project about 15 or 20 years ago was because we didn't have, was because we didn't understand the process when we started into it.
and we don't understand the process now.
the judge and I because we are on the subcommittee have had the benefit of some days.
there are many many different ways to do a p 3.
and people are out there educating with this brochure and that brochure, and they are people who are involved in the process from the for profit side in the private sector.
we don't need to have our work session be held necessarily by those who are trying to convince us that we need to do business with them.
>> right.
>> I believe we need have a work session first.
and we need to get, if we can't get totally disinterested parties, we need have a variety of parties that can present us with the different pros and cons of doing this.
and I believe if we walk down this path right now, we are just not doing it in a methodical concerted way.
I don't believe, we have a lot of great people, but we have not done a project with the private sector.
there are millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in this to be made in the private sector.
the competition is huge.
we need to understand that competition before we launch into the process.
>> I totally agree with you.
I think it's premature and I have always felt that.
you know, I agree with you.
>> I also have a legal question.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> this is some tremendous work and definitely in the right direction and the subcommittee has done a tremendous amount of work as well as the folks and staff who have been looking at this.
this is uncharted waters for us, absolutely, and this is the largest facilities project we have ever done.
I think that we are all seeking to be educated rather than sold on p 3.
in order to get the unbiased knowledgeable information from parties serving Travis County's best interests, I would suggest that we postpone the rfi until after we have established our internal team, established our external team through a competitive process, and had a work session from an unbiased knowledgeable source on our options in p 3.
>> I totally agree with the methodical process that we need to follow.
I think what may have happened ten years ago is that there was some planning, but I don't know how much.
and it got put on the ballot because there's always that rush that we need to get it done.
and when that occurs, you leave a lot of things, you know, uncovered.
and you don't take those methodical steps.
I totally agree this is huge huge huge.
and I don't want to live in this county the rest of my life hearing about a second fiasco.
>> I think that our probability for success could improve if we established, in this order, our internal team, our external team by competitive process, and a work session to educate ourselves from an unbiased knowledgeable source before letting this rfi.
I think it would improve our probabilities.
and the work that has been done on the rfi will not have been lost because this will be our first draft.
we will continue to refine this document through our pursuit of those three things.
>> I totally agree.
the other thing, we need to have a process that is totally inclusive.
it can't be exclusive.
we are all in this together.
think we all have something to contribute to the process.
>> I would like to add in the spirit of what has just been said, I think that we have felt an urgency or some have felt an urgency to get this information so that we can let the voters know why or why not we may not put this on the November bond referendum.
I don't think that the November bond referendum is what should be the driver of this.
this is such a big project.
if we needed to call a bond referendum in between our usual five had ever --five-year cycle it would certainly be with aed.
it would take two to three years of knowing what kind of bond referendum we would go for if we were going to do architectural design and costing.
I hate to see us rushing forward by a calendar item that is constraining us from doing it the right way.
>> just to address a couple of points.
we acknowledged the very first meeting that we got together and the team that helped put together this rfi, that we were kind of getting a reverse of process here.
but we also acknowledge that there is a need for education, there's a need for information, and this is really the result of just trying to get that information and that education.
it's not necessarily a commitment to move forward one way or another, but rather a fact finding, is what I have kind of called it, more of a fact finding endeavor.
we do also acknowledge, as cyd pointed out, that there are a number of other things that need to take place in addition do this variation of the internal team, any external assistance that we night need, things like that.
we also acknowledge that that is needed.
it was our thinking, as we were putting this together, that we would run this kind of on parallel tracks, if you will.
we would get this on the street solely for the purpose of getting information, fact finding on p 3's.
in addition to that, once this is on the street, we would beginning the discussions of the internal team, the process, how we would go through that.
we have a list of questions and next steps that we have discussed, one of which is bond, no bond, p 3, no p 3, that sort of thing.
we know we have a lot of work to do, but the intent of this was solely to it on the street, gather as much information as we can, continue to educate ourselves, provide the court with some information on p 3 so that you can become better educated, and if we wanted to do a workshop, we certainly could do that.
>> the only thing with that process is that I'm just, I'm concerned that expectations are going to be raised.
when are y'all going to move to the next step.
>> and that is--
>> you know, I think that is why I agree that we need to postpone today.
and let's get some of the things basic things done in place.
>> that is, whichever direction the court wants to go in, but that is one of the reasons, if you look at the rfi.
>> I understand.
>> it specs says.
>> I understand the reasons.
>> this is not committing to anything.
we made that very clear.
>> I thought when this came up before the court, oh, last time, and we actually, I guess, voted to go out and at that time, I guess, as far as considering a rfi, of course we wantd to make sure that we got the proper agenda items to look at a rfi.
at the end of the day, regardless, within the process itself, we have to know, have to have very critical information that I don't have.
and those persons that you have said that show an interest in this, we need to hear what they are talking about.
if anybody had suggested, well, Commissioner, what is going on with this, I have nothing to share with anybody.
until we get pertinent critical information, working through the purchasing agent to gather this information,hoping this is something that we could do where by we would be able to share it with the public, which I think deserve to know about this.
we could share a document.
because again, it's information.
and that is what we are asking for right now, is information.
and I would like to see this information.
what is really out there as far as this project is concerned.
I would like the see that.
of course, the process has many steps in it.
it has many critical parts in it.
I think at some situation in life we will have to pull a lever, is this what we want to do at this time at this stage.
I think it's going to be predicated on a lot of things that we do up front so we can better address these things, where we can pulling the levers down and say do we need, this, this, that.
right now I have nothing .
but I need a starting point.
starting point to me, in my opinion, would be having information here where we could share.
I need to see it.
if the public wants to see it, hey, I say well, we can share that information with them.
work session, is probably something that we need to also have also.
but we need to start somewhere, and I had thought this was the commencing action that we need to grab on hold to to move forward.
we can put those levels in the process any direction as far as where the court deemed it should go.
but we need to start somewhere.
>> sometimes to me we ought to vote.
>> yeah.
>> and I don't know that there's anything magical about answers being due in two to two and a half weeks.
30 days, so be it.
for us to apoint the internal evaluation team at this point, I think would be shooting in the dark because I don't know what we would ask them to start preparing for.
in my view, the answers to these questions was really to give us information that we needed to determine how to proceed.
however the majority of the court wants to go is fine with me.
but there is a world of information out there, and the sooner we start gathering, the better.
this gives us information about the interest of particular firms. It's more specific than the real general stuff we have gotten already.
project does in the get smaller with time.
in fact, it gets larger probably because we have more confusion.
we don't have to do anything but we are sit hearing with a $22 million block of land and when we acquired that, we told voters we were going to put a civil courthouse on it.
so I don't know that three months later we ought to be just kind of sitting on our thumbs.
we have been trying to move for the last three months and I visited two courthouses because I thought that was pretty important.
on my own I have tried to get educated.
but as a group, we have not done much to promote education.
so I thought that issuing this, then doing work sessions and having follow-up discussions would be beneficial.
there are workshops all over the place.
in fact, tomorrow about noon there's one out at gattis school road relevant and we posted this.
however the make jo of the court --majority of the court wants to go is fine with me.
I don't know how the public will per receive we are making progress if we don't do something concrete fairly soon.
I thought this was like step one of a 20-step process that would give us information to start looking at a world of possibilities more than anything else.
but it will be a smaller world .
possibilities than we have right now because right now it's just completely wide open.
>> may I ask about the parallel, the suggested parallel process?
I note that the responses are expected back on April 29.
how quickly could we establish an internal team, competitively, openly compete for the remainder of an external team, and get a work session so that we would have not only, because right now as far as the folks that we have available to us internally, they certainly are unbiased and certainly have Travis County's best interests at heart and certainly have acquired a large amount of knowledge about p 3 over the last several months.
but no one internally can boast of ever having done a p 3 before you know, having boots on the ground experience with them.
even though we have internal folks with a lot of knowledge, we're talking about a breadth of knowledge and an interweaving of knowledge that we have never had to do before.
so my concern--
>> how long would it take us?
>> how long would it take.
let me hone it down.
how long to openly compete for a project manager or a landowner's representative?
>> realistically, we will have to have a scope of work, have to put it out on the screet if you want to compete it.
you're looking at minimum of two months.
>> okay.
>> that is pushing, a minimum of two months.
>> in terms of establishing our internal team, though, we could probably do that in two weeks.
>> that is a three-two vote.
>> and we could extend.
>> based on everything I have heard over the last few months this is a three-two vote.
an agonizing decision.
>> what about identifying an unbiased knowledgeable third party to do a work session with us on p 3?
>> we can do that in two weeks probably if we can identify whoever we would listen to.
>> my residual, my continuing concern about the rfi coming back on April 29 is that we don't have the people in place to evaluate the information we get.
>> we can add another month to April 29.
I just don't think we ought to sit around and wait until the time expires.
>> doesn't sound like we will have those people in place a month either.
I think that we can move on tha.
>> I think we ought to assume it's going take some time.
I would hate, we have all said how major this decision is.
we shouldn't proceed down a road with several 3-2 votes.
I just see them.
that is based on experience here and not necessarily prognostic ating.
>> I just want to add, yobble we should seek to educate ourselves by those who are trying to sell us on their product.
>> right.
>> it will not be unbiased.
we need to have the education on the front end fro less biased resources that give us the pros and cons.
actually, I believe we can get much of this information without having to go to a rfi.
>> as far as the work session and education, belinda just pointed out we have been in contact with kevin jobs and rodney gonzalez over at the city of Austin and kind of talking with them in generally terms about some of the projects they have done that are a p 3 type projects, and that has many different definitions.
if you would like, we could reach out and see if they would be willing to come over and visit with the court about some of thirtheir projects, probably three or four we have talked about that might be helpful for you.
we would be happy to do that if you like for us.
>> sounds like that could be something for a work session and server as a base.
>> isn't there a national association of organizations that do this kind of work?
>> urban land institute has products that we might could get someone from them to work with us.
a can aid anyfirm that has done an analysis from--canadian firm has done an analysis from the public certain side.
I believe the resources are out there.
>> I also recently attended the continuing legal education conference on nothing by p 3 that had many good individuals and resources.
>> it might be our while for some small investment in this to get the perspective we need.
for example, the brooklyn courthouse or long beach courthouse and some of the public sector individuals involved in those processes.
at minimum, we should tap those resources informationally, whether or not we bring something here to talk to us.
but we don't need to get all of our information from those who are competing for our contract.
>> suggesting that while we get this on the street and at least start getting the information, and in addition to that have any number of individuals come in.
might be helpful in terms of education and getting a general feel.
>> although I do have a legal question with regards to a rfi which ultimately will lead you, rfp or rfs, and the proprietary information and the effects from I suppose a legal and fact question with regard on to proprietary information.
>> I have a question.
>> we will take it into executive session this afternoon under consultation with attorney and get those questions answered.
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.
