Travis County Commissioners Court

May 8, 2012 - Item 21
Agenda

View captioned video.

21 is consider and take appropriate action regarding a new civil and family courthouse including but not limited to a, appointment of a court house committee, b, proposed charge and invitation later and c, other related issues.
we did discuss a at length last week and had two or three recommendations that we made to county staff and so is there a report back on a?

>> yes, sir.
in fact, let me get it.

>> thank you very much, roger.

>> there's a couple things added.

>> I'm roger jeffries, county executive of justice and public safety.
I'm here with leslie brouder and belinda powell.
following the last meetings we had with you to move forward with recommendations from ernst and young we're coming with an almost final committee.
the first committee which is going to advise on the delivery method for the civil and family courthouse.
I'm going to ask belinda to maybe walk through those folks.
there's been some additions since last week.
we have a couple of outstanding and we'll take it away.

>> I did speak with the greater hispanic chamber, they are number 4, still to be determined, and they are going to have an appointment on Thursday.
I just don't know who it will be yet.
natalie coefield is the president and c.e.o.
of that chamber.
we added peter shin, who is going to represent the Austin american asian chamber of commerce and he also happens to be the chair of the greater Austin chinese chamber of commerce.
we have added former mayor pro tem betty dunkerley as one of the financial experts.
we are still waiting to hear from dana and from rica, and then I believe Commissioner Gomez submitted a name as a financial expert also as a recommendation, charles jennings.
he has an extensive background in underwriting, was a former director at mcquery capital usa and she sent a resume and information to miss brouder to be considered today.

>> reca is not on this list.

>> I have not heard back from them.

>> I personally feel like -- I know I reached out and haven't gotten results back from the real estate community but I think it's really important we have someone from the development side in real estate on this committee.
we should continue to pursue an individual collectively or y'all should or whatever.

>> that is a question I guess for discussion.
we had actually planned to have the first meeting on Thursday.
and it would be an important one.
it's when they get their information and kind of get their charge and direction.
one of the things we have discussed is possibly putting that off for a few days pending the outcome of the two outstanding requests that we have not heard back from.
just a point of discussion.

>> I think getting a real estate construction professional is important.
I also think it's challenging and that's why we haven't come up with one because we need someone that doesn't have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, from one perspective or another.
but I guess I would challenge --

>> say wait a few days?

>> it's up to the court, but that would be my preference.
I know we need to get going on this, but I think that's a critical part of this committee.

>> we can start and add people later.
but have we notified these people they are disqualifying themselves from working on this in the future?

>> yes, we have.

>> we've made that very clear.

>> can we make a point to emphasize that at the first meeting so there won't be misunderstanding.
I only see two or three that it would rather matter but I would tell the whole committee.

>> I would be in favor of letting them get started as long as we can keep that open.

>> others added later on we just add them.
I move approval to this list.

>> second.

>> and directions to staff to try to get one or two others in the categories we are lacking and have mentioned.

>> perhaps we can get to them before Thursday.
we'll hear from them.

>> okay.
if you hear somebody and put them back on, to ratify the decision.
any more discussion of a?

>> did you want to add charles jennings in.

>> fine with me.
we're up there in the 15 range.
is that small enough for us?

>> we have a meeting room.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> the second thing you asked us to do is come up with a charge for the second committee which would be the larger community advisory committeeni that would -- we did include the definition of the community advisory committee.
it's pretty straightforward but basically defines it and recommends disciplines that should be represented.
and something for you to consider in your invitation --

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]

>> I was thinking about this particular charge being sent or placed on channel 17 for advertising.
this is what the Commissioners are looking for.
I'm looking for a similar situation that we dealt with the citizens advisory.
we end up selecting persons based on the interest and looking into the details of that individual to see if would kind of fit as far as what we wanted to have on the committee.
my concern now since it has different criteria, financial and all the other different things, different criteria, how could I get that out to the residents of Travis County to ask them, look, this is what we're looking for to serve on the committee.
so I'm kind of concerned about that because we would like to get a process that we have to go through for the long haul.
the input coming from that type of outreach, so did you have any suggestion?
I mentioned channel 17.
I need all the help I can get to make sure that we can get the proper persons as we go through the selection process.
for some of the criteria that has been outlined.

>> I'm not familiar how you do your outreach for your bond committee.
would it be something similar to that process perhaps?

>> well, yes or no, but this type of situation may be a little more unique because of the charge itself, but also the criterion being asked for in the charge itself.

>> perhaps we can look at some of the disciplines too and talk with some professional organizations, maybe locally, to gather some potential names, just a thought.

>> I'm just looking for as much assistance as I can get to make sure that -- I may have some folks in mind, however, do they really fit the mode of what we're doing here?
and so that was just one suggestion.
there may be others.
I'm just trying to make sure, again, we get those persons that we feel need to be a part of it because this is a very intense, very delicate, very complex situation we're dealing with here.
and there's no doubt about that.
I think some of the things we're asking we need to fulfill those things how many do we accurately and aggressively do that to the best of our ability?
and so that's what I'm looking for is the best of the ability outreach approach.

>> Commissioner, perhaps another approach might be that we could craft a letter similar to the one that's directly inviting, but that maybe you could send to a pool of people that you know that specifies the type of disciplines we're looking for and they can get back to you or any of you with their interest as a result of sending them that letter.
would that be helpful?

>> I think that what could assist me as far as making sure if I have three persons to appoint, I want to make sure that they meet the demands that will be of those persons and they have the necessary knowledge of some of the criterion and things that were suggested here.
so I'm just trying to make matches here and whatever assistance I can get to do that, you know, it wouldn't bother me at all.
but that outreach I think need to be sufficient enough so that we can go with a broad brush; however picking up as many things as we can within the spread of that brush to include them in this process.

>> so we could do two things for you.
in addition to the letter, if you have somebody in mind, this letter, this draft that we have put together for you all was designed for somebody, if you had somebody specific in mind.
we could also do one for you that -- I don't know what the word is -- solicits interest in the various ones.
and you could send it out to maybe a pool of folks you know to see who might be interested and qualified and then make the formal invitation to the committee.

>> I would like to see what you come up with with that second suggestion.

>> the other thing I think --

>> and still keep this in mind of what we have before us today.

>> the other thing I think we could do is one of the things that your bond committees usually do is they do put together a little biography of background information about themselves.
so we can take the committee we're already talking about and ask them to get back to us with that type of information also and see if we can package that.
you can see that against part of this advisory charge also because I think some of the folks you've already -- you're already looking at on the recommendation committee meet some of these qualifiers for disciplines as well.
but that could be helpful as well in kind of narrowing the field of where you think there might be additional individuals you might want to add to the committee or seat in an advisory committee.

>> what kind of timeline do you see this particular committee being completed in the appointments?
tracking on the calendar.
and the reason I ask is because depending upon -- I mean, we need to get moving, but depending upon what method of construction is decided to bond for the civil courthouse to me might make a difference in who I might put on my appointee list for this committee.

>> I would envision that it would kick in pretty soon after the first committee makes a recommendation to you.
so mid June?

>> if we roll the first committee into the second one we cover about half of these recommended categories.

>> I would think so, yes.

>> in my view we really need prominent citizens who don't necessarily fall into one of these professional categories.
but our thinking is that court members would be expected to appoint such persons?

>> I think y'all had talked about maybe three apiece in addition to whoever would carry over from the first committee.

>> okay f we appoint the full first committee, that's 15 people.
if we double the size, that's 15 more, that would be three apiece for the Commissioners' court.

>> yes, sir.
assuming that the original 15 would want to serve.
we're not sure at this point how many of them want to continue for the long haul.

>> but easily we're up into the 25 to 30 range.

>> yes.

>> I have a suggestion just for clarification purposes that the court may want to entertain.
if we're talking about -- regarding the charge of the committee.
if we're talking about a committee of this size, I think it might be appropriate to put in -- in the phraseology providing recommendations to the court majority and minority report.
because you're likely to -- on a controversial item -- have close votes.
I think it would be helpful to the court to see not necessarily on everything, but on key items of interest a minority report as well.

>> so would you want -- are you suggesting to work that into the charge perhaps or just in the --

>> clarity on the front end always helps.

>> [ laughter ]

>> and I mean, the other thing I think in timing of seating it is if you -- if this committee is much larger it will need some time to organize itself and create some bylaws and different things.
so they'll need longer organization time before you would want them in place before you would hit any solicitation.

>> do we have any boilerplate that we use from the bond committee just to get them started so we can say here are guidelines and you can change them up if you want, but just to get you started?

>> yes, we do.

>> that's great.
happy to hear it.

>> so we want their commitment by Tuesday, may 15th.

>> this is what we're suggesting, but it might be a little ambitious, considering the scope of the committee.
we just put that in there as a place holder.

>> I think we need to add another week or two to that.
this committee is not doing anything until the first committee makes recommendations, right?

>> right.

>> Commissioner Huber, to your point I think on number four, perhaps we could add the committee should update the Commissioners' court on a quarterly basis regarding the status of their work and relating recommendations, which may include a majority and minority reports based on the votes taken by commit.

>> that's fine.

>> and to receive further directions.

>> and I would say, which may include as appropriate.
I don't think we need a minority report on every item and I think they can figure out if there's a close vote that it would be appropriate.

>> do y'all want to go through the charge?
I could read it like I did last time and make any appropriate notes.

>> I thought it looked good.

>> go ahead and hit the highlights for us.

>> the charge of the community advisory committee for the Travis County civil and family courthouse is as follows: the committee is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Commissioners' court and the project manager for the duration of the procurement, design and construction of the Travis County civil and family courthouse.
the advice and recommendations may come in the form of a presentation to the Commissioners' court, a written report or other appropriate means of communication.

>> okay.

>> the advice and recommendations may be generated by inquiries on specific issues by the Commissioners' court and the project manager and by observation of specific issues by the committee.
okay.
the work of the committee should be collaborative, objective, informative, transparent and should instill confidence in the soundness of the advice for the Travis County Commissioners' court and the residents of Travis County.
and finally, commit should update the Commissioners' court on a quarterly basis regarding the status of their work and relating recommendations, including where appropriate majority and minority reports.
we'll get better language in there.
and to receive further direction from the Commissioners' court as needed.

>> questions or comments?

>> no.
I just wanted to say this, that you can assist as I would like my assistants as I requested earlier and get that to me as soon as you possibly can.
I think Commissioner Eckhardt had an idea that we spoke about earlier and I think I need to see that again and that would assist in the bond committee type of arrangement that we had then.
I just want to make sure that I'm able to hit the bull's eye the first time around as much as possible, but with the best that we have to offer.
from that type of solicitation.
so if you can provide me with that information in a timely manner I really would appreciate it.

>> I'd be glad to do that.

>> thank you.

>> so we think in one we really give the committee our best opinion on what we expect from it.
is this language similar to what we use with the bond advisory committee?

>> I'm not sure.

>> no, sir.
that one is a little more specific about the discussions of the bond, the bond packaging and the range that you're looking to hit.
so this is not exactly like that charge.

>> okay.
but we think this is about as specific as we can get at this time?

>> and yet broad enough to encompass I think a lot of issues.
I'm not sure we know yet what can come up that we may solicit their advice on.

>> okay.

>> which is what number two tries to hit.
you may give them specific direction on something at a later date.

>> george, I think you're on to something there.
I think it sounds to me like we need at some point some more specific directions, but maybe as this evolves we'll have more clarity on that?

>> okay.
that's fine with me.

>> judge?

>> yes, sir.

>> how long are you allowing before this comes back to the Commissioners' court to allow -- for us to pick the -- court members to pick who to serve?
how long are we allowing for that?

>> it seems that I would back this up two weeks rather than one because we're saying that we want to get the letter out, we want members of the Commissioners' court to make selections and we want feedback from the individuals selected, right?
or recommended.
that's what I would do, especially since they're not doing any serious work until after the first committee does its work.

>> okay.
we can push that out two weeks.

>> unless there's a problem with it.
I mean, I -- it's not like work is being delayed because they haven't been appointed.
I think the timing will fit in with the work of the first committee also.

>> okay.
with that I move that we approve the charge of the new schedule for the appointment of committee members for the second committee.
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
it may would help us to see a copy of the charge to the bond advisory committee that we've used in the past.
we've used at least two or three.
would it be asking too much for us to come up with two owe three of those, with the two or three if we can?
I don't know whether the last one, revise the language of the one before or not, but it would be good to see that language.

>> okay.

>> do we have anything under c, the other related issues?

>> I don't think so.
we're at your direction, we'll keep going.
we'll start Thursday with the first committee and we'll come back to you Tuesday and report out.
and if there's any changes to the -- any additions to that first committee, we'll report those to you as well.

>> okay.
have we sent the first committee a congratulatory letter and notice of the first meeting?

>> condolence.

>> [ laughter ]

>> they're on standby.

>> we will be sending out -- we are getting emails from folks who committed early on confirming.
so we'll send a confirmation out today.

>> okay.
thank you.

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.