Travis County Commissioners Court

May 1, 2012 - Item 23
Agenda

View captioned video.

There is only one open court item and the rest of 'em are executive session.
Number 23, consider and take appropriate action on a report by Ernst & Young regarding a new civil and family court house, including but not limited to: a, appointment of a court house committee to assist with the selection of a delivery method for the project; b, proposed committee charge; c, appointment of an internal project manager; and d, other related issues.

>> good afternoon.

>> good afternoon.

>> judge.

>> [indiscernible] justice and public safety.
I'm here with belinda powell, the strategic planning manager with p.b.o.
we've been serving on the internal team to -- to shepherded the feasibility study through.
we presented that to y'all or actually the consultants presented that to y'all two weeks ago.
we had a follow-up session with you all last week to talk about next steps and we're back begin to discuss that follow-up and you gave us two tasks specifically.
one is to come up with one of two committees that will take the information from the ernst & young report and make a recommendation to y'all.
we would like to talk to you about that.
also proposed charge, actually there were three items and discussion of a possible project management structure for the courthouse going forward.
so the first one we're pleased to report that -- that a letter went out late last week under judge Biscoe's name to the various organizations that you all asked us to reach out to.
we also reached out to them by phone.
we do have names we can give you today.
I'm going to ask belinda to update you with what we have so far.

>> we have confirmation of the three judges that it was said on the committee would be judge dietz, judge livingston and judge shepherd.
we have conversation from the city of Austin that ronnie gonzalez from the economic and growth development group would sit on the committee.
from ona --

>> mr. Gonzales' first name is?

>> rodney.

>> rodney.
thanks.

>> from ona, the neighborhood association that the site is in, we have john horton, the government liaison for ona, he is confirmed.

>> Commissioner Huber you were asking about the other neighborhood associations, actually, what we understand ona is the new name of that particular neighborhood association.

>> ona is the one where the site is.
yeah, we can reach out to dana, but make many of the members are in ona.
so we do have another place holder, when you get through the names, we have 12 seated members right now.
and we really would rather have an odd number for them to do their work and take votes.
so if you want a resource that is separate in geographic area, we can look at dana.

>> I guess we have all of the chambers represented, I don't know what the geographic representation is, but we're talking about the downtown diana, if dana is separate from ona and I thought it was and we mentioned dana last week, I would auto like to vet that a little -- I would like to vet that a little better.

>> we can reach out to them, we have one more seat that we would like to fill when you get the rest of the list here.
just so that you have an odd number on the committee makeup, so when they are voting and discussing it's better to have an odd number for the committee makeup.
but we -- so we did confirm with john horton from ona.
and then charles heimsath of capital market research will represent the downtown Austin alliance, scott langberry from I have forgotten, du on boise, representing the greater Austin area chamber of commerce.

>> how does he spell his last name.

>> lineberry.

>> can you provide us with some written backup with the categories of these?
it would be very helpful.

>> absolutely.
I have that ready.
I didn't bring it.

>> the email.

>> we will email that out.
martha dickey from the Austin bar association and ms. Dickey is also the president at this time of the bar's internal courthouse committee, so she will be representing the bar.
we have not heard from the capital city african-american chamber.
we have heard from the greater Austin area hispanic chamber they will get us a name sometime this week and also from the asian american chamber that they will get us a name this week.
everyone has responded except the capital city african-american chamber, we have yet to make a solid contact there.

>> did the contact that I give you for the asian american group help?

>> yes.

>> okay.
so can you enumerate the slots then?
I'm having a little trouble.
I should have started writing them down.

>> we have the district judges or the judges represented.
we have the Austin bar represented.
the greater Austin chamber, the daa, the city of Austin, we have ona as a neighborhood association and then mr. Art corey as a real estate person who is your former chief appraiser, has also indicated that he would be happy to sit if you would like for him to.

>> okay.

>> so but he's financial real estate assessment, right if.

>> yes.

>> I thought we were also -- in my mind's eye we need a real estate professional that understands the type of development from a developmental standpoint that we have for -- for representation in the real estate community.

>> [multiple voices]

>> mr. Heimsath --

>> and he is a planner, not a developer.

>> that's true --

>> I think he's great --

>> for development

>> [multiple voices]

>> yeah.

>> real estate development is what you are saying.

>> real estate development from the real estate community.
I think that we have to be careful, if we put someone from that category in there, because we don't want someone that would be in conflict from being on a potential team but we can vet that.
I think that there's so many developmental things to be considered that we need someone from the community.
I actually floated out, I have no one in mind, but I floated out a request for some suggestions, which I haven't heard --

>> do we want to ask reca if they can help us find one?

>> we can do that if that's what you would like.
we were waiting to hear today what you wanted to do on a resource for that.

>> can we -- I'm hoping for a double hat here.
either from the hispanic chamber, the asian chamber or the african-american chamber, if it would be at least possible if not probable that we could get a developer from one of those chambers.

>> could be.
if they bring the skill set.

>> the other thing that we have individuals who represent some background in public finance, but we don't have an individual separately that represents public finance either.

>> so if anyone has a suggestion that would be helpful.

>> okay.
on membership in general, I just had a question because this is our community stakeholder group.
so -- so and I --

>> this is supposed to be the experts who help us with the on -- -- help us select the method of delivery.

>> so my question was why do we have three judges on it?
if this is our experts from the community.
judges are important in this process, let me say that, we may have a very big role, have had, I wonder if we don't just need one slot for judges.
that would help the size of the committee.

>> the reason that I would have three is that depending on when these meetings occur, some of us would lucky to get one present -- these three have been working on the project probably longer than the Commissioners court.
this is really a courthouse for civil judges.
and civil actions.
more than any of the others here I think.

>> I agree with you.
but I understand there are -- there's, I figured that was why there was three names floated out, I was just thinking they could come when they wanted, there was only one slot for them, because this is really the community's opportunity to have input into it.
they've -- they continue to have input all the way across the board.

>> my idea for community input was different.
that's where I would have another committee and roll this one into it.
my idea about the other one is really just permanent citizens who are interested in public projects and whom we can pressure into doing this service.
see what I'm saying.
whereas I thought we were trying to fill professional categories that we could put to work on a short notice basis to help us make that decision about -- about method of delivery.

>> exactly.
so -- so what is the role of the judges now?

>> I think making the decision on the method of delivery is less about the community's aspirations for the building itself and more about an evaluation of our three delivery options.
from a financial standpoint against the realities that the political and financial realities to the county.
and I agree that that -- that group should be rolled into a larger stakeholder group about the aspirations for the building itself.
but I think that we have a body of work that just needs to be analyzed by a -- by a group of folks capable of making that analysis and assisting us with making that decision.
although I do think that we need a broader stakeholder group for the aspirations of the --

>> I don't think we're talking different groups here.
I think that I'm talking about the same group that you all are talking about.

>> maybe we should start with the charge rather than the members of the group.
and discuss who would be most useful in delivering on the charge.

>> we asked them last week to go ahead and get representatives from various categories.
we painstakingly started at the top and worked our way to the bottom.
there is nothing magical about three, but I would think that if you're -- if you define stakeholders in the webster's dictionary way, the judges have a whole lot more at stake than any of these other groups here.
but it's not a fatal deal to me.
I would just have three.
I would roll that same three into the larger group.
we keep them engaged.
I think there are multiple benefits that result.
having to do with not only the method of delivery, but funding.
so I've -- so I guess I saw them not only in the slot but having the three judges engaged upon whom we could call in the future if we want people doing real work to make it happen.
who wants there to be one judge, right hand?
that's two.
who wants there to be three judges, right hand?
there's three.
I'm tired of these divided votes.

>> me, too.

>> next time I go down that road, stop me, all right?

>> [laughter] so what are we still looking for?
real estate developer?

>> the developer --

>> public finance person.

>> yes.

>> two specifically, waiting to hear from three more chambers.

>> what we can do is get the list, when we get those names, we can get the list that you requested under the categories and send that to you as part of the backup for next week.

>> okay.

>> what does ona mean.

>> original Austin neighborhood association.

>> original?

>> uh-huh.

>> I've never seen their boundary lines defined or the others, but my thought was that they were more the older historic district of downtown and the dana was downtown.

>> ona does go all the way to the river, it encompasses our site, but we can certainly add dana to the list will help get an oddball to the number if you would like for us to do that.
odd balance to the number.
what you will see is those geographic boundaries abutt.
ona, down to the river, happens to come over to guadalupe to accept this site.
would you like us to contact dana as well?

>> that's fine with me.

>> okay.

>> I don't know how important it is to have an odd number of people.
I'm scare -- if the vote is 8-7 over anything but lunch, I'm -- we may be in trouble.
I'm not expected unanimity on everything, but if the votes are not clearly one-sided we ought to have more discussion or something.

>> especially with a group this size.
it's getting to be about 15 people.
you shoulding able to get a balance.

>> that's what -- should be able to get a balance.

>> that's what I'm hoping.
we are sort of up there close to 15 now if not in excess of it.
okay.
any more discussion of that?
do we turn to the charge?
before we go to the charge, though, are we working on our selection of just community people?
trying to put that together?
and do we want to try to bring that back, what, in two weeks from today?

>> okay.

>> did we ever settle on --

>> [multiple voices]

>> we said that we would try to bring three apiece.
if we don't have a full complement in two weeks, we can easily take another item.
if we give ourselves that target, get as much done as we can, see what we have, so we can see what -- what gaps are created.

>> three or four apiece, right, judge?

>> yes, sir.

>> at least it would help me, I don't know if anybody else, but have the charge for this committee we are pulling people for.

>> would you like for us to work on a charge as well?

>> thank you for volunteering.

>> yeah, it would be good for something for them to look at say hey, you know, yeah.

>> is it our intention to roll this group into that group?
in which case three apiece, plus this 14 or 15 would be a very large committee.

>> yep.
you are getting up to around 30.

>> the people who are going to work on this committee, kind of feel like their work has been done by the time we get to that point.

>> that may be so.

>> I would think so.
they helped with it, now somebody else can take over.

>> perhaps we should not anticipate rolling this committee into that.

>> not in its entirety.

>> if any one of us has three names, some of which are also on this committee, so be it?

>> I think it will work itself --

>> I say yes.

>> okay.

>> I wouldn't feel pressured to come up with three.
I guess that I would feel pressure to come up with two.
and if you got a third one that you really are enthusiastic about, I would bring that name forth.
this is one of those deals where I mean you're talking about several years of work.
so I don't know that there are that many disadvantages of having a kind of large committee as long as they are dedicated, engaged and helpful.

>> okay.

>> then perhaps your original trajectory on this committee, which was identifying organizations rather than specific individuals, that way the organization if someone needs to roll off for some reason can bring someone else on over the time period.

>> yeah.

>> seems important to me to have at least some of these key organizations represented for the long haul.
as we go through this.
I don't have a -- I don't have a firmness in my mind on the overall composition.
but I mean when you're talking the long haul of the project, you need to have the city, you need to have the city, the chamber of commerce, we need to have daa, I mean --

>> I agree.
I have in mind these groups, these individuals really for the long haul if they'll agree to do it.
as you said, if there's an organization with a representative and something happens to that representative, we can go to the organization and get another one.
but I think that we are looking at easily three years.

>> okay.

>> speaking of charge, what about this one before us?

>> also on the charge, on Friday, for those that have not seen it or would like to, there's some copies for you.
again, this is just proposed, we welcome any suggestions that you have.
if you would like, I can just read each one, you can decide.
if you want to add to or subtract or modify in some way.
would that be all right.

>> why don't you do that, that may be the most efficient way to do.

>> okay.
the charge of the committee assembled to assist with the selection of a delivery method for a new Travis County civil and family courthouse is as follows: number 1, the committee is to provide a written recommendation to the Commissioners court on a delivery method for a new civil and family courthouse based on the analysis of options completed by ernst & young as well as the individual expertise of the committee members.
any thoughts or suggestions?

>> do you normally assemble a charge?

>> well --

>> the charge through the committee assembled to assist.
that's fine, that's fine.

>> being on.
any thoughts on number 1?
good to go.

>> number 2 the recommended delivery method should be vetted for financial feasibility and overall practicality.
I think what we heard from you all last week is a reemphasis on the financial feasibility.
in addition to the analysis that ernst & young did and overall practicality does it make sense for among these people for that delivery method.

>> okay.
was this the language similar to the language in the charge that we gave ernst & young?

>> the charge -- well --

>> I know financial feasibility we covered, but what else did we put in their charge?

>> legally permissible and physically possible.

>> okay.
so overall practicality

>> [indiscernible] physically possible.

>> I would say again you seem pretty comfortable with the report from the legal

>> [indiscernible] and from the physically possible standpoint.
you sounded like you wanted more investigate of the financial feasibility, that's why we highlighted it here.
but yes I think that I could pick up the other two on overall practicality.

>> the thing about -- about legal what, per missibility?
that really is still an issue for us, right, although not as big as it was six months ago.

>> there are alternative methods that we have to discuss with you and that your bond counsel has ideas.
there are a variety of different ways to get where you're going, we just need to know where you're going.

>> does this committee need to hear from -- from those legal experts?

>> for delivery method?

>> uh-huh.

>> that is the first thing that's on the list.

>> [multiple voices]

>> sure.

>> there are legal restrictions resulting from the p 3.
but I think committee members really ought to hear it and I'm -- I think that I'm slowly but surely coming around, but a lot may depend on what lawyer you talk with next, not to be critical.
some are a lot more positive than others and if you surface the legal issues and are concerned about them, a lot of explanations really don't give you satisfactory level of comfort.
see what I'm saying?

>> right.
you do have -- all of these judges that you have on the committee are attorneys and they have assets available to them as well.

>> that's why I said legal expert.

>> there you go.

>> but if we were -- if we were just participating, we were sitting in the crowd and if something came up that they just said that was just totally unconstitutional, I would be free to -- to jump in and help that committee along.
but on the funding for the p 3 project, there are really some delicate legal issues there, right.

>> that is correct.

>> that I think you really need to be more -- you need to have expertise just based on what I've heard from three different lawyers.
you know, all of whom were county folk.

>> don't we have to look into the attorney general issue as well?
I mean before we get people running off and doing a lot of work, shouldn't we settle that issue.

>> if you choose to operate under senate bill 1048 yes.
what john is saying there are other legal mechanisms, other legal authorities that we can rely on that the ag has not taken that position on.

>> that's my way of saying I would put legal permissibility into.

>> I have a little bit of concern on that.
I feel uncomfortable.
but maybe this is my background coming to the fore.
but I have a level of discomfort of a citizens group looking into the legal permissible of our actions.
I'm breaking out in hives over that.

>> well, let me come from another perspective.
I don't look at them looking into the legal permissibility, it's that we have people on this committee that may not be familiar with the legal constraints.
there may be some assumptions there about what could or could not be done on the different methods of delivery that they would need explained or they would need -- or wouldn't really need to understand so that they weren't making invalid assumptions.

>> I agree with that.
that's why I'm concerned, though, about putting it in the charge.
certainly in accomplishing the charge, county staff should advise this group of the legal parameters we're working within, but I'm reticent to put it in the charge that they should evaluate the legal aspect.

>> legal issues will undoubtedly come up.
and at that point, the county attorney and the appropriate outside counsel would need to address those legal issues.

>> I don't see a charge of them to evaluate the legal.

>> I know we can get to language I feel comfortable with.
I'm saying I'm a little uncomfortable with what we just expressed but I think we can get there.
I have no problem of advising this group of our legal constraints.
but we are going to be, because this is new law from the state statute and because Texas has not utilized p 3, except in transportation settings, I think, is that true?
that -- that we will be creating precedent here.
one way or the other we're going to be creating precedent.
that's all that I'm saying.
I'm nervous about the wording, but I know we can get there.

>> it seems to me that if leroy and others are right, about how you go about satisfying your debt, in a p 3 project, it will be hard for a group and a committee like this, I think, to recommend it.
and I'm -- I would have a hard time suggesting that we do it notwithstanding that restriction myself.

>> yes, I think that --

>> it's kind of frightening to think about it.
that should definitely be laid on the table for the public at large to understand, too.
I'm just concerned about creating an unrealistic expectation of a charge that this committee can -- like I said, I know we can get there.
I agree with you.
I'm just concerned about having an unrealistic expectation that they can, you know, stand in our shoes as the client and receive legal advice.

>> even if we get with our lawyers ourselves and say we want a one pager that clearly sets our legal parameters, I think we ought to share that with the committee.
so I'm kind of like you though, not

>> [indiscernible] about the language except these really ought to be experts on that particular issue.
not just real good lawyers like we have in the county attorney's office.

>> although we did pay some lawyers in the ernst & young contract to do that analysis.

>> >

>> [indiscernible] then that would be another piece of information that you could provide, that analysis, but I would submit they probably would need the county attorney's office there to talk and answer questions about that analysis, also.

>> what one might be to remove, just use the word feasibility and it be a broad brush for all kinds of things, legal, financial, whatever else comes up.
it made read the recommended delivery method should be vetted for feasibility and overall practicality.

>> I hear where you're coming from, but I also like the financial in there because that's the critical point for the whole thing for us.

>> uh-huh.

>> make a footnote of that legal permissibility, let's footnote that for the time being.
okay.
footnote in this case meaning we will revisit at the appropriate time.

>> okay.

>> how about -- the feasibility from a financial and legal perspective or within financial and legal parameters?

>> that's fine.

>> okay.

>> [ applause ]

>> the last thing she said.

>> no comment.

>> say that again.

>> do that, let's go to 3.

>> [laughter] 3 goes to 89 values that we are -- goes to the value, collaborative, informative, transparent should instill confidence in the recommended delivery method for the Travis County Commissioners court and the residents of Travis County.

>> did you say objectives?

>> it's not in there, but we could add it.

>> makes sense to me, any objection to that?
and instill confidence in the soundness of the recommended delivery method.

>> just say stills instead of --

>> no, I was just reading.

>> okay.
I believe I like that.

>> okay.

>> this goes to -- to giving them some time parameters we're proposing the first meeting on next -- a week from Thursday, which is the may 10th, giving them a month, it is ambitious, but about a month to get a recommendation back to you.
but we're certainly open to suggestions or what you might think is reasonable.

>> I guess if they really need more time, they'll just ask for it.
now, how would you structure this committee?
would there be like a chair and a vice chair or county staff assuming all power and leading it?

>> I think the county staff role would be supportive for sure.
I think we were going to leave it to make suggestions to them on the 10th about how they might do it.
it would probably be, in my opinion, smart to have a chair and vice chair that was the face and voice of the committee to you all.

>> that's typically how your bond advisory committee assembles themselves.
staff calls the first meeting and they lay out their working format and we usually do recommend a chair and vice chair, if they're going to do subcommittees of any sort that they at least have a point of contact for each working group or subcommittee that's in there just for coordination purposes and ease in helping find a location for them to meet.

>> but they elect their own officers?

>> generally, yeah.

>> you all are comfortable with that?

>> if it's worked in the past.
we leave open the door if somebody has a better idea, they feel free to throw it out there and get it acted on.

>> we envisioned that first meeting on the 10th being about organization, distribution of information, talking about a schedule, all of those kinds of administrative things to get them going forward.

>> okay.
where do you envision this committee meetings?

>> we talked about p.b.o.'s conference room.
they have the nicest table

>> [laughter]

>> for lack -- at least for the first meeting, again the group can decide logistically what's easier or better for them.
if we can offer any other county space, that's accessible or if they select their own.
but that was a starting point just to get them assembled.

>> most of these people are either downtown or near downtown or downtown frequently.

>> I would imagine, yes.

>> we are also proposing at least for the first meeting that it be at 5:00, it might be prohibited by work.
we do have a question if you all would like to attend, you know, we can arrange to have it posted, do all of the requisite notifications if you would like to do that.
it's up to you.

>> right.

>> my own thinking is that the committee would get a whole lot more done without us.

>> okay.

>> but if they request our presence, we are available.

>> okay.

>> how's that?

>> okay.

>> now, sorry, anything that we should add to the charge?
seems like three good points to me.
and a meeting date.

>> okay.

>> move approval of the charge.

>> as revised.

>> as revised.

>> second.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
see there, we're together sometimes.

>> I also left, we've put on the agenda and left open the -- an opportunity for -- to discuss a project manager or project management structure to see if you had any ideas going forward.

>> I like the idea that we talked about was it yesterday?
or Friday?

>> it was on Friday I think.

>> be bold enough to throw it out there.

>> come on up.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> we talked about ms. Browder and roger s.
teaming up.
as our co-leaders.

>> roger?

>> jeffreys.

>> it's going to be a big job.
but, you know, sharing the responsibilities I think would be helpful.
we both particularly leslie has resources she could bring in to the project management team, any resources that I have, I would certainly offer up.
and we just thought that might be a start for you all to think about what the project management structure should look like.
once you decide on a delivery method, we work with purchasing to get either your clients rep and or finance and risk manager and, you know, we could manage the procurements of that with cyd and then get them on board to act as our advisor.

>>

>> [indiscernible] would continue to work with you all.

>> absolutely.

>> our goal would be after we choose a method of delivery, get some outside consultant help basically.

>> uh-huh.

>> one or two.

>> one or two or more.

>> owner's rep and other the other consultant.

>> financial risk management.
right.

>> any thoughts

>> [indiscernible]

>> no, I think you covered it all.

>> is there a better idea?
we sort of worked through the options and concluded that all things considered, this might well -- this is probably the best way for us to go.

>> I agree.
we meaning Commissioner Gomez and the managers and i.
sound all right?
so the goal here would be to get us to just beyond a decision on a delivery method and I guess putting together an rfq or rfs for outside help.
when it gets quiet like this, I know that we're moving in the right direction.

>> [laughter]

>> this might change over time, but yes, we thought this would be a good way to keep it moving.

>> the key thing being basically to request that ms. Browder and mr. Jeffreys serve as co-county executives and managers of this project through the time that we secure outside help.
that's the motion.

>> second.

>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion?

>> I'm sorry

>> [indiscernible]

>> executive sponsor.

>>

>> [indiscernible] any other comments?
this looks all right to you, purchasing agent?

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> any more discussion of the motion?
I think on some of these, if somebody comes up with a better idea, we ought to just stick it on the agenda, consider it, if it's better, approve it.
this is like we have felt obligated to come up with some recommendation today.
to advance the ball further.

>> I would just like to say along those lines that I think that we are just getting launched, but at some point I think that we would need to lock in on consistency for the duration of the project.
from an internal standpoint.
we've had a history of a problem with that, we don't want to repeat it.

>> those who know me well know when I make that offer, I really don't mean it

>> [laughter] all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now, two weeks from today, we ought to try to bring back names of the members of the second committee.
how much time do we need to give you all on the charge for that committee?
two weeks, also?

>> you don't mind?

>> [indiscernible]

>> is that okay?

>> sort of but much broader without delivery method being the focus.

>> I tell you what, if we could have it maybe for you by next week so that you could get it out to your potential names, so they can see what they're going to be asked to do.
so we could get a draft to you by next week, how's that?

>> even better.

>> make sure that we have agendized.
anything else on this item?

>> no, sir.

>> okay.
thank you very much, good work.

>> thank you all.

>> fast turn around.

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.