Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 6
Item number 6 is next.
6 is to approve request for services, rfs, for a consultant to provide services regarding a new civil and family courthouse, including determining the feasibility of entering into a public-private partnership, p 3, rfs number s 110505-cg, and authorize purchasing agent to issue rfs.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
marvin bryce, assistant purchasing agent.
as you're aware last week the court directed staff to bring a request for services before you guys today to determine the feasibility to hire a consultant to -- hire a consultant to determine the feasibility of the private-public partnership for the design of a new civil and family court.
and also in that charge for them to look at the results of a request for qualifications we can have on the street which responses are due on June 30th.
staff has worked together.
you guys should have been presented -- provided with the draft rfs I think sometime last week.
you should have that before you.
we're here.
we think it's ready to go.
you guys might have a different opinion.
we're here to answer any questions that you all may have and hopefully get authorization to issue it.
and if so, we are ready to pull the trigger on that tomorrow.
>> court members?
by the way, we did -- judges dietz and shepherd, are they still coming?
>> judge, this is (indiscernible).
I thought he was coming.
>> I think I told him we would reach this item at 3:15.
we're five or six minutes early.
>> yes, sir.
I believe that judge dietz had every intention of being here.
>> we went through a work session not too long ago and during that work session it was a timeline, schedule, a whole bunch of other things that was discussed, the affordability of what we were looking at, how much money can we issue as far as debt is concerned to stay within some type of affordability range.
I think they suggested I think $400 million.
as far as that's concerned, I think 250 million for civil courthouse and I think we suggested $150 million for (indiscernible).
for drainage and open space.
my question then was to ask the timeline as far as how long do we have out when we had bond counsel here before this court who gave a presentation.
of course, it was -- I think Commissioner Gomez, she requested we had a work session so folks could have things laid out.
there was a lot of good information that was laid out.
one of the things I had was the timeline, if we were to do the things we're doing what would be the timeline when any of this could be implemented?
and if I recall I wanted pbo to tell me exactly what those time lines are because I told them we were going to have the timeline.
what was the time lines discussed, what were the time did it need to go before the voters, for the voters to approve certain things.
what would those days that we could hitch on as far as the amount of debt.
this is talking about the civil and family courthouse.
of course, there were several things that were laid out during that time.
I think I may want to revisit or rehear what pbo said because it just appeared to me that there are some time lines, and also bond insurance scheduling of what we're talking about here that may need to be revisited.
so I think everybody can kind of be on the same page again during that work session that Commissioner Gomez requested.
of course we heard from you.
so could you basically -- somebody basically talk to me and tell me what's the deal?
>> during the course of the work session we had discussions of a very rough draft of the timeline that we are hope to go use as basis for refinement and once some outside experts are secured.
but it was intended to try to give you the magnitude of the size of the project, how long that we would anticipate the project to take, and then also to point out that the process in the very early stages where we are now, including the rfi, the rfs, the lease, evaluations of the rfi, and then a slks of selection of whether the court wants to pursue a p 3 development or to move toward a bond referendum would be somewhere in the September/october time frame.
so obviously with that in mind the November date that we had targeted for this current effort that our bond study committee is currently under, we did not anticipate that we would be able to make that for this project.
and I think that the general feeling was that we're not going to be able to make that date.
in addition to that we had also built in some of the different stages or what we call phases of the project to get us to construction and occupancy of the building with a tentative target date of February of 2017 for our occupancy of the facility.
this is a very, very conservative schedule.
it's very rough as I mentioned during the work session.
but those are kind of some target time lines that we had established and considered.
>> what was significant about the 2017 date?
>> well, it was just how we got to the overall construction.
we anticipated about 30 months of construction and then two months of occupancy.
and so it's just how that -- the timeline laid out after we started plugging in all of the various steps that we could identify in this process.
>> but there were some -- when we had bond counsel here, I guess it was glen (indiscernible), and vin son elkins.
and I believe we had ladd pattillo here during the same discussion.
there were some dates that were laid out on the table and I can't recall what those dates were as far as being discussed, as far as if the voters would like to take a crack at this for voter approval, then what would those dates be if the -- if the November date of course is something that we can't look at?
because I think if I recall correctly, if bonds are -- if voter approved bonds have to be looked at to do a project, I think there has to be some kind of order by August or something.
is that correct?
>> I think it was by -- the first part of August.
right.
>> so I?m trying to put all these little bits and pieces together, especially if there's a possibility that some of this could be voter approved stuff.
and right now there were some dates that were in 2012.
what were those dates?
>> may and November are the two uniform election dates.
>> may 12 and November of 2012.
>> that's correct.
>> is that correct?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
that's all I have for right now.
but I?m going to come back to you a little later.
>> okay.
I wanted to touch on a couple of points that are included in the rfs if I could.
you have before you basically the internal team that met in putting this together, we put together two alternatives before the court to consider based on the discussion that we had during the work session.
alternative number 1 is the -- is the proposal that was brought to you during the work session that basically secures an external expert that cannot be -- cannot act as the owner's representative or act as a part of the private partner team should a p 3 be selected.
that is alternative number 1.
alternative number 2 provides a court with a little bit more latitude in terms of letting you make that discussion once an outside expert or experts are selected to allow them to compete for the owner's representative portion.
and so we wanted to bring that to you.
those are really the two alternatives, so the single point that we would need court to decide on today.
the rfs is -- if approved today, is scheduled to, as marvin mentioned, be at least tomorrow and would be due back by two p.m.
on June the 24th, which would allow us time -- if you recall the rfi responses are due back at the end of June and then the evaluation process will take place shortly after.
a couple of things that I did want to point out on page 2 of the rfs, you have definitions.
the team did this in an effort to try to standardize some of the terminology that we would be using as we went forward.
things like owner's representative, what does that mean?
things like consultant, what does that mean?
concept and objectives, we wanted to try to clearly define concepts and objectives.
one point that I did want to make is during the course of the discussion we heard a lot from the members of the court regarding a process and strategy for communication both internally and externally.
and we had included that as a part of -- as a part of this document as well.
and then also a discussion of the best value for money for the taxpayers of Travis County.
and so that value for money analysis is also included in the definitions as well.
as we mentioned during the work session we broke this down into multiple phases.
we have it broken down into four phases with phase 1 being the -- securing the release of the rfs to secure an outside expert to assist us with the rfi evaluations are again due back on June 30th.
phase 2 being the selection of an owner's representative should the court choose to move down that road and we could either again depending on the alternative that you choose, if you choose alternative 2 today, then the expert that we would secure through this rfs would have the ability to compete to be that owner's representative.
and then finally phase 3 and 4 would be the selection of a private partner at that selected and then the design construction and ultimate occupancy of the courthouse.
so we've don't broan it down into those four phases and that's also contained as a part of the scope of services.
that is really the highlights of what I wanted to make for sure we pointed out.
we tried to address all of the court's concerns as it relates to value for money as well as a communications plan that would address both internal and external constituents as we go forward.
>> how much money are we basically talking about here?
I think it's a real big deal.
all across the board.
because my bottom line is dollars, money.
money.
money.
and if that is the case, what are we really talking about as far as money is concerned?
period.
>> I think at this point, Commissioner, we need to get responses back and see what kind of -- what kind of a cost we are talking about.
I will tell you that there is a courthouse reserve that has been it established.
we visited with the civil district judges and I believe, not to speak for judge dietz, but I think he concurs that that's an appropriate use of those funds for this consultant, so we do have funds available and --
>> just for the consultant.
>> for the consultant.
yes.
>> I?m talking about the building itself.
I know we haven't decided whether we want to go partnership, nor have we decided whether we want to go design-build, but at the end of the day, at the end of the day the public is going to have to pay for it.
I don't care how you shake this out in any shape, form or fashion.
the taxpayer and public has to pay for this.
now I guess my question is how much are we talking about.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ...
I don't know where the voters are on this.
I don't know.
and I need to know in a, since we already know this, I guess what the purpose of the consultant is to do what?
>> the purpose of this particular rfs to secure an outside expert would be to assist the internal team in going with the rfi responses released in April.
we anticipate having again those responses back in -- on June 30th.
we hope to have this outside expert under contract shortly after that, and begin working on evaluation, the intent of getting this expert is to -- is to solely go through the rfi responses and give us their input and their opinions based on their expert knowledge and then to make recommendation back to the Commissioner's court as to what direction to take from that point, and that's your decision point for whether you want to do a public/private partnership or whether you want to go a traditional bond route and then at that point, the decisions can be made and we can go back and refine the schedule a little bit more.
so that's the intent of this.
>> under contract at the present time.
>> do we have consultants?
>> to do something like we have to do today.
let me ask you this question.
>> do we have contracts -- do we have consultants that we have hired in the past to do the work today that we are asking for this rfi, rfs request?
>> we have consultants, Commissioner, under contract.
I?m not certain that they had this particular skill set that we're looking at.
I think what we're trying to do is trying to find the best of the best and the way we feel to go about that is to solicit the open market.
this thing will be placed on bid sync so it will go out literally to the world, like I said we're trying to get the best of the best for this particular skill set.
>> how much do we have budgeted for this request, for this rfs?
how much is budgeted?
>> we have a civil courthouse reserve that was created and as of today --
>> is it really -- I?m a little concerned about putting a number out there when we're going to put an rfs on the street that that puts us at a competitive disadvantage to say how much we're willing to spend.
>> no, no, no, notly, and the point is if we have some money out there that we're going to use, then we're going to use that money, that doesn't help to be the -- the exact amount, people are going to -- if this is a request for services, people are going to compete for it.
>> right.
>> they're going to compete for it.
>> as I said, Commissioner, we do have a courthouse reserve, a portion of that courthouse reserve would be used for this consultant.
>> for this particular expert.
another portion of that courthouse reserve we will be asking in the next week or so to use another portion of that to go through the refinement of the downtown mcallister park -- mast relates to the courthouse, and we'll be bringing that item probably in about two weeks for the courthouse.
the intent of that reserve was to handle any miscellaneous expenses as it relates directly to the civil and family courthouse, and that's -- that's what we're proposing to do.
>> all right.
how much is in the courthouse reserve, do you know?
>> it's -- as of today, a little over $2 million.
>> $2 million.
>> that's an answer.
>> yeah.
>> more than enough money to cover this expense related --
>> yes.
>> and not enough to build a courthouse.
>> no, sir, but it is enough to get it started and moving down the road which is the intent of the reserve.
>> do we know what the charge was for the -- those particular courthouses -- well, it's actually one that was a t-3, and -- and that was the one I guess up in brooklyn, new york.
do we have any idea of what they end up using?
did they reveal any financial dollars to that effort of looking at the t-3 aspect as far as the -- what was their expenditure?
did they release that information or did we ask?
>> I don't think we specifically --
>> the brooklyn t-3 --
>> I don't specifically think we asked for the break down.
I think we asked for the total project costs.
I?m sure that we could get that, though, Commissioner.
>> is it an apples to apples comparison considering it's a much larger facility, the land owner is not the governmental entity, what exactly are you looking for out of that?
>> are you looking to get a -- kind of a rough estimate on the budget break -- from a break down perspective?
>> yeah, and basically, if we're going to -- in other words, looking at different components here, one going to be looking at p3 and you're going to be looking at other things.
>> why don't we inquire.
>> yeah, and also whether it's design/build.
it's going to be different aspect of this thing.
of course I want to make sure that we maximize any information that we have available that we have excess of information.
it's an effort to maximize information that we do not have available at this point.
>> sure.
>> we'll inquire to see if we can get that for you.
>> it's only one in the state -- in the country right is for the p3 courthouse that has been built.
>> two.
long beach.
>> one that is supposed to come online --
>> brooklyn and long beach.
>> -- there's not information on it, that's the second one.
but anyway, we do know of one -- that is the one in brooklyn.
>> we can work on getting that for you, Commissioner.
>> judge deece?
>> Commissioner, judge, thank you.
I?m in somewhat of a dilemma, because I know from my own job that people don't like to be told what to do, and -- and yet I find myself in this position that 968 days ago the -- every district judge of Travis County, 16 of them, all of the county court at law judges and the probate judge and the justice of the peace wrote all of you a letter, and the letter said in part, excuse me, that despite our efforts at on going productive conversations with the court, we are troubled that there exists no plan, no design, and no building in progress for the future of our county's court system.
we have repeatedly indicate that there exists no additional space for courts or their ancillary functions in the heman, mary and sweat courthouse and that in two to four years we expect to experience the same situation at the blackwell thurman criminal justice center.
there is a necessary lag time for the effective planning, design and building of the new facilities from five to eight years, respectfully, in our collective judgment, a crisis exists today, given the lead time necessary for an orderly approach, the facilities improvement, any further delay by the county will only exacerbate the crisis.
given that we understand one another's responsibilities, we are at a loss to explain or justify the lack of a plan to move forward.
we respectfully suggest that it is vital to act now to address the clear need for the future and to design and build these necessary facilities.
as elected officials, we will join with you in a discussion with our fellow Travis County citizens about the urgency for space to meet the vital public need for an effective, responsive and accessible justice system.
now, I know that y'all are responsive to that.
I can look, for instance, Commissioner Huber, on your website, where in January of 2010, in an article entitled looking back and looking forward, you wrote one of the most frustrating things that I have encountered is how slowly our government system works.
the good news is that most of the changes are generally well-vetted, but the downside is that these things that we know we want change are painfully slow in getting to happen.
so what is before the court today?
essentially you have a proposal that there are two plans, one plan is this.
as you have said, Commissioner Gomez, and on your website, you tout the fact that in your lengthy service on this court you have supported over $400 million worth of bonds for improvement to the county, but one proposal is that we do the bond issue, and yet is there anybody here in this room that believes in this current economic situation that we can pass a bond proposal?
I have to tell you that I have been out and about in the community and quite frankly I have yet to meet a single individual who believes that in this current climate, with the state, unlike the county, the state has not been good stewards of their finances, but they tout that they're a $23 billion deficit, that they're going to have to lay off teachers, the Austin independent school district, every school district in this state is probably going to have to cut back and -- and we are going to lose teachers to teach our children, and so this is not a good climate in which to be asking -- I?m sorry, Commissioner Davis is on the phone -- but for asking for a voter approval of a 250 to a $300 million project.
now, what we have tried to do, and many of us have been involved from Commissioner Huber to judge Biscoe, to your executive team, is to go out and to develop another proposal.
this rfs asks y'all to do this.
which is better for the citizens and the taxpayers of this county who are going to foot this project?
is it better to do our traditional bond approach or is it better to do the public/private partnership?
and the suggestion is is that we hired, since we don't have that capacity to make that type of analysis in house, that we go out and we obtain a consultant who does not have an economic incentive in terms of the outcome and that we get this consultant to advise us and in picking a financial consultant and a legal consultant to analyze so that y'all can turn and face the public and say to the public that either the p3 will work or we need to do the traditional bond, or we need to do a blend of those.
but the frustration is this: that the ones who have this discretion to make this happen is not your executive team.
it is not the people that work in that courthouse.
it is y'all.
and I know each and every one of you have said, well, we support the courthouse.
yes, of course.
it's only a matter of time before we can -- we are out of space in that 81-year-old building, already under the guidelines that y'all adopted, you acknowledge that you have your justice system in 49% of the space that it currently needs, and if this bond issue should fail in November of 11, should you keep us on this track, what is the alternative?
well, the alternative is to keep the justice system and the public that it serves, the over 300,000 people, who come into the courthouse each year and to keep them in an increasingly aging building that has major security issues and we're just waiting for someone to get injured.
so respectfully, Commissioners, this is in your discretion.
but as we said 968 days ago, we are totally out of space and we need your help, respectfully.
thank you.
>> judge, I do remember those comments and I do remember us having a discussion about the need, and I?ve said from the very beginning that I was for building the civil courthouse or the family center, or whatever we're going to call it.
my kill lemma is in -- dilemma is in trying to find the proper approach to getting this funded, somehow.
and -- and, yes, it is a bad time and I don't know if any of us knew that the economic -- I think we kind of know, though, because it's cyclical, the economy slump eventually comes, and so, you know, I don't know that we can blame each other for that situation, but we have to deal with it.
but at the same time I think in your remarks, it just kind of mentioned that the conversation needed to take place between this court, staff, and other county employees, and including the judges and the public, and I think that is one point that I have stressed from the beginning, that I think the conversation regarding the need for this courthouse, whether it's on the bond or through co's, has to be shared with the stakeholders, and those are the taxpayers, as well as all of us.
and what I heard in recommendations, those stakeholders have to have that conversation very early, and I think, you know, what my frustration is that I believe that we try to take shortcuts because we know that the pressure is there, that you're running out of space, and -- and I know it's my job to try to provide space, but I also want to provide it in a way that involves the public, because whether -- if we go co's, they're still going to hear about that tax increase that would take place, but the other thing is that -- that whether we go co's or bond, you know, it still means that we have to converse with all of the stakeholders, which includes the public.
and so my frustration has been that I think that -- I think we had some folks in place that could help us through this process faster and I think I?ve gotten the feeling.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I?ve gotten the feeling of being rushed because of this, and I don't feel comfortable doing it in that manner.
>> well, may I say, respectfully, Commissioner, because your political career and mine have pretty much tracked.
I came in '91 and you were sworn in as Commissioner in '95, and I remember swearing in ceremony where we both got sworn in again.
what is being proposed first of all, the one thing that we have said that has been really important, it would have been easy to take people that we had and that we had contracts and say just extend the contract.
the judges have unanimously spoken and I feel very comfortable with judge kasurik here and the criminals, that we have said that it is in our opinion necessary to put all future work on this courthouse into a competitive bid situation, for two reasons.
number one, through competition, supposedly, you will get the stronger bidder.
and then secondly, how better to inspire the public confidence as they worry about is their dollars -- are their dollars being misspent, that all of the procurement process occurs in -- under these cameras in this court where everybody can see what the situation is, rather than some extension that gives the illusion or odor of a back room deal.
so better -- and so we have recommended, and y'all have voiced support that we use an open procurement process, in all manners and in all situations of this -- of this as we move forward on the civil and family justice center.
secondly, we spent two years in a planning process.
now, I agree with you that we need to do more work to engage the public to make our case, but I?m not aware of anyone making a shortcut in terms of how we have moved about in this.
I believe that we have moved about it in a step by step fashion, and as we are able to secure consensus by the court, then we take another step, and so I see this rfs, the request for service, to allow the executive team to advise the court as to which of these proposals, the p3 and the traditional budget -- by the way, I brought for -- I think it's for your edification.
this is a wikipedia article on the duvall county courthouse, which the bonds passed in jacksonville, florida, in the year 2000 for $190 million courthouse.
it is not open yet.
and the total cost of it is three -- Commissioner, is 350 million, and we met with people that are constructing this courthouse.
but it is an example of what happens when these projects get delayed, they only increase in cost, and so respectfully, it seems to me that the rfs allows this court to analyze which is the best approach.
and it may be the traditional tried and true approach of bonded indebtedness where we take advantage of our -- of our 3a rating and our superior rating, that we take advantage of it to get cheap money and construct it as we -- we sheppard that process, or it may be cheaper in the long run to do it through the p3.
but as we sit here now, nobody knows which one of those is better or whatever, and so I think the executive team has put together a pretty good proposal for about how we secure the help that we need who does not have the economic incentive in terms of the outcome to advise us and to advise this court.
judge livingston.
>> I was going to point out a couple of things.
>> judge livingston.
>> I?m sorry, judge, it's a professional --
>> thank you, sir, I?m so used to taking the ball from him over at our other building.
thank you, judge Biscoe and to all of the Commissioners.
I want to echo a couple of points about the cost n.2007 when we sent that letter over here, it was expensive to build a courthouse, it didn't get cheaper since then.
it will be more expensive in 2008.
it will be more expensive in 2012.
it will be more expensive in 201, it's not going to get any cheaper by delaying it.
it seems if you're feeling rushed and you're feeling like you don't have enough information, seems like the perfect answer to that is to get more information.
we do that all the time at the courthouse.
two people come to us in the courthouse, they say a, they say b, and we say what do the experts say.
we get objective information.
and that's what you need.
information that is objective.
information that is thoughtful.
information that is not biased by anybody who has a financial stake in the outcome.
what you need is objectivity and expertise and we don't have that available to us unless we go out and get the best of the best to provide it to us, and that is exactly what this rfs accomplishes.
with regard to the public input, I wanted to add that I participated in a number of public meetings where the master plan for the county was vetted and overwhelming the members of the public who attended the meetings I attended felt positive about this project.
I have not heard much in the way of negativity about the need for a courthouse.
now, there's lots of rumor and buzz about should it be downtown, should it be at highland mall, or should it be somewhere else, but there is overwhelming support because the need is so obvious and so great.
at the public meeting I went to at the capitol, for example, some fella who I never met before came up to me and said, "thank you so much for telling the story about the working conditions you have at the courthouse, because I was not aware of it".
I have friends who come to the courthouse to take care of business who say, oh, my god, I can't believe you work in that building.
it's awful.
all you need to do is walk over there and the need is obvious.
so we're past that point.
you've expressed support for it.
what you need now is information and the only way to get it honestly is to get the experts who know what they're doing, who have the expertise, who can analyze this project objectively, to present that to you so that you can make a good and informed decision.
that is not only going to inspire public confidence.
it's going to inspire public support.
they're going to get behind it.
they're going to want to have more input into how it looks, what it looks like, what functions it might have after five o'clock, people will be excited about the participation in it when they have good information and the only way you're going to get that is through the hiring of experts who know what they're doing.
>> judge deece, I just wanted to add that I think all of our processes here have always been open.
I don't know that we've ever had any process that didn't go through the purchasing department.
these -- the same review has been done to all of those -- to anyone that we contract with, and -- and they're all done out here in public.
so I don't know of anything that I have participated in that has been not done in the open.
but -- and I want to continue that.
I want that to continue.
but, yes, I think I heard some people being in support of the courthouse.
the only thing is they don't know the details, and so we have more sharing to do with the public.
yes, it does get more expensive, I know that very well with experience with the cjc.
I don't want to repeat that experience, and so that was the other concern that I had in -- in not delaying the project, and also not taking shortcuts but I?m very much away of the need for space.
I?m very much aware of the need to find the information that I need and feel comfortable to move forward, and of course the taxpayers.
I want them to know everything that I do.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> we'll get you that.
>> judge deece?
>> I was not here 968 days ago, but I would like to think I?m a fairly quick learner and I have been one of the biggest proponents of moving forward with the civil courthouse, I also because of my real estate experience and what I think I know about how the county works and the public versus the private sector, believe that I?m very strong proponent of a p3 process, at least at this time.
my problem has been from the get-go, since the vote was taken recently is the process that we're going through.
it's not the -- the end result is the same.
we all want a courthouse.
we all want it done right.
I am not comfortable right now with our internal process as we move through this in value waiting what we are looking at as our end product, and I stand firm in my belief, based upon my own experience, that the process that we're going through internally right now is not in the best interest of the taxpayers, the community, or the county.
so that is where my objections are coming from.
I appreciate the fact that you went through all of my peaveious writings to say that our process was painfully slow in getting results and it is.
we are an organization in a state that has archaic county style government, where we have rule by committee and we are constrained by open meetings act and being able to educate and get consensus.
so it does become painfully slow.
I wish we could do it faster.
but I?m committed to trying to do it right.
>> and may I respectfully say that, Commissioner, at some point we are not in control of this.
and it's really up to the court to work as a team.
I mean, and that is what's going to -- when the court itself rather than the divisions, when the court itself is unified and -- and moving forward, that's the only way this project is going to be built, no matter -- I know y'all get a lot of foot traffic in through your offices saying do this, and do that, but somehow y'all are going to have to work this out.
the point I?m trying to make is we serve a lot of people.
there are a lot of citizens, there's not another county building -- in fact, I?ve said in the downtown, the number one foot traffic is the capitol.
number two has got to be whole food.
and the courthouse is the number 3 most visited place in the central business district.
and is this -- is that courthouse what you want to put forward to the citizens of Travis County as the best that we can do?
and the answer is, no, it's not.
and we're not asking for a taj mahal.
what we have asked for are things that are functional, functional for people who come.
we've asked for a jury center and pro se, in the last two days I?ve done 50 case, 30 of which have been pro se divorces, well, where -- where is our pro se center?
compared to the one that we saw in meklenburg our pro se center is smaller than this courtroom.
and we need an expansion there.
we need when children come we're not sitting there with baited breath hoping they don't fall down the stone stairway, that we have an appropriate day care center for the children who visit there, and there's a number of things, whether it -- in terms of the way we serve the public, not the one that we don't want to talk to all that much, but it concerns the security.
and everybody has alerted this court and y'all have been responsive with providing us with additional security, but that is a -- is a ticking situation over there, and if we're to wait something trajic occurs, think about how that will feel when that happens, respectfully this is in your hands not our hands.
>> a p 3 traditional style, whatever.
you can look at all of the literature that's out there on it.
we know every p 3, for example, is different from the next.
there are pitifully few for us to push up against.
almost everything that I have read on these says get your external and internal stakeholders together, have your visioning process, take a look at what the needs are from the court stand point, the community standpoint, the county standpoint, the taxpayers standpoint.
get your vision.
assess your internal strengths and weaknesses, identify the weaknesses and figure out what you need to fill in there.
we have not done that.
we have jumped in with an internal team using the resources they have available at their hands without knowing what their weaknesses are and we have drafted an rff.
>> but it sounds to me like that is a plea for some external assistance because our -- because we are not able to do it with our current.
so might we use this request for services to obtain the external contractual assistance that doesn't have a dog in the hunt?
>> I don't think we know what our weaknesses are yet.
we have --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we can't keep asking questions without employing the people who can give you the answers
>> [laughter]
>> trying to get a professional person in here to help us.
I don't know how you do it go out and pick somebody, if we can legal look that.
or compete.
but we're trying to get someone in here who has a lot more expertise and time than we have available at the county.
this is how we normally do it.
>> we haven't been through a stakeholder process that would --
>> we're not excluding it.
>> we did spend a considerable amount of money on the broadest contract to do a full assessment of the central business district as well as stakeholders meetings with those inside the courthouse, those who use the courthouse and those who live around the courthouse.
we do have at least a blocking exercising knowing how much square footage we need.
we also know what the opinion of the community is in our current courthouse.
we know what the opinion is from the local bar as well as from the local bench as to the utility of our current house and utility of another courthouse.
we are not at square one.
we have made some strides.
but it does appear that we need in expertise with regard to figuring out how we would go about the financing and design of what we now know we need for square footage.
so all that I?m asking is procedurally how can we improve what's in front of us today that will not preclude the steps that you are begging us to take, which I agree with we need to take.
it is perhaps not in the order that each one of us would choose.
but I think we must move forward.
I think we must move forward for the good of -- of our bench, our bar and the community as a whole.
we can't keep asking questions while refusing to employ the folks who can give us the answers.
>> it will take -- okay, on rfi, the responses are due in six weeks.
if we issue this, if we approve this today and issue it tomorrow, it will take six to seven weeks to get this help on board.
we have said we would not evaluate the rfi responses until after we got the consultant on board.
during the next six or seven weeks, there's nothing to keep us from looking at the appointment f an interior and external stakeholders committee.
first we've got to figure out what kind of people we want to there, what background.
then how we as five people or as a county government go about selecting those people.
and in my view, we can get that done in six to seven weeks.
eight, 10, eight, nine, 10 weeks from now, we hopefully will have a draft, formal proposal together where we either issue an rfq, or rfp, whatever we decide to do, and there really is no time table on that except moving as special expeditiously as possible.
if it takes us three months to do that, so be it.
my point is we kind of have been looking at the rfp, rff discussing it for some time.
I think we are unanimous in that we need professional outside help.
if we don't get it this way, the question is we can post another way to get it next week, if possible.
but without recommendations there's no way to do that.
in the end, though, if we have a consensus on this, at least we move the ball forward.
and I don't know why next week we wouldn't discuss the two stakeholder groups.
external, internal.
and if we need outside help on that from the public, from constituents, we can get it.
then we got six, seven, eight, weeks whatever time we need.
I don't know that there's anything magical about the order in which we're doing this.
I thought the rfi was real important for us to do, what I had in mind was an informal process.
I don't know whether any of the others did anything informal as formally as we have.
my idea was in two weeks, we come up with 10 questions, we give people two weeks to respond, that would just give us more information.
you wouldn't be bound in any manner by what you submitted, but we would take the information being formed and hopefully move to the next step.
so I mean I guess I don't -- I see this really as putting us in a position to compete for outside professional help and if we don't like the responses that we get, we go to something else.
my guess, though, is that there are people in our community and in Texas who have done this, have good experience, and will want to work with us.
and if we agree that they ought to be on board, then we contract with them.
but I don't know -- so if we don't like this one, then we need to take another week to refine it, so be it.
if there's another process that we think is better, have both of them on next weekend.
one way or the other.
in the end, though, I sense there won't be a 7-0 vote.
it will be divided.
but however the court wants to proceed is fine with me.
I kind of share the judge's frustration, though, in that I think we ought to go ahead and try to land on something that enables us to advance the ball, you know.
and I interpret their comments today to mean that they are still behind us 110%, they are with us as part of the team, they wish we could move faster.
but the issuance of this rff would be a step in the right direction.
did I interpret what you all said.
now, I used different words than y'all did.
I think we said about the same thing.
>> very well, yes.
>> so I guess if we don't do this today, what do we do?
>> how can it be improved?
>> I would like to know what the scoring process is going to be.
I don't know that we have the internal team to evaluate the scoring on this.
>> included in the rfs on page 23 of that document, you have the evaluation factors that are being proposed, those are expertise of personnel, 35%.
>> but we don't have the capacity in house to evaluate that.
>> should we hire a consultant to evaluate the -- the responses?
>> I think that we should have a team that should help us look at this.
>> who should be on the team.
>> somebody from external expertise.
>> what type of external expertise?
let's get it out so we can move -- so we know what we're working for.
>> real estate development, public sector finance.
we've got -- we've got real estate attorneys --
>> [multiple voices]
>> my pad of paper, I want everybody to know I have nothing to write on because morris priest took my pad of paper.
>> may I approach.
>> sure.
>> [laughter]
>> just one thing as it relates to the stakeholder groups both internal and external.
we have included in this that the respondent should during the contract term expect to solicit input from internal and external stakeholders.
so we have attempted to address all of the concerns that have been raised over the last couple of weeks.
throughout the course of the development of this rff.
after our discussions we went back and took a look at the process because the question of how was the time line developed was asked.
we mentioned that we used the long beach model as well as the model from canada.
I did want to point out, during the point, this came directly from the long beach mod dealt, during the preproper procurement phase.
they stressed throughout that model, through the process, to appoint the advisors, legal, financial and technical, which is what we've talked about, to appoint the steering committee or the internal team, to identify procurement options, bond versus p 3 which is what we're trying to get to, to provide a quantitative analysis, which is what we're trying to do.
to identify qualitative factors with each procurement option.
to present a business case on which approach to take.
when I went back and took a look at that, at least in my simple mind, I?m thinking to myself we're kind of moving down that path that has already been identified.
the only thing that we haven't done yet is identified whether we want to do a p 3 or not.
and we can't get to that point until we go through this --
>> [multiple voices]
>> let me just say something here because we keep talking about stakeholders, one of the things that's missing on the very front end of this is a visioning process with external stakeholders along with, yes we've got our own facilities analyzed and have a pretty good idea of what we need.
but we don't know what the community wants.
from a standpoint of what their vision is for this.
and how we can move forward, even with an rfi, when we don't know if getting with this vision, doing the visioning with external stakeholders and us tells us whether or not we want x number of square feet with x number of private office space or actually maybe after the fact we just need the building itself as a civil courthouse.
all of that ought to be done on the front end with a visioning so we know how to move forward.
if you'll reread the first two steps that you said there, I don't believe we've done those yet.
we've jumped down to three or four.
>> okay.
I would like very much to get back to what's on the agenda, though, which is this rfs.
how could we improve this rfs so that it captures some of what you're discussing.
you had mentioned outside evaluators of the rfs responses and I?m sorry I was scrambling for paper that morris priest has taken from me.
I had down real estate, financial, what else?
>> technical: that's what he said in his list there.
>> so as far as identifying these outside evaluators, should those individuals be identified recruited and identified by the Commissioners?
>> there are probably any number of ways to do that, yes.
>> [multiple voices], leadership in this communities, if we pulled together a visioning process --
>> we'll get to the visioning process.
how do we identify the outside evaluators for this rfs so we can get it on the street?
>> I don't have answers to all of your questions because we are so out of sync on my process understanding for this, that I don't know how to get to where we are on this and answers for your rfs because we haven't done the steps that I think are important first.
>> would you agree that we could identify outside evaluators after putting the rfs out.
>> this process is not going to work.
>> clearly it's not working.
>> it's not going to work.
I think if we kind of take another week and let's see where we can get some discussions going according to the open meetings act.
>> this is the only forum in which we can all discuss together.
>> but this process here -- tying down --
>> should we do another work session specifically for the rfs.
>> probably.
>> the work session that we had I thought was going to be informational for everybody on these steps and we did not have any of that included in the work session.
>> we have an rfi on the street.
the idea was I thought that it was going to address some of your concerns that we get an outside expert to evaluate what we were getting back from the rfi.
>> I have been opposed to the rfi since it was first conceptualized with all due respect to the judge, because we each have our different ways of approaching things.
>> we can wait more time.
but I don't know what specifically is being asked for by the Commissioners court to improve this rfs?
that's my dilemma.
we don't want to put an rfs out?
>> that's one of the issues, we didn't try to find out all of that information at the front end that's why I feel rushed.
>> what I need to feel is an actual proposal for how to do that.
we keep giving direction to staff, staff does it, they bring it back, it's like oops that's not enough, I need more.
that's fine, but let's be specific for what we're asking --
>> do you need another week, Commissioner Davis?
Commissioner Davis, do you need another week, too?
>> that's what I?m hearing.
nothing is really --
>> okay.
if we bring it back next week, do we bring back the same agenda item?
same backup or do we have different wording?
>> how do we have more discussion that is out in the open?
>> about what?
>> about the process that needs to come first.
>> we need more specificity.
>> I have a problem just -- on the wording.
>>
>> [indiscernible] public is screaming for answers, I hear them asking questions about what we're doing here.
they are concerned about the debt.
they are concerned about our budget this year they are concerned about a whole lot of things.
as stated earlier, at the end of the day, I don't care whatever format or arena we land in, at the end of the day it's going to have to have support of the taxpayers of Travis County.
because they're going to have to be the ones that ultimately foots the bill.
I don't know how much more plainer I can make that statement.
>> you have made that statement very plainly.
perhaps we could come up with for next week a proposal for how we would constitute a visioning exercise with external and internal stakeholders.
how about that?
we -- I?m mindful of the judge's desire and I agree with it to have an open and transparent process of competing for these things, we do have broaddus on contract with the subcontractor of
>> [indiscernible] communications, I don't know how you all feel about just moving forward under that contract with a visioning with external and internal stakeholders, but that's one possibility.
or to put a proposal on the street and bid it for internal and external stakeholder sessions, which certainly should occur.
if that needs to occur before this rfs goes out, then we need to get on it, it sounds like?
>> well, if we're going to do that, it would take more than one week to do it.
it won't take more than one week to put together the agenda language.
we have the agenda setting meeting tomorrow afternoon at 1:30.
we can impose a deadline of 12:00 Thursday just for the agenda wording for the next week.
what I will do ismail this out again and court members who want something added, we'll just put it on there.
we'll discuss whatever we have on the agenda next week.
if you have a certain idea, you have backup for it, then submit that with the language and we'll have it on there.
the problem is that I won't -- there won't be five of us I don't think agreeing on any one thing.
in a democracy you basically at some point at some time take a vote on it.
if we all favor getting this done, then I think we ought to be eager to move in the right direction.
and I don't know that I really am wedded to any particular one except movement.
a lot of work has been done on this.
staff can only do what we direct them to do.
the language that we told them about the alternative for whether or not you work with us after this stage is here.
we mentioned the stakeholders last week.
he they mentioned that.
we mentioned several other things.
it ain't here maybe in the language that Sam Biscoe would use, but it's acceptable language that gets done what we asked for, I thought.
in the end, though, the decisions are ours.
this is just one decision in a 20 step process basically.
we're still on the front end.
so we need to do some other things on the front end, fine, but I don't know that anything is magically number one.
if you got five things to do, I don't know that having map dated they be done in a certain order.
see what I?m saying?
maybe they ought to be done before you go to phase 2, which is step number 6.
so I -- I?m agreeable to doing whatever the court wants to do.
but we can do this language and if you don't like it, tweak it and send it to me, we'll do the modified language.
if we need to supplement this by adding other parts, we can do that, too.
the problem, though, is the language itself does not really inform you.
it's just in the case of the subject matter.
so if there is backup that we can see, if somebody will
>> [indiscernible] some steps that we think ought to be followed, I would just attach those to the backup, even if we already have it, I would attach those specific steps to the backup so we see exactly what the sponsoring language -- language sponsor really has in mind.
I mean, I think that's how we go.
in the end, though, I don't know, it doesn't bother me to bring other people into the process, but you have to figure out how to do that.
once you choose two or three people, there are two or three others that feel that they have been unfairly excluded.
so to be fair, means basically having more than one or two people involved.
but however we land on it is fine with me.
clearly we're not in a position to do this today.
>> clearly not.
>> so let's look to next week.
now, what I?m going to do is send the language that's on the agenda today to the court members for you to tweak as you deem necessary.
add language, delete language, stuff like that.
what I will try to do is achieve a consensus based on the feedback that I get.
the problem is that I don't know that I?m going to have a whole lot of new stuff to add.
if I don't get feedback, we probably will have pretty much the same language as here.
but I think others ideas should be included.
we can do that.
>> judge, is there any expectation from staff.
>> sleep well over the next two days, marvin.
>> can do.
>> and make sure that you come to work on Friday.
>> Friday.
>> this has been singled out to -- Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Gomez --
>> we've been singled out all afternoon.
>> I?m sorry, I don't know how else to talk to you.
if we give the broadest -- asking for more public input, there's really no down side to that.
but if we bring out what was done through the broaddus and the fact that they talked with the historical commission, they had public charettes, did other types of things would that provide a starting point by which then maybe we could get an idea from y'all's opinion about what more needs to be done in this process?
would that work?
>> are you talking about facilitated meetings with external stakeholders?
>> right.
in terms of both the visioning process, which we did have -- it may not have been complete, Commissioner, it may not have been as much as you think needs to be envisioned, but it did provide perhaps a starting point and then I know broaddus met with the neighborhoods around the courthouse, specifically got input about what they thought about the county's buildings, what they were looking for, so maybe would that provide a starting point about what more needs to be done?
>> that can provide in my opinion a framework but when that was done we were not looking at the block that we bought for the civil courthouse, that is a completely different profile.
so it's different stakeholders that should be included in the process like that.
plus we also have -- I?m sorry.
>> go ahead.
>> we have I mean there are other public September community -- public entities, the state, the city, those typically are involved in a stakeholder process like this as well.
we don't even know the opportunities that could come our way unless we go through that process.
>> from my standpoint, my point of view, I think those charettes were good, but they were for the downtown communities.
I think that we need to include those community that are located out of downtown.
they need to have a say as well because they carry part of the tax burden.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you.
>> appreciate your input.
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.
