Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 (Agenda)
Items 25 & 26
Now, we've got two items pertaining to the civil courts family law center, 25. 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 (p3), rfs no.
s110505-cg, and authorize purchasing agent to issue rfs.
26. consider and take -- 26 sort of pertains or should we call them both up and discuss 25 and 26.
>> don't matter.
>> probably facilitate our conversation to pull both of them, in my view.
appropriate action on the 26.
consider and take appropriate action on the following items regarding the Travis County civil and family law courthouse:
>>
>> : , selection of a count
>>
>> : , special projects team director and the steps necessary to implement it; issue request for services for financial advisor to develop value for money analysis for construction options, evaluate responses to the rfi and serve as financial advisor and consultant for the project throughout the project period; c modification of the contract with broaddus & associates to include a visioning process, including internal d, and external stakeholders; modification of the contract with ugl services to include real estate advisory services, including evaluation of responses to the rfi and serve as real estate advisor for the project throughout the project period; e, designation of an external consultant(s) team; f, designation of an internal Travis County team; and g, designation of a courts team of representatives of the civil and family courts.
and I simply indicate there that it may be taken into executive session under consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and Huber has been requested to be able to lay out item 26 preferably without court interruption and questions and comments afterwards.
>> should we take 25 first or 26 first?
>> I think we ought to take 26.
>> and 25, we had it laid out last week and decided to take another week on it as well as bring back to the court various other related items that I understand that all of 26 is exactly that.
what we laid out last week in terms of 25, ms. Grams, is basically what staff had put together, sort of based on comments from the court and other documents and information provided us from some of the firms that we chatted with, and I guess some -- some of the things that we learned from our visits with the courthouse folk in charlotte, brooklyn, and houston.
it basically is an rfs for a consultant mainly to help with evaluating responses to the rfi that have been on the street now, I guess, two or three weeks and whose deadline for responses is June is 30, 2011.
the one thing we left open that was addressed on back of the front page, as I recall, was whether this person would work with us throughout phase one or could be continued after phase one through phase two at the discretion of the Commissioner's court, and sid was not here last week but anything else you want to add to 25?
>> no, sir.
>> I think last week the court indicated basically the need for some time to mull over that, plus an opportunity to think about and discuss exactly how we thought we should proceed, and 26, I understand, sort of addresses that, how should we proceed part.
>> great.
>> thank you, judge.
it is about process.
but I would like to start out by saying I don't think -- I think whether it's 25 or 26, I think -- I don't want to be presumptuous but I think the goal we are looking for is a civil and family courthouse that meets the needs of the public, the courts, the community and serves interest of taxpayers which means one of the important and high priority tasks is to determine whether or not bond election for financing the entire or part of the project is the most fiscally responsible way to serve the taxpayers.
so, again, why is this agenda item needed in relationship to the other one?
I think it's important here that we start and we look back historically at not -- not belaboring it, but looking back at historically at what we have in place now, how our process was launched for this and kind of review and educate on that, because some people out there may be missing this.
they may not be aware of what the county has already done and already launched to these ends.
several years ago, they did indeed start the process of looking.
we knew we were behind and needed to address our facilities and we implemented a facilities master plan program.
we voted in may of 2009 to hire broaddus & associates to guide that program, providing analytical services for existing space, identify current space needs and future, data, services, square footage needs and community input for the overall facilities planning.
the court also voted on something else a few months later, to provide real estate services including leasing, purchasing, sales related to the master planning effort.
then the court last year -- early last year bought 700 lavaca to address the administrative office needs.
early on it was identify that there were priorities in the administrative space and court space on the front end -- that needed to be addressed on the front end of this planning process, so we bought 700 lavaca.
in December of last year, we purchased the museum block, and so that brings us to where we are now.
and where we are now, I would like to start with just a little -- just a little parallel relationship are.
when we do business as usual at home or at the county, we are working in a small area.
if -- life as usual at home, if we are going to take -- do something on Saturday, we may drive to fredericksburg, we don't need a plan for that, we may drive to galveston, this county working on this project or that little facilities project or that park project but if we are going to do something really big and something really complex, like at home f we could afford to take a trip around the world.
that's not like a trip to galveston.
that requires a lot of -- it is a complex, time consuming, expensive, complicated endeavor that requires reaching out to different experts to do the planning for it, before you launch on it.
I would put the civil courthouse in a context like that, as the most complex project the county has ever ponds taken and it will be the most expensive project the county has undertaken and it isn't business as usual for the county so we need to optimize our resources and do the appropriate planning for that and my concern, when the agenda item went up last time, is I don't believe by putting this rfs out the way it is designed the way it is in and of itself is enough of the front end planning to launch this process.
so we need to provide the framework, particularly for successful civil and family courthouse project regardless of the financing mechanism is chosen.
whatever framework we put in now, at least the preliminary part of it will work whether we end up doing a traditional take it to the voters build it with bonds, just a courthouse or if we end up doing something as opportunistic as a public/private partnership -- maybe I should say p3.
well, Travis County has many highly qualified staff.
their rules and responsibilities are particularly focused to ongoing services to the public.
Travis County lacks the internal expertise to program and manage a project of this magnitude.
it's just something too out of the ordinary for what our business as usual is.
therefore, it's critical that the Commissioner's court develop a clear and specific framework for addressing this task and accessing the needed expertise for a successful project.
we need an integrative framework that provides flexible and adaptive structure to manage the process.
we know from what we have heard in court before, if we end up doing a p3, for example, there are no p3 structures out there that are exactly alike.
we need to be flexible in the way we put our team together to deal with the opportunities that come along.
we need to be flexible if we take it out to the voters for bonds.
and do it just as a courthouse.
we need a team that can work with that.
we need to utilize expert resources already in place for continuance of a successful downtown planning -- for planning and projects.
the team is in places one that started several years ago.
it has worked well together and is real and is trusted.
framework needs to recognize the series of next steps that need to be addressed, including accountability to taxpayers.
that is the most important thing we need to do is recognize a project that will be accountable to our taxpayers in this major investment that we are looking at.
it needs to address -- this framework needs to address short-term objectives of the rfi and for a advisor, additional expertise that may be needed as we move along.
it needs to have an organizational structure and that was -- I did distribute that in backup of just a skeleton structure that we can launch with.
in this structure, we propose creating a new position that will guide the overall process.
it includes existing expertise that the county selected by open and competitive bid and who have been successfully working with the county to address each facilities project as it as come up.
that means 700 lavaca, the courthouse block and actually the data center which has been an issue in recent months -- or a solution found in recent months.
this organizational structure also creates a small but flexible internal team that could be expanded as needed our recommendation is a new special projects director.
it designates a courts team, to provide ongoing users input to the process and that's very, very important.
this is, after all, the civil and family courthouse project.
it identifies future organizational needs, including architect construction consultant.
so proposal for a new proposed and organizational structure, what does this do?
and how is this different from the other agenda item?
it provides an accelerated way to obtain our financial advisor by utilizing the existing expert team to refine the rfs and I believe that it needs some refinding.
it determines on the front end a financial advisor who will be in place for continuity and consistency throughout the project time line.
this shortness of process by eliminating another round of solicitations and eliminating confusion forbidding parties as to what future opportunities as yet to be defined may be offered.
and here is another biggie.
it allows for parallel processes -- parallel processes to take place.
we have a search for the new special projects director.
analysis of the rfi, we have the rfs for financial advisor to provide analysis needed to determine which method of financing is most fiscally responsible to the taxpayers.
it allows for a community envisioning process helpful for money analysis and needed for the final solicitation for our partner in construction, whether it's p3 or traditional.
and it allows time to identify legal issues that we may need to review pertinent to the choices we select.
all of those things, the visioning, legal issues, special projects director, rfi analysis and financial advisor are parallel processes under this proposal.
why this framework is preferred to the rfs recommended item 25?
it does not reinvent the process for the downtown facilities plan.
it continues with the process that is already in place, utilizing the experts -- external experts that we have already put in place and who have delivered for us.
it utilizes the existing team with proven performance who also understand the culture of working with the county and that is not easy as a new Commissioner, I can vouch for that -- work with the county in the processes and it allows that seasoned team to help balance the newcomers, if financial advisor and construction consultant, and the project director to understanding and working efficiently in better sync to make it work faster, rfi can be analyzed sooner, it prepares for financing and prepares next steps through the parallel process.
whether we decide to do a p3 or whether we decide to do traditional courthouse, take it to the voters for bond.
what we are add tremendousing on front end and parallel processes will be need to be done by whatever the selection is so it puts framework to put that forward.
provides clear roles and responsibilities and checks and balances in a structure.
one of the concerns I have with the rsf that was in 25 is that it puts all of the baskets in one team that we go out and get who are new, utilizing our internal -- I mean our external consultants in legal and real estate and on the front end, broaddus, we have a system of checks and balances that are built into this system when we bring on the financial advisor and the construction architect later on.
it saves time.
rough estimates are we've almost got a year off this time.
I didn't put a time line out because there are things dependent on it but by doing simultaneous parallel processes at the front end and not going out for a second round of rfp or whatever for the long-term financial advisor, it really cuts the time bag.
it provides internal single point of contact for the process and internal leadership in the proposed special projects team director.
that is something that no matter what project, what county, what what city, what developer is critical to a successful project is a single point of contact.
we have challenges with that in the county because we have five leaders right here.
but this, I believe, sets up a framework that will allow for the most possible in a county environment to move forward with a single point of contact.
it also avoids overburdening county staff that provide other services to the public and I do want to pause here because I don't believe many people realize in the public how hard our county staff worked on 700 lavaca and to the certain extent on the courthouse.
but these were very complicated acquisition projects purchases.
and we stretched our county staff beyond their time and their limits and they did a dynamic job but etch as a cher looking at the complexities of the courthouse project, we need additional expert resources to take these burdens off the county staff who have their other jobs.
judge, I provided a handout with pertinent items for those special projects director, just a bulleted list, and also it outline it is roles and responsibilities of the various team members and gives justifications for the existing and future external consultants.
if you want to go through these at this point, we can, but I am prepared to answer questions and also prepared to make a motion whenever is appropriate.
>> court members.
>> I have some questions, because I think actually I think these proposals are very good and warranted and need to be discussed.
and I want to figure out where our overlaps are and where -- where with we are not covering the bases that are covered in 26.
with regard to 26a, a selection of the county special projects team director and the steps necessary to implement it, would it be -- would it cover your concerns if this team director were a consultant?
or what is the rationale that the team director be a hired Travis County employee?
>> there is pros and cons on both sides of that and quite frankly, I kind of rustled with this myself.
I think in the long-run it lends itself to -- one of the pros is we hire a consultant to be this team director.
I personally believe it needs to be a single individual, not a team of people.
and if, for some reason or another, we aren't real happy with the way that is working, it is probably easier to change in a consultant capacity.
also, we can probably get a consultant as a team leader on board a little bit sooner than a permanent employee.
the other side of it is that we've got -- this project is easily four, five, six years long.
in most instances, I believe it is preferred that an owners rep and the project lead have very firm roots in the organizational structure, which would mean an employee of the county.
it might take us a little bit longer but I believe we need this kind of leadership managerial and construction management experience in very specific, large projects that can help us not only with this but perhaps this works well -- and hopefully it will -- for the additional projects that come on down the line with our facilities planning, so I am laying towards my preference to full-time employee, even though it will take a little longer.
it will probably take us a little less in the long run or etch in the short run.
but that's the answer to my question -- your question, I think.
it is a toss up.
I think we need that person anyway, no matter how we do this courthouse.
no matter what we do with subsequent large projects in our plan.
>> and with regard -- I am glad you brought 26a, because back on -- let's see, March, April, may, June -- where are we -- April -- I think it was April 7 and subsequently on April 19, there is the unsigned memo with regard to alternative financing mechanism task force which goes to some degree -- I noticed with some -- some pleasure, frankly, selection of county special projects, plural, team director because there are many special projects and novel financing suggestions that are floating around out there.
with regard to 26b, a financial advisor to develop value for money, to what extent -- to what extent does the rfs language not cover the value for money analysis?
>> because I believe --
>> I believe you have a value for any analysis now, I believe I have a problem with the owners rep of the project, the combination of individuals and legal entities, the breadth that you were looking for in this one item.
I don't believe it allows us the checks and balances that we should have as a responsible government entity to -- to -- it puts all of our eggs, so to speak n one basket.
>> it's the aspect of having an rfs that would cover -- arguably cover 26b, 26c, 26d, and 26e, that it's too broad because it arguably covers bc are d and e?
>> it reads like that to me.
yes.
and I think we would be putting all of our eggs in one basket without any proven history with working with this downtown facilities master plan and that we should utilize at least the expertise we already have and is already focused on this whole project.
>> although our current contracts that are in place, when those were competitively bid, they didn't contemplate a p3 or the piece of property we have now acquired.
so we don't know, through competitive process, whether -- whether or not our current relationships are the most appropriate skill sets, price, and relationship.
>> I argue that we do.
I have looked at -- the v and e contract is done, actually.
it is -- the vote that we have taken by conversations with legal is that there would be no need for amendments to that and that's why I did not put it as an agenda item down here.
broaddus, we would be proposing an amendment that would allow them to do the community vision specific to the new site.
one of the things we did -- and this is where we need flexibility -- is in the early contract stage, we defined an area that we thought geographically is where we would be.
as we got into the process, we realize because of capital corridor restrictions and stuff like that we had limited options for the civil courthouse space and in fact, we did modify the criminal for ugl to work on that project outside of the geographic description.
but one of the things that I think is really important -- and if you go back and you read, for example, the gg l ekuous contract, this is a real estate deal.
this is a deal that relates to purchases or for sales, leases, and if you have a contract, even if it ends up a p3 project -- or if it is a p3 project, those are the resources we need and recompetitivelied by the contract for those resources and so far they have proven very appropriate with us.
>> I disagree with that and legal does, too, based on the legal opinion we received last time.
this issue was posted for modification of contract.
we were told that legally that wasn't so and in order to make it so we would have to modify the contract to make it so.
in my view, we brought ecwous on to lease and purchase and we had two projects they served us well on, we are dealing with a construction project right now for which we didn't obtain that firm, so, I mean, not -- it won't hurt me at all if we select them, but at the same time, I don't think it is true that this project and where it is now is covered by our contract with them.
>> I believe that counsel has expressed that.
>> well, I don't know if we need to do this in executive session here, but I understand that the contract is -- it is, would work exempt for the geographic boundaries.
>> that is a pretty big element -- well, geographic boundaries are a pretty big element.
>> we brought the contract last time to expand the geographic boundaries to give echuous an opportunity to work on the one block downtown which was not part of the original deal.
we modified the contract.
we changed the contract.
we amended the contract to provide for that and legally whoa would have to amend the contract in order for them to give us advice on construction project.
in my view the fairest thing to do in the world is to compete that and then if ul echuous is the same firm, so be it.
it will live them.
mr. Zimmerman and the others I have met from that firm in my view are all outstanding individuals whom I personally like.
at the same time, though, in government it seems like you have to compete for this and legally if they have not competed for it before, in my view it is unfair to say they have competed and proceed as though they have.
we can get a legal opinion on that.
tellly is the one who provided us --
>> we will be happy to provide that to you in executive session because of the issues involving this contract.
>> the only reason I say that is because we had the authority to make it right.
we can modify the contract and that's what was posted last time, but the question was, does the current contract cover these services?
and the answer was no.
so to say that it's contract or legal opinion, unless legal has changed its mind and our lawyers are too consistent to do that
>> we may be splitting hairs on what it is that needs to be changed but we need to clarify that.
>> we need to compete for a major project on a -- for the public sector.
>> we didn't compete for 700 lavaca and that was a major project.
>> what do you mean we didn't compete?
>> well, if we competed in the ugl -- and the ugl was the selected one on that project, they -- they represented to us --
>> to get us a lease or a land to purr, which is why we brought them in.
>> and it is within the geographic property within the brokerage arrangement which was competitively build.
>> the other one around downtown was within the defined geographic area.
>> if we have a 3 year old contract with them, we can pull it back and say that it's not -- it's not a five year contract anymore.
>> no it's that -- we can do this in executive session but the geographic boundaries of the five-year contract were extended to include that block for real estate purposes only.
not for a public/private partnership analysis.
>> I think we had modification on the agenda, though, and then it --
>> [multiple voices]
>> it was on the agenda for modification and that was like in March.
>> no --
>> no, it was in March, judge.
>> it was in may.
>> it was in March.
>> but as it is --
>> [multiple voices]
>> it still doesn't preclude -- it still does not preclude any of the things that are listed here to participate in the rfs -- rps -- in other words, the request for services can still be looked at even with these persons that are here listed here today.
in other words, on a competitive basis.
that doesn't mean that nothing is etched in stone.
no decision has been really made on any of this stuff.
so it appears to me that even evaluating this and going through the evaluation criteria which I think Commissioner Huber has done a great job of.
I am not knocking her of what she's done.
I think her and Commissioner Gomez, I think they both have invested a lot of time and effort into the this process.
but when you really go down and you start evaluating, you start looking at what's laid out here, you start seeing that, wait a minute, this can still be achieved or acquired on an rfs, and I don't know to think that the flavor of an rfs can't entertain these things, but any rate -- I didn't mean to cut you off, Commissioner, I want to go and hear the rest of this because I think you did a real good job, but I want to make sure to keep in mind, as I am keeping in mind, that this can still be put out for for bid.
they can still participate in the rfs project.
no one is exempt from that and I know we realize that and I want to make sure if public understands -- I don't want them to say, this is ironclad, this is what we are going to do.
no.
we are rfs in item 25 and it appeared to me after looking at these things and evaluating that they can still participate.
nobody's hands are tied.
>> but if -- let me respond to his first.
>> the rfs that is proposed in 25 is a whole team in one bucket.
>> right.
right.
>> that eliminates our abilities to have separate external consultants that provide the checks and balances we need against those components.
>> may I ask sid a question.
>> that is not true, no.
twenty-five is for one consultant.
>> exactly.
>> and the reason -- the reason 25 is for one consultant and not a packaged deal, and the reason for that is the focus of 25 is to get a professional on board to help us e evaluate the responses to the rfi.
>> exactly.
>> that's what we said before we put it together and I think that's -- that's my intent today.
>> right.
>> now, the thing -- my problem with this is that too much of it really presumes the public/private partnership, because if we decide not to do the public/private partnership and I think we need professional help to make that determination -- and you end up with with an additional construction project, nowadays you do something that is a design build or something real close to it.
if you do that, a lot of this design stuff, a lot of the shifting of responsibility is in your contract.
so I think you would need a whole lot more of this consultant work and help if you do a public/private partnership than an additional construction contract.
the traditional construction project, it seems to me you want a good contract in place that does a good job of shifting the responsibility, the design component is normally part of that, as well as the financial aspect but it is altogether different, I think.
the other thing is -- I don't know that we can say that we can get all of these done a whole lot faster than we can with a consultant on board which in my view gives us 6-8 works to work with and then we work through the other things.
internal team we have appointed three times and --
>> I am not disagreeing with that.
I agree with you.
>> it is Commissioner Huber I am directing this to.
>> okay.
>> I am putting you and I together.
>> okay.
>> and I guess from a matter of perspective, we have appointed the internal team several times and --
>> we appointed internal team in haste in court one day without any backup to discuss it.
>> we ended up with the same ones that you painstakingly took a whole lot more time to end up with.
>> there are two less on there.
>> I don't know where the press are.
but -- but be that as it may if we want 4 instead of 6, that is fine with me.
the external team -- well, the team of the courthouse, et cetera, it seems to me what we do is tell the judges, hey, whoever you want to bring the courthouse perspective, do so.
my guess is they want to work with the bar association, lawyers, what have you, prominent citizens, at some point, I say I don't know if the court ought to be designating persons to represent that.
the stakeholder deal -- these are -- the stakeholder deal, I don't know that I have any problem with it but the question really is, okay, now, we've gotten some stakeholders involved already.
who did we leave out and what steps do we put in place to make sure we get those people involved?
now, we paid a pretty penny to get broaddus to do some of the outreach, envisioning and other stuff for us, so when I saw the visioning -- I am normally anti-visionary, essentially when it comes to visioning stuff like this, but my question was, okay, what visioning have which not done?
because then we ought to figure out a way to do it.
>> right.
>> but -- but your proposal is general that you don't deal with the specific piece that I think we ought to deal with yet.
it may be hidden in the broad language.
the other thing is you mentioned a motion a few minutes ago I -- the part I am ready to vote on, I am voting against.
the other part I just need clarification on and I don't know that we have time today to get that clarified but the pieces of this we shift to others, I think all we need to do is tell the court folk, hey, this is your piece right here, within the next 30 days, give us names.
give us areas of interest and give us other specific information that we can work on, and my guess is that we get that done that way.
but it kind of boils down to me, the fundamental question to me is do we have a special projects team director who is a county employee who answers to the Commissioner's court or do we have a consultant doing it?
and I am thinking that you get a consultant and a team, you get a whole lot more bang for your money.
the other thing is, I agree with you, it is hardworking for the Commissioner's court.
there is five of us and we've got all kinds of legal things we have to work through, some new, some old, some new interpretation, some old.
but that is the reality we deal with.
I would rather have a consultant there so we can talk about the consultant behind his or her back and if we want to I fire them, the it is hard do that with the employee.
and the other thing is for the person with skills we need, I am not sure that person is out looking for the job and they will only work here two or three years.
I don't think it will take us five years.
I think it will be closer to three.
>> your time line is 7, according to what your team put out.
>> that is my team.
that is not me.
>> could 26a -- I mean, Commissioner Huber, do you envision the possibilities that the rfs under 25 could provide us a consultant to do the 26a portion of your motion?
of your item?
>> first of all, the -- the rfs for 25, and judge, I would like to point out on page 26, it says next to the last paragraph, Travis County respects respondents for this request for services to both combinations of individuals and/or legal entities.
that is not a single head.
>> that's true.
and --
>> consultant firm, though.
>> and there is also the possibility -- and I want to explore this.
it seems that -- I want to explore this the with sid -- is it possible, and I am not saying I advocate at this point because I would like to move forward with with the rfs today if we can, but is it possible to break the rfs out into pieces and allow respondents to the rfs toed by the pieces -- to bid the financial bid, bid the outreach piece, the real estate piece a and the project time director piece in -- singly or in combination?
>> I think the answer is yes.
we would have to do some rework to do that.
one of the things that we did is we started out with a document that was very inclusive of skills, like some of the real estate experience, financial, legal.
and then after we met, we thought, well, maybe we would have this group propose to us so we sort of took out some of that.
so if you wanted us to be more specific and line them up like that in different stages, we could, or different expertise, we could.
>> I am not sure I do.
>> right.
>> just because I am going back to -- I agree with what the judge said, at least for purposes of this rfs and to get beyond this threshold moment of doing the cost analysis, the money -- the value for money analysis piece, before we launch in with all fours on a p3, that I think it would be too intensive to have an external team of separate contracts for real estate financial, lot, lot, lot, lot, before we know we are doing p3.
>> that was part of of our discussion back and forth is when do we hire these folks, at what phase, and one thing I wanted to point out in the rfs, we defined the project.
we defined phases and so this rfs, we wanted them to do phase one, which was to review and analyze the rfi and then do the develop -- the concept and objectives, then, like the judge was saying, if we make a decision to pursue p3, then we would turn these folks on to the next phase of that and that would be the to assist us in hiring an owner representative.
>> and it is that second phase t the representative portion where we would set up external team that included outreach, real estate, finance, the larger team that would go after the p3 hook line and sinker.
>> and the owners representative, and they would represent us through until they went out for the rfq as far as the p3 team.
>> I think we are saying the same thing, that this rfs would cover phase one and assist us in putting together the external team that would be the owner's representative for the project?
>> that's my understanding.
>> I have two questions, sid, first of all, the team that put together the rfs, this is a huge real estate deal, whether it's through traditional bond financing at the courthouse or whether it's a p3, who, from the private sector advised the team to be the content for this rfs?
tim collins -- no, we didn't have any experts in but our group talked about those things.
>> and what kind of experience in half a million square foot office court space or larger does there team have?
>> well, we all realize we need outside experts.
we all realize we are going to need someone -- I believe the county attorney hired someone to consult with on real estate.
y'all are looking at the same thing.
we know we need certain expertise.
>> we --
>> we feel like we have the expertise to hire you an expert.
we need to --
>> let me point out one thing, then, because one of the problems I have with this rfs is it does not send a clear message.
there are only a handful of large firms out there with the kind of expertise that we would need for the duration of the project, particularly if it was a p3.
>> but this is right for the duration.
>> let me fin.
let me finish.
if we do not do a p3, the contract is structured where we don't need their services anymore.
but if we wait and if we do this in phases, it is entirely possible by the time we decide if it happen to be that we were going to do a p3 that the best firms are no longer available because they have teamed up with those that are going to bid on the project.
that is one of the best reasons to go ahead and get a financial advisor on their own, on the front end and go for the best.
we are precluding -- or risking, a high risk, with the vagueness of what this next phase 3 and phase 4s regoing to be by not getting our financial advisor locked in in the beginning and we can structure it where if we end up doing traditional courthouse project, with we don't have their need.
>> Commissioner --
>> two comments.
first, the rfs is structured in search a way that it doesn't have to be for the duration of the project, as you suggest.
>> well, actually, it doesn't and that's another choice that we needed y'all to ask -- there is another decision that y'all needed to make is whether you will allow these folks to move forward and compete.
>> yes.
>> with everyone else --
>> it is structured so that it doesn't have to be for the duration of the project.
that's what I said.
>> right.
>> and that's true, correct?
>> correct.
>> we have two --
>> hold on.
>> second.
>> we have to choose one of the alternatives.
>> just a second.
>> there was a suggestion by the auditor's officer to use echuous as external advisor on the rfs but I confess I suggested that not occur because echuous would be knocked out of winding on the rfs.
>> which to plea goes back -- we goes back to the team we originally have and if we go back to using the courthouse, we don't need echuous' real estate services, that's the way it goes, but we have expertises in place that we have been using on all of our facilities planning so far that could greatly benefit in getting us launched and if we go for an -- our financial advisor that we lock in so that we have them if we end up with a long-term project like a p3, where we needed them on, we are locked in.
if we make a choice to only let them compete on phase one and maybe compete on phase two, they may not choose to do that because there is more money in competing with a team against us.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> let me ask.
>> mr. Davis.
>> thank you, judge.
this actually, if the court decides to move forward with item 25, the rfs there request for services and move forward, it also looks at our conclusion of p3, with the consultant, of course, looking at the rfi result.
will this particular consultant be able to be a part of the p3 possibility?
because p3 is very significant in that.
we need to look to see if we need to deal with p3.
what is the advantage whether to deal with p3 and authorize you to go forward.
those persons in the community -- the community, meaning if world, that has p3 experience, that has p3 experience in dealing with what we are looking at would also be able to compete parallel to this rfp under this particular condition?
under the particular wording we have it today?
>> e with have two options for the Commissioner's court, one says they would not be eligible to move forward.
the second one is they would be able to move forward and compete.
I think it was a consensus of the team they should not be allowed to move forward and if they are, it would have to be in a competitive situation.
>> all right.
>> so it's up to the court.
that is a decision the court would need to make.
>> and that was the same arrangement we had with broaddus, correct?
>> that they could compete on -- on other projects that came out of the master plan, yes, that's what we wrote in to that.
>> first thing first, the consultant?
look at that.
so, again, my concern is still in the realm of the p3 itself in capturing persons that -- a firm, whoever, that has expertise in dealing with p3.
>> that's going to be a business decisiontor those firms.
>> I understand.
>> we have --
>> go ahead.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
>> folks are watching.
they are waiting for us to make a decision to -- to determine what teams they want to be in -- to be on, because that will be a business decision for them.
>> for them, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> the language that was in the broadest contract was the county reserves the right to choose another consultant to compete phase two through another competitive process, the county would like to award phase to the respondent awarded are rfq without performance of phase one and funding availability.
how is that different from the two options that are before us today?
>> it would be -- that option would basically the alt gnat two.
however, they could not participate as part of the private partner team.
it is a little bit different in that because they were -- the master plan was broad based.
it wasn't building specific, so we felt like they wouldn't be suggesting us building something and they would benefit from competing on it in the future.
this is a little bit different.
these folks are going to be advising us on what options are the best for us, so we felt like that whoever was our owner's rep in the beginning should not be part of the private partner team in the end.
we just felt that would be too big of a conflict of interest.
>> okay.
>> have you looked at the amount of dollars that might be going to a person -- a firm that might respond to the owner's rep on the front end as opposed to the owner's front on the end or the competing team?
because I think that would answer the questions of where are these highly competitive, private sector firms going to -- which ring are they going toes to their hat?
n?
>> we think they are going to toss it into the second -- the p3 team.
>> okay.
>> if they think they stand a competitive chance.
>> right.
>> now, we have -- we were contacted by probably 20 firms that indicated an interest in this project.
I would be real surprised if there are not a whole lot more than that.
the other thing is that if you see a big enough contract on the front end and conclude you have a better shot of it, why wouldn't you try for it?
for the second piece t construction project, you are talking about major pieces and we've already indicated that we want somebody with experience dealing in -- dealing with downtown high-rises or civil courthouses, or major projects like that and so I don't know that every construction contractor in central Texas will meet that qualification.
the other thing is, if you are looking for business, then there is a way in that's going to be done.
and if we are looking for the right consultant, then I guess I feel a little uneasy slamming the door on you after phase one, if you demonstrate doing fizz one that you can provide valuable service to us in phase two, excluding construction phase, that's why I think alternative two makes more sense because we leave the door open.
but at the same time, we make the call.
two gives you an opportunity to let you go if we don't like you, but keep you around if we do and you are performing well for us.
that's why 2 makes more sense to me.
the thing, though, if I think we were to approve this, get it on this street, then our goal would be, in 6, 7, 8 weeks, to have a firm on board, to serve in this consultant capacity.
we have already said we wouldn't evaluate the responses to the rfi until after a professional person is on board.
the answers are due June 30th, you see what I am saying?
so we will have other time to do some of the other things that we ought to do.
>> sure.
>> my thinking was, hey, let's deal first with with what we had to deal with first and I thought this was one of the first pieces but my thinking was after we got to rfi, then we would choose consultant and then after that we would have time to do the other pieces and the stakeholder groups mentioned several times we ought to get some thought out and one question would be who do we want participating who hasn't yet and how do we reach those persons and I don't know it would be that easy.
but I think it will require a lot more effort in our 45 minutes to hour and a half discussion on Tuesday.
>> judge, I just want to clarify on those alternates, one and two, because what you said is a little different than what we wrote.
on alternate two, it says that the court may choose to allow the consultant compete for the role in phase two on a rep.
however, they will not be able to participate as a private partner or any -- which includes any person as part of that team.
so they would be eligible.
>> excluding construction is what I meant, construction part.
>> phase two and three, they could be owner's rep in phase two.
I wanted to be sure you were clear on that.
>> I would like to point out one more time that the rfs is proposed in 25, has been put together for a major complex project team to try to get them on board for a major complex project without any private sector real estate input in the draft of the rfs.
>> I want to say it is not all that important.
we have been doing that for ages.
>> we have never done a project like this, with all due respect, judge.
this is a very complex real estate project no matter what nature it takes, what direction it takes.
>> okay.
do we have a person or firm that we would like to run this by who will do it free of charge immediately?
>> and who doesn't want to future bid on either this rfs, the owner's rep or the future partner?
I think we have --
>> I reposed using --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I think it is inappropriate to hire a consultant to hire a consultant.
I think that we have the internal expertise to know what we need, what we --
>> we got that when we did the cjc.
>> what expertise we need to go out for.
I trust staff as well as the -- the district judge's input, as well as the input from v and e and lab patella, I think we can -- we know what we are shopping for.
>> I have a lot of of confidence in our staff.
but I think this is outside the realm of their ability to put together the detailed needs that we have for this project.
it's asking them to do something that they have not had the experience in doing before.
>> again, I applaud you, Commissioner Huber, you and Commissioner Gomez, but, again, after looking at what I have been able to look at and evaluate and land it on the table, I really think we should proceed today in support of item number 25, in saying that -- not to put down anybody, but we need to be moving.
we need to move on down the road.
I think we said a lot of these things together.
the it is not going to be a one shoe fit all.
it is not going to be that way.
no it's not.
but I think we have enough here and I do think we have expertise here available with us now that can handle a lot of things that are putting forth.
but right now I think we opened up the gate and let the calf out the gate and see what we get back in return and I think that -- I think this is a proper way to proceed, so I am not -- I am not knocking -- I am not knocking what any --
>> yeah.
>> -- what anybody else is doing but I the think we need to move forward.
>> well, I have been for the civil courthouse since the very first time we talked about the issue and I think the very important, first step that I took was in vote to go purchase the last lot that was available downtown, because I really believed that that's where the civil courthouse belongs, and we did have a very abled person help us to achieve the purchase of that -- of that lot, and I am convinced that if he hadn't been there -- ugl hadn't been there, we would not have gotten that lot.
we probably would be building the courthouse at highland mall, the way some folks suggested, but I am glad that we were able to buy that lot.
I do also do not want to forget the lessons of the cjc.
at that time, we had internal staff work on that issue with us.
they didn't have the scope or the ability or the experience that a building like that takes and so consequently, we wound up spending some money on legal fees, on lawsuits, and then there was a lot of trouble with the hubs, as they needed to get paid and so the things with this proposal, by having that person, the projects team director, to work for the county and be the single source of information, that is the person that we will hold accountable, Commissioner Davis, to make sure that hubs are hired and are paid on time.
and not have to wind up with these long, long processes of trying to get them paid.
as well as vendors who needed to get paid and not -- and I would rather spend that savings that we wouldn't spend on legal fees and lawsuits and all of these issues that take a lot of time and money, I would rather spend that savings on a project -- on a proposal like this so that we can begin -- we can start out with having the folks that who have expertise for carrying a large project like this out and it is large and I don't know if it's going to come up to the way the cjc was in terms of space, in terms of the utility of the building, but it's huge.
and on top of that, -- the cjc is like a courthouse, but I think on that, any courthouse deserves to be built with dignity and it needs to serve people with dignity and I -- but I really am not feeling comfortable with the approach of number 25, the rfs.
I think we are putting the cart before the horse and i, again, am just falling back on my experience with the cjc and I don't want that to be repeated.
I know we need this courthouse.
I know we needed it yesterday.
there is no doubt about that.
but I am really, really concerned that we have as many people involved in this decision, because it was the lack of participation of all of the stakeholders that also caused delays in that cjc and it made the cost of the building go up.
and then we had to be accountable to the voters as to what happened to the money.
how come there was so much money?
where did it go?
we had to go in to court and actually prove that nobody ran off with the money.
it just went into that building because of the lack of planning on the frontent and -- on the front end so we had to rush around and get our documents ready so that we would be prepared to go to court.
there is no doubt that I think now is the time to put all of these court documents also in place, in case we have to go there.
I don't want to waste time.
I don't want to waste the people's money on that.
so I think that it -- it will help us in the long run save us time.
it will save us money.
it will safe us worry.
and, again, I think we can save some money with this approach, and, again, I would say to the staff as well.
we are not saying that you don't know your jobs, but I don't believe that I voted for staff to take on a project of this magnitude.
I think I hired staff to take care of the daily operations that would help the Commissioner's court make decisions on a timely basis and, also, give us the opportunity as a court to be involved in county-wide issues.
this is a county-wide issue that the court has to be -- has to be involved in.
but I think also what this does, it helps us go back and put into practice the procurement procedures that have always been in place, for every single project that we have gotten into.
it has all gone out to bids.
it has gone through the purchasing act, which is a state statute, and before I came here, the comptroller's office trained me that if I violated this purchasing act, I could go to jail.
I tell you what, I love all of y'all, but I won't go to jail for you, but I think it's a little patience.
I understand we want everything immediately, but I think a little bit of time, let's back off a little bit here, and let's take a little time, the time necessary so that we can have the framework in place and then after that, everything will fall into place, but we need one person to hold accountable and I learned that with the cjc.
I want to get going.
but I think that I am going to be much more comfortable with this approach than to piecemeal it and put one step ahead of the other, but it all -- as far as I am concerned, it's all going to go through bids, through the purchasing act.
thanks.
>> one of the things I would like to build on -- thank you, Margaret -- is that we are the responsible body.
the five of us right here, in making these decisions for this courthouse.
not the judges.
and I have had a problem in this whole process, because of open meetings constraints that we cannot talk to each other to clearly explain the rationale about why we need to do this or that or whatever.
we have not had the benefit of of being able to talk.
however, the judges, with their network, have had --
>> judges being the county judge not on --
>> no, the civil judges and the other judges and I respect the expertise with which they do their jobs out there, but they are not the ones that are going to be held responsible for us, and they have individually been lobbying every single one of us for item number 25.
so I don't think it's -- I don't think it is a fair ballgame we have been playing here.
we have limited in our ability to explain.
I actually have real estate experience in high-rise office buildings.
I know the flags.
I don't know the answers.
I don't want to drive this project.
but I know the flags.
I know the front end work that we need to be doing and we are where we are.
but I do not believe item number 25 is the right course of action for Travis County at this point.
>> the reason I think that 25 is the right thing to do is my recollection of the cjc is a lot different than Commissioner Gomez''s we were sold a multi-prime approach that didn't really work out, one, two is we did not have sufficient county staff on board at the time so we were too dependent on others.
we -- we beefed up the facilities management department after the cjc so that we could have appropriate in house facility staff, architects and engineers up on whom we could call as necessary and that's where we are today so our situation is a whole lot better now than then.
if other thing is I don't think we had a consultant on board who advised us adequately on the front end and we were basically relying up on the firms that said they had done the multi-prime approach successfully and as it turned out, that is simply not the case.
twenty-five is to give us consultant on front end that would help us evaluate responses to rfi that is always on the street.
that's what 25 is all about.
but it also is about putting us in a position where we can decide, as appropriate other steps we ought to take, so unlike 26, 25 does not purport to do a whole lot of other stuff.
it is to have one consultant who will help us evaluate response to rfi and as that work is being done, we can determine whether or not to use the same consultant in phase two of the project.
now, some of you have been bold enough to come over today.
if you were bold enough to join the freight, come forth at this time.
>> judge, before you go, let me say something, too, because I was here, also, during the time of the cjc.
I came after the fact, after everything was ongoing and of course we were part of a team that helped put out the fire on that particular concern.
not during the actual commencement of it and the tail end of it being completed and it is true there was a lot of additional staffing on the facilities end.
I think I learned a lot from that.
this is why I am looking at this direction of 25 now because we didn't have that.
that wasn't available to us at that time during the cjc and so from that perspective, of course, we have control and at different stages even the cjc situation, we got to a position where we did have some type of control on end result of that because we did certain things, but those things were directions and -- that came from -- it came from Commissioner's court to make sure we got handle on that.
I think the same posture can be demonstrated again to make sure that we get the final product that we think we just are saying the taxpayers of Travis County deserve and we are here to make sure that happens and I think, again, this is in the step in that direction but having some control, because at the end of the day, you are right, Commissioner Huber, you are accountable.
you are so right and if I am accountable, all of us are accountable, everybody in here is accountable to something.
and if we are going to be accountable, that means we have to make the best decision we possibly can given the data we have available to us at that time, and I think this is the time I think to start gathering data so we can make good decisions on what we need to do in making this happen in the future.
so let's collect the data and I think this is part of getting that data.
thank you.
>> give us your name and we will be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is martha dickey.
I am here as the co-chair of the Austin bar association committee on the new civil and family justice center.
david whittlesy president of the Austin bar association is in dallas today, sends his regards and apologizes he cannot be here, with me is mr. Bill whitehurst, a member of my committee, so that you have background, the Austin bar .ssociation has long been concerned with the courthouse and watching tentively, we have been monitoring what is going on here, which direction you are headed.
I personally reviewed -- I missed the last meeting before last -- I guess the last Commissioner's court meeting.
we have tried to inform ourselves and stay abreast of what is going on.
we have gotten an opportunity to various members of our committee to visit with every member of the court.
we certainly understand there are many, many stakeholders involved in this process.
I sit here as a former president of theth Austin bar, former president of the state bar of Texas.
I have represented the county.
I have represented city governments.
I've represented this county over building a building.
so I am aware of the challenges that you face, and I think that everyone that is speaking on the court comes with good faith, expertise, and a valued opinion as to which way we should go.
but I will tell you, in being in this community for nearly 40 years, practicing law for over 30 years, and talking to people in if community, we all know -- in the community, we all know the need for this courthouse.
the concern among lawyers, business people, all kinds of folks, is that this be a transparent process so they know what is going on and an open and competitive process.
this is a time economically when many people are excited and hungry for work, and there is much expertise out there that could be applied to this process.
and we encourage you to take advantage of that expertise, to allow people to come in and bid in this process and get involved in this process.
I have not as much y'all, who probably go to more events than you care to mention, but I spend -- I am never running for public office again.
I have been on a number of boards, a number of commissions, but I go to a lot of deals, a lot of fundraisers, a lot of community gatherings, and it's a topic on people's tongues.
people are very interested.
my concern is that under item number 26 that you are essentially on the front end precluding a lot of expertise by just extending contracts already in existence and that you should give everybody a fair shot at being involved and offering what expertise they have in what Commissioner Huber has characterized as the largest project you have ever done and probably the most important.
so we would urge that, mr. Whitehurst has a few things to say as well and then we are happy to answer any questions.
>> I am a member of the bar and have been a Travis County resident for almost 40 years.
I have practiced in this courthouse for almost 36 years.
and although I am a member of the committee, the real reason I wanted to come today is because almost 29 years ago, I wrote an article for the bar journal as president of the young lawyers.
a as you can see from my gray hair, that was 29 years ago, indeed.
the title of that article was of leeches and scribners.
the first part of the title of leeches referred to my twin brother who is a doctor and the ridicule I used to give him about the fact that while his professional forefathers were bleeding patients with leeches and sticking wooden pegs in george washington's gums, my professional forefathers were writing the constitution of the united states, the bill of rights.
but in that article -- and this is the second part of that title of scribners, I relate add story by going to my brother with one of the modern hospitals 29 years ago and comparing it to our courthouses in Texas, but more specifically, I had in mind when I wrote that article the Travis County courthouse.
we needed a new courthouse 29 years ago, and I recognized that then.
I wrote about it.
others agreed with me on that, and we have been in that effort for some time.
you must understand why the judges are lobbying for this.
you must appreciate their appreciation on this, because they are the ones who live there and we as trial lawyers live there, but also our clients come there.
our jurors come there.
people we represent and I have represented over there for 36 years.
and I am ashamed of what we have.
Commissioner Gomez, I am a real fan of yours and you know that.
but when you talk about additional delay, I must tell you that it bothers me.
I must tell you that we cannot afford additional delay.
the thing I see in 25 is that we can do everything, everything that you have in 26.
under 25.
it is not absolutely most of it but it gets us out of the starting gate.
it gets us going.
it does exactly what I think judge Biscoe is saying, we need to start, we need to launch the project, we need to do the launch.
it is significant in its act and in what appearance it gives, it tells us and the residents of this county that we are out of the starting box.
we are on the road.
we are going to have a courthouse.
we can do it right.
I have no doubt about that.
there are many ways to build a courthouse.
I have no doubt it will be done right.
but I do believe we need someone, a consultant to help us get this thing going, to delay to hire before we do anything, that we have to hire another county employee is bothersome to me.
I think we can do all of the protection that you are talking about Commissioner -- Huber, I also commend you.
I think the items you listed are things absolutely ought to be considered in whatever process we consider, that we do, but I do see 25 as being the quickest way to get out of the starting blocks and I don't accept the fact that it would be quicker the other way, so I encourage -- I am here individually, although I serve on the committee, as a trial lawyer, as someone who has been -- who has workd in that courthouse for many, many years to tell you, to endorse this and let's getting out of the starting block and endorse it today.
>> I think we are referring to that as open up the gate and letting the calf run out of the gate.
>> I am hearing a lot of analogies with the gate.
they all involve getting started.
>> that's what I am talking about.
>> I would like to say the whole reason for doing 26 is to launch it quicker out of the gates because we already have some seasoned proven expertise and the whole time frame would be faster than 25 and I would like to ask why the community that you represent feel disposed to try to convince the court on the process that we should take?
>> well, I -- do you want me to answer that?
>> sure.
>> one, I think is most appropriate for us to engage -- to talk about the process.
one, it is important that we choose a process that gets us started.
and that's why we are here.
and I respectfully disagree with your analysis, Commissioner, hoover that your procedure, your process will be quicker.
I am just not convinced of it.
I may be wrong.
I may be wrong.
I looked at both of the processes and I see one that is fairly simple and I see one that is sort of complicate and involves breakcy, involves hiring a new -- involves beurre involves a lot inhiring somebode courthouse, that is not the way to go.
we have a lot of expertises of the Austin bar association.
those involved in this are unanimous on this.
we have a lot of expertise among the judges on our courts and they know about process and they do a process every day at the courthouse and I honor and I agree with their decision as well.
and believe me, we disagree with the judges a lot here.
the judges will tell you -- they rule against me in ways I think they are wrong.
I think they are dead wrong but I think they are right here.
I really believe they are right and I believe the bar association is right, and for what it's worth, I would like for you all to take that into consideration.
>> I would like to know what real estate expertise y'all bring to the table in making this determination.
>> we do have -- a lot of lawyers with real estate expertise, but no one would say we are qualified to build this building.
we are not here for that purpose.
we know courthouses, and we -- and I believe we have a good understanding of the needs of this county when it regards to a courthouse.
in fact, we may be better on that than the real estate people and we are here to --
>> we are not talking about needs for the courthouse because I think that's been analyzed and know what those are and we defer to you on the specifics there.
>> I would never be comfortable in turning this project over to the real estate folks.
I hope they use our expertise in this process as well.
>> this is a real estate deal we are talking about.
>> no, it is much more than real estate deal.
if you are looking at this as a real estate deal, I think you are badly mistaken.
this is complicated, as you say, this is not a real estate deal.
this is a building of a courthouse.
it is like building a spaceship.
you wouldn't just put anybody on it.
you hopefully we would get people who have experience in space matters to do a spaceship.
well, we are experiencing courthouse matters.
>> and that's the -- the interior design and build out to meet future needs, that component is addressed in many ways in this process, including ongoing input from you.
what is not addressed is how we put this whole package, which is a real estate deal, it is a construction of a high-rise building.
building that will house what you need.
so I believe that we need to be extremely sensitive to having the real estate expertise to guide the county, and I also know from the short time I have been on the court that our county process is in extreme challenge to work with.
it -- that's good and bad.
but we have to look at how we integrate your needs, our needs, the community's needs, and what it takes to make that deal come together.
and that's the package for the process that I have tried to propose.
it is flexible.
it is fast.
it gets us there.
and I believe a quicker time frame, than just going through a blind process that hires a whole lot of people.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> mr. Whitehurst.
>> mr. Whitehuts and ms. Dickey, I know from both of you from the profession as a whole that you are constantly talking about procedure.
and in that regard, what are your views and why are they your views with the desire to competitively bid the expertise necessary to move forward on this project?
>> well, I can address that.
and that is that a competitive bid process by state statute is the best process.
to get all the people that have the expertise to come forward and allow you to make the decision as to who the best group is to do that.
I heard discussion this week and I've heard discussion before that you've already done that.
and that therefore you can just extend those contracts.
and I beg to differ that you have already done that because this is a completely different animal we're talking about now.
I agree with mr. Whitehurst this isn't just about real estate.
I'm a lawyer, I'm one of your constituents.
I have had the opportunity to work with many people, but to tell this community that you have predetermined who is going to be driving this ship when you're really in the process of designing the ship is unfair and I think will be looked on as doing something that is not transparent.
and so I think -- I know that in this environment that there are many capable people in this community, in this state and throughout the country that are interested in this project.
and I think that you have an obligation to see and to seek the best talent possible for what you're going to do, which is up in the air.
but I agree with mr. Whitehuts this tha this isn't just a real estate deal.
and if you're looking at it as a a just deal you're missing a lot of the stakeholders in the process.
>> Commissioner Gomez?
>> when I say wait with this item 26, it's not a matter of months or a matter of weeks, it's a matter of I think the will of the court will be will you approve it and will you implement it today?
and so I'm not calling for any unusual delay.
it's just do it.
>> any other questions for miss dickey or mr. Whitehurst.
thank you very much.
appreciate it.
mr. Zimmerman?
>> keith zimmerman with jail services.
I want to thank you in advance for all the work we've been able to do together.
we were hired about two years ago on a five-year basis to be your broker, real estate advisor for the downtown campus, and have enjoyed that process and would like to continue.
I'm here to talk through some of what I've heard today and suggest that I really think 26 is a better process than 25 for several reasons.
number one on the request for services, yes, you could send it out.
I think what you will find is when you look at 25 it asks for specifically a value for money study.
that's really the guts of part of what you're asking for, at least in the early stages.
that and somebody to create an evaluation process to hire the owner's rep.
when you look at the value for money studies, there's a few firms that are very good globally and here in the u.s.
and really what you're asking, and take us out of the equation, we couldn't be the ones doing the value for money study.
what you're asking the groups to do is make a decision right now whether they're going to do the value for money study for you and exclude themselves to be on the owner's rep team.
only to have the chance to be -- excuse me, to exclude themselves from being on the developer team, only to have the right to then compete for being on your team.
and I think, quite frankly, what you're going to find is that the people that are the best, and we're talking about the large primarily accounting firms, although there are certainly others.
that most of those people when given that choice will sit out because those are the same people that are being approached right now to be on the developer teams. They already are in long beach and other cities and they are and have been and will be approached here.
and so my concern if you take each piece of it on the financial piece, what you're asking someone to do by moving forward on the rfs is the way it is written is either exclude themselves and not be on your team, at which point they won't do that.
they would rather wait and take their chances with a developer.
or have to exclude themselves and maybe have a chance for it.
and frankly, I think you're going to have the best people in the country that you should be having as your financial advisors sit out.
that to me is the danger -- forgetting the other two consultants.
strictly on the financial advisors, what's going to happen is the best people in the country are going to sit out and wait to see whether they're on the developer team or on the owner's rep team.
so you have almost the worst of both worlds.
the second piece of that is the legal group.
under 26 you basically confirm that v and e, who has served you well, continues.
y'all can make the decision as to whether they've served you wisely.
I personally think there's value to having your bond counsel in the group that's selling your calfer be the same group that's involved in whatever structure you do.
I'm not here to argue for v and e.
I'm just telling you structurally I do think there's some advantages, as long as you're happy with them, of continuing that relationship.
as far as us, I've heard lots of discussions as to whether your contract allows it or doesn't.
you know, wow reciting the exact language I can show you the sentence.
there's a clear sentence that says that you have the right, not the obligation, to allow us to work on this project, on this block outside the primary and secondary area.
what you did in order to get the land, and you have the same right to do it here.
I believe when you picked us it was a very fair, competitive, open process.
and if you look at that, it was clearly to be your real estate advisor for a downtown long-term plan.
a five-year contract so that you would have that real estate advisor who could learn the county, learn this project and continue with it.
and so I believe the competitive process occurred.
I don't think you would be short-circuiting it at all.
you basically have a much more focused r.f.p.
that focuses on a financial advisor so that you're getting the best in consultant on your side immediately where they know that they're the owner's rep.
you continue a relationship both with our firm and with v and e, both of which have been competitively bid as well as done very well for you.
and at some point you basically bring in somebody on the construction side.
I don't think it has to wait until you have the person internally hiring that person, whether it be an outside consultant or an internal staff person.
I think there's a ton of stuff.
a lot of stuff that can be happening simultaneously.
and I do believe that you is save probably a year in process, get a lot of expertise now as opposed to under the old process you are getting it a year from now.
and I think you're immediately setting up an owner's rep team.
you have developers right now that have assembled very large teams. That's occurring as we speak.
we've gotten approached by lots of them and others are as well.
I think it behooves you to get the owner's rep team that you want that can compete and I don't think that should be a year from now.
I think that this process is a good balance of taking your existing providers that were fairly competed with some new ones.
>> any questions for mr. Zimmerman?
thank you.
anybody else?
judge livingston.
>> thank you all for another opportunity to speak to this issue.
I want to point out just a couple of things.
I think there are some very great ideas in 26, but I think you can accomplish all that you want to do in 26 in 25.
I don't think it needs to take a year.
I don't think it needs to be a big delay.
I think it can happen quickly and efficiently and in a way that gives you the most flexibility.
26 has fabulous components to it with the exception of deciding today, as ms. Dick si said, who is going to drive the ship.
that ought to be open and competitive.
I don't think with all due respect to you, gl and to broaddus, that necessarily those things are covered in the scope of work that they already had.
because I would remind you that this whole notion of a p 3 came about more recently than all of that.
and more recently than those contracts.
as I understand them, they're really about brokerage services, there's about buying and selling 700 lavaca and property in the downtown area.
but the p 3 idea didn't get mentioned fairly late in the process at the end of 2010.
so it seems odd to me that it could have been contemplated by the scope of work already covered by their contracts.
I think just looking at it objectively, not trying to be a judge here, because it's not before me, but I don't think clearly that that was contemplated at the time.
so I would ask you to think about that.
the components of 26 can be accomplished in 25.
there does not need to be a long delay.
the legal firms need to be bid competitively.
the financial advisor needs to be bid competitively.
looking for the project manager needs to be bid competitively.
it all needs to be bid competitively, including the pieces of it that are real estate.
but I want to just end by saying it's a complex deal, to be sure.
and it's an important deal to be sure.
and whoever rises to the top during a competitive process, that is your decision and so be it, but let other firms compete for it.
let's find out what other kinds of talent is out there.
let's find out what the other firms that we haven't already predetermined might be able to offer to us in this process.
let's find out what we don't know that we don't know.
thank you.
>> any questions for judge livingston?
this is like your courtroom, judge?
>> [ laughter ] any questions?
>> I just want to know when you say if we were to go with 26 today, we would be deciding who was going to drive the ship.
what you meant by that.
because my contemplation is the driving of this ship would primarily be a team of some to come and some who are here now and using those expertise that we do have to get to the next level that we bring in.
and quite frankly, the project director ultimately would drive the ship.
but we have the team to get this jumpstarted.
so I don't understand what you mean by delay and driving the ship.
>> what I mean is that -- what I was saying is I don't think 25 occasions delay at all, which is why I think that that's a viable option for you to consider.
with regard to driving the ship, what I'm suggesting to you is that by deciding today that ugl is going to provide this or that v and e is going to provide that, it eliminates the opportunity for you to consider other firms that might be just as good, if not better, to provide the services that you need.
and I want you to consider the range of services, the range of talent, the range of prices.
if you go with the firm that you've already used for two fairly large deals where they have made -- they've done a great service for the county for a fee.
what you do, I think, is to eliminate not only competitiveness in terms of talent that they might be able to bring, experience and expertise that they might be able to bring, but also competitive pricing.
to go with a firm that you've already been doing business with and to amend your contract with them slightly, let them set the price frankly.
I'm not sure that's in the county's best interest.
competitive bidding means everybody gets to take their best shot and you as the final arbitors of this issue, get to decide best price, best service, best value for the county's money.
you are the stewards of the county's coffers and it is your decision to evaluate openly and honestly what that looks like.
I think can you do that in a very short time frame.
and if they chiez riez to the top because you're the most confident that they have submitted the best bid, okay.
all we're asking to you do is consider other firms that might also be able to bring great value at a good price to the city as a result of the competitive process.
>> that sounds like a longer process to me.
>> I think you can do it efficiently.
and I think you can control over that.
you get to say we want your responses back in six weeks or eight weeks or whatever it is.
I think this is the kind of decision, as you pointed out earlier, Commissioner Huber, that this is a big deal and if it's going to take eight weeks, let's spend eight weeks.
if we can do it in six, let's do it in six.
but let's not be too hastety and let's not be too comfortable with the folks that we know, even though they've done a good job, without giving other folks that we haven't met yet, an opportunity to compete competitively.
>> I'd like to point out the drain on the staff to interview those other components over that period of time.
it's extremely time consuming.
>> I appreciate that.
I think you can accomplish what you want to accomplish with 25.
I think it gives you the flexibility that you're looking for and it gives you the opportunity to ultimately accomplish what you want within the confines of the deal that you structure.
I think you can do that.
>> thank you very much, judge livingston.
last call?
okay.
move that we approve 25.
>> second.
>> is that with option 1 or option 2, judge?
>> option 2 is my preference.
that would give us the right to make the call.
any discussion on the motion?
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
>> I have a question.
I hope cid can answer it off the top of her head because I intended to go back and mark it and I didn't.
>> go ahead.
>> I thought I read in here somewhere where in the submission they were supposed to give the -- the applicants were supposed to give project credentials in the united states and canada.
>> yes.
>> why did we -- one of the things that's concerning me extensively is -- and this was referred to earlier, is that there's -- community is talking and one of the things community is talking about is that there is already a team that is predesigned to design to respond to this.
saying canada and u.s.
excludes significant amounts of potential partners who have done these kinds of projects because there have not been that many p 3 projects done in the united states.
and canada.
so I think we should think globally.
>> make that globally.
>> can you find that sentence?
>> in the questionnaire.
>> most of the international firms have -- claim to have a united states headquarters of some sort, don't they?
>> I think it asks for projects they've done.
>> okay.
so your --
>> you want me to just delete --
>> your recommendation is to make it broader or delete it?
>> don't limit it to the u.s.
or canada.
>> just experience -- I think we ought to see the experience on projects.
just take out references to the locations.
>> it will take how long to put this in final shape and get it out if it's approved by the court?
>> if you make a decision today our plan was to try to get it finalized by this Friday, which would be June the 3rd, and have it open June 30th.
that way it out on the street for our 21 days.
that was our plan.
so we they we can get it out by this Friday, have it open June 30th, probably a couple of weeks and a couple of weeks to get a contract.
so maybe have a contract by the end of July.
mr. Hille, I'm looking at you.
I think we could do it by the end of July, have a contract back to you by then.
>> okay.
>> I did have one question.
Commissioner Eckhardt had talked about maybe listing these out like legal, financial, real estate.
do you want me to work on that or just leave it like it is?
>> leave it like it is.
>> we'll ask for those.
those are things that -- we keep saying bids, competitive bid.
in my world bid has a different connotation than proposal.
this is a proposal that we can negotiate.
so those kind of things we'll be able to negotiate and clarify with the firms.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> I just want to make sure people notice that to determine the feasibility of entering into a public-private partnership, meaning that the decision has not been made to enter it for this to be a p 3.
>> absolutely.
>> I want to make sure to clarify that.
>> and I would just like to clarify everything that I've read and trying to get.
even if we put out -- put out qualifications for a team and we hire a team and they come back with different scenarios, we still might decide that none of those p 3 models work for us.
so even if we get to the end of this we might say, do you want what?
we might want to go and build us a courthouse.
we always have that option.
>> as I stated earlier, the authority for any of this is really resides with this Commissioners' court.
as far as what we're dealing with right here.
the buck stops right here with these five members on this court in this process.
so I just think everyone should be aware of that, who is already not aware of it.
>> any more discussion or delay?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioners Huber and Gomez.
thank y'all very much for your input and participation.
why don't we take another week on 26, bring back whatever parts of that we need to.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> some of those I think --
>> (indiscernible).
>> some of those I think we had planned to do anyway.
I will need another week on the matter involving broaddus 21.
give me one more eeoc week on that.
one more week on that.
and that's the only thing bowjt amendments and transfers, right?
so we'll take no action on budget amendments and transfers and bring it back next week.
any other items we should neisd to consider under them.
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.
