Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 (Agenda)
Item A1
>> This morning we completed all of our work except item a1 and that's what we will take up at this time.
consider and take appropriate action to give direction and/or a charge to the civil and family courthouse internal team regarding request for services for assistance for the project.
and we did discuss this item last Thursday in our work session, and decided to put it on today's agenda for further consideration.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, rodney rhoades.
you have before you two -- a -- an internal team charge for the preparation of an rfs for the civil and family courthouse and actually you have two charges, one, to direct the team to prepare the rfs, to secure an outside expert or group of experts to evaluate p3 options submitted in the request for information that was released on April 19 and is due back at the end of June, to provide -- to secure that outside expert to provide advice on development options for the new civil and family courthouse, and finally, to secure outside experts or a group of experts in financial, legal program management to work with the internal team on moving directly toward an rfq development should it be determined that continued external assistance is needed.
the second charge before you today is for the internal team to develop a draft time line and a process for the design and construction of the new civil and family courthouse including the appointment of internal and external stakeholder groups that might provide input into the process as well.
>> I have added a little language, just to kind of clarify some of yours.
in my draft, I have added in the third bullet under 1, where we say rfq development should it be determined.
>> yes, sir.
>> I added by the Commissioners court the implication is there, that's the intention, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I also added in the last line, expedites the schedule for the development of a courthouse project by -- I just added other courthouse project, but I added in two after stakeholder group.
I added for consideration -- for appropriate consideration and action by the Commissioners court.
and the intention is there is simply to indicate that what we expect from the internal team are recommendations to the Commissioners court for final decision.
>> absolutely, yes, sir.
>> can I just -- if I could just describe the context that I am seeing this in and see if the court agrees.
what we have done so far is to approve the issue answer of an rfi that is on the street and the deadline for responses is June 30th, 2011.
and during previous discussions, we concluded, I think, that we probably should go ahead and get professional assistance to help us evaluate the responses that we get.
right?
>> yes, sir.
my opinion is that as we evaluate responses, on the one hand we are trying to determine the feasibility of p3, a pub like-private partnership.
on the other hand we macon collude the p3 worked for us but it still leaves work to be done on a civil and family courthouse.
>> absolutely.
>> was that -- so the south side help was supposed to help with the p3, I guess, first but also if that's rejected, we would need assistance with just a civil family law courthouse.
and that would bring into play the financial, the legal, and I guess programmatic design, management, et cetera that you mention in your -- in the third bullet under 1.
>> yes, sir.
>> now we all -- are -- am I sort of of accurately describing where we are for the court?
>> the previous --
>> since the previous action was taken, I would say so.
>> right.
so when rodney and I chatted, the previous language really dealt with more of us getting help to determine the feasibility of a p3, which is fine, but if the answer to that is no, that won't work for us, then we would still need that outside help to complete the project, is what I was thinking.
so I didn't have in mind necessarily just a p3 expert.
I had in mind a p3 expert with some knowledge of financing, legal, if possible, courthouses --
>> whether it meets Travis County ability --
>> right.
>> -- in Texas law.
>> affordability, legal, there are a whole lot of issues.
if you've got high-rise experience in dealing with big financial issues and complex construction projects, I mean, you may well possess expertise we are looking for.
so I guess -- I don't know that the court ever squarely described it that way but I -- I mean, I thought the implication was always there.
>> judge, if you recall last week when we -- when we made our presentation in the work session, we had talked about kind of going in a little bit different direction and there are specific reasons that that recommendation was being made to secure the consultant to assist us in the evaluation of the and make the appropriate recommendations and then to assist us in securing the external team, if you will, the owners' representative that would come in and actually be us throughout the project.
so we acknowledged that expertise would be needed regardless of whether we go p3 or not, but last week when we talked, that was the -- the majority of the internal team's recommendation to the Commissioners court to pursue that avenue versus go directly to the external team and there are some -- some reasons for that that we would be happy to discuss.
I think that our attorneys might give you input on that.
>> in executive session?
>> yes, please, that would be our recommendation, that we discuss a couple of matters with you in executive session.
>> is this the best time for it?
>> yes, sir, I think it would be good to have those matters in mind as you proceed on and consider the other options that you have.
>> okay.
and in terms of who goes in executive session, john, anybody that the court wants to.
except all of our lawyers have the right to go, I think.
>> actually because this this is to receive the advice of counsel, it is the attorney -- your attorneys and anyone that the attorneys believe will be helpful in presenting the legal issues to you that they need to talk about, in this case, our recommendation would be that it would be a good idea to have your entire internal team, at least the ones who are here to have all of the internal team present during the executive session.
>> when I look around and started counting lawyers, I wondered whether we had enough chairs, but we do.
>> if you would like to have judge deeds, I can tell you he will be welcome as far as I am concerned.
>> okay.
therefore, this is the right time -- good as time as any, right?
I always welcome good, sound legal advice.
so at this time, we will convene in executive session under the consultation with attorney, except to the open meetings act to get advice from our lawyers.
we will not take any action there.
we will return to open court as soon as we have received that advice.
and our team members are all welcome.
>> we return from executive session where we discussed the only item we announced.
the one involving the civil and family courthouse project.
we've got legal advice, this this matter will be back on court's agenda next Tuesday, hopefully with an rfs, for the court to consider and take action on and we did discuss and request that certain language be provided in the alternative so we could make choices.
any other discussion today?
shall we post it for executive session next week or --
>> yes, sir, I think that makes sense to post it for executive session.
>> any action we will take will be in open court.
>> yes, sir.
>> anything further on this item?
>> move we adjourn.
>> second.
all those in favor?
that passes by unanimous
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.
