Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 11
Number 11 is to approve contract 9 is to approve for broad dus and associates for consulting service, Travis County central campus study for needs analysis and facilities master plan.
>> good morning judges and Commissionerrs number 11 is to approve, 9, is to contract pos for broad dus and associates, needs analysis for fa silges master plan.
>> that sounds familiar.
>> this is essential reruning an analysis with the new information of of having purchaseded block.
>> right.
back when we had originally approved the contract, it included assessment of all our physical sites that we had in our inventory.
at the time, as you know, did not include the block at fourth and guadlupe.
this modification will go back and pick up that and will actually involve a site assessment of the physical site, utilities and easementsen an include a site specific space program.
and a proposed stacking concept.
>> which is the same thing that has been done with our other physical locations that were in inventory.
>> consistent with all of the other projects and facilities that we have.
that is correct.
>> we are convinced that we need this dop.
>> we believe that it's important to integrate this block into a master plan document so we have a completed master plan going forward to 2035, yes, sir.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> can you clarify for me?
I had a little trouble understanding some of the backup.
I understand that in this modification there are some previous services that were within the scope of work of broad us no longer been used and we are ebbs tending some services.
is there any credit in the previous allocation of monies for those services moving forward?
.
yes.
>> in relation to the newly modified.
>> the modification is the net number from broad us.
rehad some of the original scope master planning efforts are out and also went back and add adjusted for the new civil courthouse site.
this particular modification is primarily related to the master, the new civil and family courthouse site.
>> if you look at exhibit 1, Commissioner.
>> that is what I had trouble with.
>> in order to be brief, essentially we are looking at taking out some of the services related to doing further historic designation analysis on the marion sweat courthouse.
what we have we think is sufficient if we choose a defailed preservation plan, that would be the appropriate ray to pick up what were limited services here and really expand on that site.
so we were looking to repurpose some of those funds.
because our master planning effort for the building is sufficient at this point to integrate at the same level with the rest of this master plan.
preservation plan we talked about when we initially awarded the contract is much more extensive than what we had in the scope of work as well.
>> does that mean that 108,688, is that the total of the repurposed funds in exhibit 1?.
>> yes.
you will see part of that is repurposed to fund the $96,450.
so what we took out went away, 688, and we repushed 96,450.
and the net balance at the end of all the familiar --analysis of of repurposing monies is that we have a modification of the 8931.
>> you will notice Commissioner on page 2 of 3 of that detail, there is a specific task 7 that we have basically pulled out the and family courthouse site and specifically identified those cots related to that site.
there are some other costs included in task 4 for the civil and family, but those we are anticipated would probably be there.
so that is why you see a reference in 4.
>> task 7, if you recall in the previous presentations on the buildings and stacking plans for the master plan, it actually, we looked at the court system and tried to stack it on existing site.
so we have a very detailed destination and specific types of tasks.
what you see in task 7 are really what were considered task 2 and 3 tasks that have been completed and this is to catch up this site to bring that to the level that everything else is today and then task 4 items that you see, the $10,000, is absorbing that site into the rest of the completion of the master plan, keeping everything at the same level and issuing all the final reports to include the same site to do that, we need a few extra meetings associated with continuing our process the way we have.
>> also a question, does broadus plan to complete for the current rf is the on the street?
>> I don't know.
>> I would think we need to know.
I have a question about con flisk interest on extending modification of a contract that go along with them competing for a bid on the same project.
>> should be noted this modification is specific to the master plan.
it has nothing to do with any of the discussions that have taken place, the rfi or rfs currently on the street.
this modification is specific only to the master plan and incorporating this site into the master plan.
>> I understand.
let me finish, please.
I understand.
and I want to say that I think broadus has done excellent work and applaud what they have done.
under most circumstances I would be very supportive ofen thing this.
I think there's been a lot of questions about transparency and openness on the civil courthouse process.
I think to have a consultant working on the project at the same time they may be competing for an igs did component is a conflict of interest.
>> maybe we should put this down for excesstive session.
I believe the county attorney's office was looking at whether or not this would be a conflict of interest arising from this and my understanding is that since the work product under contract is ours and would then be shared with the future award ee of a rfs either as representative of the property or the one currently on the street that there won't be an issue.
but we should probably take that into executive session.
>> I would be happy to advise you and pull in the writer of the contract to talk that through.
>> I have a question.
>> to finish it off, the results of this analysis will be ours to make available to whoever wins that contract.
so it wouldn't, my understanding at least, it wouldn't put any contractor at any competitive advantage because any future contractor would have the same access to the same information.
>> we can show you those contract provisions.
>> let's indicate our interest intention to take that into executive zegs my question is, the money that would look dealing with the civil or family courthouse, my question is would this be the amount that we're looking at for anybody else to do the same work, would this, it is a modification, would the modification be added on to later on?
would the modification 10 or 11 or 12, based on the same subject matter,, the civil, you know, the civil family courthouse, I have some concerns about that per se.
now, I really don't know what is all entailed in this.
even though it does deal with master plan.
however, this 81,039 rents for the modification per se, does this actually represent someone else that can do this for the same amount of money?
I don't really know.
I'm about that even though they are integrating this into the master plan.
I understand.
but even integrating into the old master plan, they are still dealing with the civil family courthouse.
whatever they do within that arena.
I'm not sure about that.
so it's some concern.
raised a a concern for me.
>> right.
>> and of course, I looked at this and looked at it last time it was a team 26 I guess last week.
under item 26, I think 26 c, I think, last week's agenda.
so.
>> this was separate.
>> I understand.
may be, but the same superintendent matter, same subject matter as far as the persons dealing with it.
the companies dealing with it.
I hear what you are saying, but I am not clear, not clear at all on this.
because, master plan being one thing, but you are still dealing with a situation that we are looking at as far as the new civil family courthouse.
>> yes, sir.
>> all doors open as far as I'm concerned.
>> again, this particular request is a modification for the master plan only, not related to any of the p3 or not p3 discussions.
>> but it is related to the new family civil courthouse.
is that true?
>> it is.
>> all right.
it's the relationship that I'm having problems with.
>> I understand.
and that is one of the things that we do recognize.
given the discussions over the last couple of weeks, there could be that confusion of this being a part of those discussions.
and I want the assure you that this is not, while this is specific to the civil and family courthouse, it is specific integrate in only this site which has been designated into the master planning effort, and to do all of the assessments that were done with the other sites that we own.
>> all right.
well, what we are seeing incrementally, this is not the plan of course to go on in perpetuity as it appears.
but as we grow and as the county grows and we bring on more facilities and require more space because of the growth of the county, will be mean more and more modification of that is what it appears to me.
>> right.
>> of course this is something that is not for future because there are situations, example, the north campus of the airport with the tax office and sheriffs office, we have some situations up there.
>> sure.
>> of course, not per se in the master plan, but we have neighborhood associations screaming and hollering to take care of ms. Ward and a bunch of other, screaming and hollering for us to do something about some of the space.
we have a building that we purchased.
>> right.
>> all that other stuff.
so I'm kind of concerned where this is going.
>> this particular modification, Commissioner, is anticipated to get us through and completed with the central campus master plan.
that includes the final product.
we anticipate that the court will have in August or September if approving, if you approve this modification today, we anticipate that in August or September we will come back with a final, excuse me, come back with a recommended final master plan for the central campus for your approval.
then you will receive the final master plan document shortly thereafter.
so we anticipate that this particular modification will address everything to completion of the master plan for the central campus.
>> if I can also, one of the last things that we actually need to do is look at phasing the master plan and how the different elements of expansion and growth are accommodated over the 2035 time horizon.
that is one of the reasons to add the fact that there is a new building proposed on new site that is not included.
but in addition to that, we're already working, leslie and I already working with facilities management.
she is facilities management, but already working on how the phasing of this plan in our financial plan accommodates the fist--phasing of north campus as well.
it's staff responsibility to try to trace the various master planning efforts that occur across the county and come up with an integrated thoughtful plan.
this is only a pies of that.
we do have north campus that we anticipate to update just asel our satellite sites so we can come back to a more detailed version of what you you in 2001 as a countiwide come --comprehensive utilization plan.
these only a piece of that.
whether you do to do the task 7 work or not, I would like to highlight that to complete the master plan process.
we do still need about $10,000 of this modification do that.
we would have to say that we are not phasing in the courthouse work in our phasing analysis.
staff would have to do that in some way.
again, this is a way for us to try to get as much of the information that we need to finish out kind of a phasing strategy as possible without getting into anything that would be in conflict with other work that will need to go on for your civil family courthouse and that site in particular.
just to get us a base picture of your whole central campus.
>> this is to complete the baseline.
>> the baseline.
>> someone else will pack up the baton and run with it as to the specifics of designing the spac.
>> absolutely.
>> for whatever these buildings are in the cbd master plan.
right now this is playing with legos.
>> that is right.
>> not just to design, but to again, further refine assumptions.
a whole lot of work that you have already been talking about that will still have to happen.
this will just set the baseline expectation for the court program going in the site.
that is it.
>> Commissioner Davis, I would just like to also add that we anticipate, obviously, as I said in the past, the master plan is a fluid document and will be constantly changing and updated.
we are hopeful that can be done within your current staffing and that we won't have to rely on consultants for the most part going forward.
and so, but we do acknowledge that it will be ever changing.
but this modification, we anticipate, will complete the central campus master planning efforts did that answer your question?
>> hopefully current internal staff can deal with it in the future.
I was hoping to hear that.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir.
>> we will take that into executive session.
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.
