Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 20
>> mr. Manila, since we're on a building --
>> jag?
>> -- run here, number 20.
consider and take appropriate action related to completion of the smart building b located at 3404 south fm 973.
a, approve the smart building b dedication plaque and b, request to set November 17, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
as the date and time for the grand opening and dedication ceremony.
>> thank you, judge.
john carl, I'll walk you through what we're doing here.
>> good afternoon, I'm john carl, the administrative director for facilities management department.
today we're here to talk to you about the new smart building b that is an 18,200 square foot building that has been completed.
it will contain 72 beds and nine dormitory rooms. The third description of what's contained in the building is in your backup.
the facility was substantially completed as of August 23rd of this year, and is expected to be occupied in early November.
this building is designed and constructed to achieve leed silver certification.
this will be our second building that will be a leed silver building.
the richard scott building being the other leed silver building.
apparently facilities management is looking into what counties and governmental agencies are doing about dedication plaques, and we will be coming back to you within 60 days with that research about what is contained in their plaques and where they're placing their plaques.
that will take about 60 days, but we will be back to you.
>> so we have not had a policy governing that?
>> no, sir.
we had a standard practice that we have been following for about the past 10 years.
and this plaque that we're recommending today is consistent with the previous plaques.
>> do we need a plaque?
>> well, it's a significant investment, ma'am.
I would think it would --
>> but the plaque -- how does the plaque inform the public of the significant investment?
>> well, it advises the public of when the court approved the facility investment, when it was built, who designed and who constructed it.
so 30 years down the road somebody can see that and when it occurred.
>> but it's not essential.
>> it's a bell and whistle.
>> that's how I would classify it, sure.
it is giving recognition to the folks who approved the funding and who were most directly involved with it.
for that purpose it's okay, but is it essential?
no.
>> and it's really not a very large investment for the plaque, considering the cost of the facility itself.
>> remind me what the cost is.
>> of the plaque, sir?
less than three thousand.
>> three thousand?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I could think of something that I would like to do with three thousand dollars.
>> I applaud you for looking at a policy for it because I do have a problem with the fact that we've got people on this -- that we've been using people's names on these plaques that are hired by the county to do their jobs and there are also others who are employees of the county who have -- like purchasing and legal who have had very key roles in a new building, and they're not listed.
so I think it's a good idea to take a longer look at the equity of the coverage.
>> the list will go on, too.
these usually take collaborative teams to get all this done.
so I guess we could get a bunch of names on here.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> the county attorney, his office.
>> as far as the policy, I mean --
>> the county auditor.
>> it is an expense, and as far as utilizing taxpayer dollars for a plaque, you know, it gives me some pause.
if we are going to do a plaque, I would venture that the information should be minimal and informative.
the year that it was dedicated and what it was dedicated for, not the names of all the people -- that could go on forever.
>> usually it's been the policy making body that's been on the plaque and the year that it was completed.
>> but even that seems so self-serving in a way.
it's a Travis County building, it was dedicated in such year for such and such purpose, but even that I think is guiling the lily for 3,000 bucks per.
>> what did we do for the heman courthouse?
>> cjc I know we have one.
>> what about the courthouse?
>> I don't know.
>> I'm not sure.
>> when it got dedicated.
when it got the name change and got put on there.
>> I would be in favor of no plaque unless there's some historic significance to the building that we want to preserve.
>> [ laughter ] like the heman marion sweatt.
there is a policy rationale for its naming and whatnot, but the smart facility --
>> the last one that we did, of course, was the richard scott building.
>> was that similar to this one?
>> it was very similar to this one, yes, ma'am.
>> as far as historical significance of the structure, on this particular structure, there is none.
>> it's no knock on its architectural integrity, just that, you know --
>> I think it just documents the expenditure of tax dollars, you know, and how we got there, the collaborative.
>> with an additional expenditure.
>> but that's all part of the budget, though.
>> let's review it starting next time.
>> all right, sir.
>> or after today.
I'd bring back an option where we don't do a plaque, period.
and maybe we do plaques in special circumstances if we can describe them.
I don't know that we've ever set out and sort of meticulously went over the policy, costing it out.
I'm kind of like you, we have just kind of as a matter of practice done them.
>> should we look at it in conjunction of our naming policy?
we have a fairly robust policy with regard to naming of county structures that require -- requires a nomination period and whatnot so that we would only contemplate a plaque in a naming circumstance?
>> I think we should review all of them.
>> I think we ought to look at the policy when it comes back.
>> sir, can I ask then, are you recommending not putting a plaque on this building at this time?
>> no, sir.
I'm about to ask for a motion on this item.
the plaque will be for future projects.
and if you get it back to us in two to three weeks, I would give us another couple of weeks to review, discuss, deliberate, then take action.
so that will get us six to eight weeks down the road in my view.
we don't va project that we need to --
>> no, sir, nothing coming up quickly.
>> move approval, judge, of the plaque.
>> second.
>> motion by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Davis.
and this goes to the date of November 17th, 2011 at nine a.m.
also, right?
what day of the week is that?
it's not Tuesday, is it?
>> no, sir.
>> I know sometimes y'all don't like the court, but --
>> [ laughter ]
>> that's a Thursday, sir.
>> okay.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against, Commissioner hiewb are and Commissioner Eckhardt.
can you take a simple direction from the court to work on that policy?
at the appropriate time and bring us a draft?
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you very much.
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.
