Travis County Commissioners Court

May 15, 2012 - Item 14
Agenda

View captioned video.

Number 14, consider and take appropriate action regarding a new civil and family courthouse including but not limited to
A, appointment of a courthouse committee to recommend a delivery method;
B, proposed charge and invitation letter for a second community advisory committee; and
C, other related issues.
and there is a minor tweaking necessary on a, right?

>> based on the emails that I've received.

>> we're coming to you today to give you an update on they had their first meeting.
we also have a complete committee now and we would like to present those as well, the additions.

>> these who were not approved last week.

>> yes, sir.

>> okay.

>> why don't we kick off with that.
I'm roger jeffries, county executive for county and public safety.

>> the greater Austin chamber gave us another member, shawn crenston is going to represent the greater Austin chamber of commerce.
and then reca has sent us a member, rebecca bray of brown bray engineers is going to be representing reca.

>> as of today we have a complete committee, unless you all want to add some more.
at their meeting on last week, last Thursday.

>> Thursday.

>> at 5:00, they elected betty dunkerley as the chair and martha dickey as the vice chair.
and raised a couple issues they would like to discuss with you today.
one is arson young had afforded a nondisclosure agreement which was pretty onerous I guess would be the right word and they pushed back pretty hard on that.
in the intervening time we've had a chance to talk to ernst and young, they have backed off on.
that they are not going to ask to sign a northern disclosure agreement.
we're going to send them a letter -- really the information in the report they are not so concerned about.
and so if the members of the committee want to discuss that with their board or their colleagues, they are free to discuss anything in that report from ernst and young's standpoint.
their concern was the actual report itself.
they are asking that the committee members commit to one hold harmless ernst and young but not copy the report because there is methodology proprietary who them and they are just asking the report not be copied and handed out other than to committee members.
we think that's a very reasonable compromise.
again, they are free to discuss any of the information amongst themselves, with their colleagues and boards.
one of the things that's come up is you require some of your appointees and committee members who you appoint to sign a nonconflict of interest kind of agreement.
we have looked at those and if you all are okay with that, they have committed verbally they don't have any business interests in a procurement of a courthouse, but perhaps we might want to get that on paper to have it on file.
that's something we would ask you all to consider to okay.

>> did we emphasize that service on the committee would probably result in their inability to get work?

>> yes, sir.

>> on the project.

>> that's why we had a couple -- we had the changer member recused himself, we got another one, so we did emphasize that.

>> okay.
because it's pretty important, I think.

>> and I think the affidavit goes a ways to clarifying that, making it very plain that sometimes, you know, you say that verbally and someone doesn't really think about it deeply.

>> I guess what we're asking, if you are comfortable with us going forward with that nondisclosure concept.
we would just send them a letter, ask them not to reproduce the report and ask them to sign a -- I don't know what you call, affidavit of nonconflict or I'm not sure what you call it.
we'll get it right.

>> but do we know what the affidavit says?

>> we actually got a copy, Commissioner Eckhardt, of something you use.

>> we're using the same one that I believe sherri fleming had included in the packet for appointments to county commissions and committees generally.
so we've been using that same one.
the same one for c.p.s.
board, ctrma, cap metro.

>> I'd run it by legal.

>> okay.
we'll do that.

>> all right.

>> we also had a request from the committee that we have legal representation at all of the meetings.
if the Commissioners would like to make a request for that.

>> don't they know our lawyers don't work after 5:00?

>>

>> [inaudible] I work out for fun but only at my house.

>> [laughter]

>> we have video technology.

>> you can invite him over.
have a big living room.

>> which we thought was a very good idea.
they would really like to have that.

>> the other thing they asked us to discuss with you all today, you know, we had put in their charge that they would analyze the two options that were recommended by ernst and young, that was the design and build concept and the p p-3 concept.
they asked if there was interest among any of the members could they look at some other said we would bring that back for discussion.
that would be a little beyond the charge that we gave them.

>> did we give them a rough schedule when we wanted them to complete their work?

>> yes, sir.
in fact, the nondisclosure concept and working that out with ernst and young put us behind a little bit.
we were supposed to have ernst and young in this week but we had to get that worked out.
so the next available date for them is -- I think it's may the 30th.
so what we're doing on Wednesday, they are coming -- the group is going to take a tour of the current courthouse.
they want to see what it looks like in the state it's in.
we are going to have an educational session around procurement options, defining what all these procurement options for them.
on its the same page.
I think that's the following week.
the 30th, I'm sorry.
that's the 30th.
then the ernst and young will be here the week of June 4th to kick off.
so that would give us two or three more sessions following that for them to complete their work.
instead of mid June, it will probably be late June.

>> I think they would still like to have perhaps a legal discussion.
they've asked that we include some of those discussions in every meeting if questions arise, but they might want a more robust discussion on the 13th which left us the 20th and 27th to wrap so it looks like early July when they would come back to you.

>> well, we paid a pretty penny for the report.
it -- it kind of boiled down to three recommendations and then two.

>> right.

>> so I think as long -- in my view, as long as the committee understands we want its position on those two, they can do whatever they can get done within the rough schedule that we provide.

>> okay.

>> you know, somebody may come up with a brilliant third alternative or third choice and I guess we would want to hear it and evaluate it if so, but my understanding is we brought in outside expertise to steer us in the right direction and get us closer to making a decision.

>> in our discussions we concurred with that.
if a third option was presented it would not have the level of analysis and scrutiny the other two had had.

>> might have followup.

>> how does that sound?
we wouldn't tie their hands, but, I mean, I'm interested in getting the committee's position on those two myself.
but if there's a third one, I'm interested in hearing about it too and why it's better than the two that ernst and young left us with.

>> okay.
we'll pass that on.
and finally --

>> there may be differing views on that.
any other views on it?

>> no, I think that's fine.

>> I think we ought to respond to them.
since they asked it.

>> okay, sir.

>> can I just back up one minute?

>> sure.

>> so on the small committee, we have a full compliment of members now.
and how many is that?
14?

>> 14, yes.
14 members and then the three of us.
that's how it gets to 17 or 18.
we're not on the committee.
we're staff.

>> and at least one lawyer.

>> yes, sir.
and the other experts that they've asked to hear from, people that they've asked to hear from.

>> did they ask for a member of the Commissioners court to visit with them?

>> not yet.

>> they haven't yet.

>> that's a smart committee.

>> the only other thing they've asked for and we had arranged for ernst and young to come back and explain the report, they would like a representative from

>> [inaudible] to come back which there will be a small fee -- I'm not sure how small it would be, but we'll get back to you on that.

>> we can expect a change order request from ernst and young for this visit.

>> yes, sir.

>> right?
and should we expect one from a law firm too?

>> I think so.

>> if that request is made?

>> I think so.
we haven't seen it actually.
we've seen the one from ernst and young.

>> they requested $6,500.

>> and so that's it on the recommendation committee unless you have --

>> open meeting.
public meeting.

>> that's right, I'm sorry.
one of the things they asked if their meeting was open or not or if it was closed.
and again, in our discussions suns we worked out a deal with ernst and young, the thought was maybe because of the proprietary information it might not be open, but since they have -- I wouldn't say waive that, but they've released -- their concern about public input into that information, I don't know why it would be closed.
it should be open.

>> merely making recommendations and I don't recall that the charge included a requirement that they post all their meetings as open meetings.
at this point they could close and keep everybody out if they chose to.
unless the court votes otherwise.

>> well, our preference I guess would be for the meetings to be open unless there is something extremely sensitive that in their view requires a lot less public attention.
they may well be confidential issues to surface, but I would say generally speak the meetings ought to be open to the public.

>> I got the sense the committee wanted the bright sunshine on it.
they don't necessarily want it closed.

>> so we will start posting the meetings?

>> again, you don't have to post the meetings.
that's an alternative that you could do that.
they could just have the meetings open to anybody who wanted to come.
you don't necessarily have to post it.
you get an advantage by posting by advertising it to anybody else who might want to come and let them know what times the meetings are, post them on this agenda if you would like.

>> how large is the meeting room?

>> the -- the meeting room that we have decided to use is the purchasing conference room in 700 lavaca.
it seats about 20 to 25 people at the table, but there are some -- there's room to bring in some other seating.
most of the table would be taken up by committee members and presenters.

>> so it's big.

>> it's the largest one we could find, actually.

>> but we can -- that room large enough to accommodate 12, 15 chairs?

>> oh, yeah.
right, yeah.

>> okay.

>> so that's it on the recommendation committee.
anything else?

>> no.

>> if you start posting, you have to post every time, I think.
consistency requires.
that and that kind of tells me don't post.

>> okay.

>> don't start.
that way if you want to meet, then you -- if they meet one day and want to meet a day and a half later, they are free to do that.

>> okay.
second piece, we went through the charge for the second committee.
this is the larger community advisory committee that will be -- will exist throughout the life of project.
that's the idea.
we forwarded a chart to you all last week and you discussed it.
we made a few changes -- or actually just one change.
Commissioner Huber, you had recommended language in I think number 4 of the charge.
and you had also asked to see the charge of the bond committee.
and we forwarded that in your backup to see if you had any further discussion or anything you wanted to add to the charge.
I don't think you actually voted on the charge last week.

>> no, we didn't.

>> so if you wanted to add to it in any way.
provide that for your opportunity.

>> comments?
so we did incorporate Commissioner Huber's recommendation in 4?

>> yes, sir.

>> including utilization of majority and minority reports when appropriate.

>> yes.

>> anything else?

>> again, you would have the opportunity to amend it down the road.
again, this committee, you had talked about it could last up to three years so their charge may be amended over time.

>> move approval of the proposed charge.
seconved by Commissioner Davis.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> and finally, we forwarded again last week we forwarded a letter you could potentially send to one or to any of your three appointees each.
I think you set a date perhaps by next week.
you also set at Commissioner Davis' request to all of you a letter that bo solicit interest among your constituents for recommendations for that committee.
so you have both of those.
if there's some way we can be of help to you to get that out, please let us know.
we would be glad to help you.

>> that next to the last paragraph of the may 9 proposed letter has come before twice.

>> it sure does.
sorry about that.

>> now, if this is as sort of a guide, if the county judge wanted to send a particular letter to his three interested constituents, he, of course, would be free to tailor this to his personality.

>> absolutely.
it was just a boiler plate for you to play with.
we would be glad to help you if there is anything we can do to be helpful.

>> okay.
questions?

>> if you are going to employ humor in yours, wow be willing to share it.

>> sometimes late at night I get carried away, Commissioner.

>> [laughter] move approval of the guide letter.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> then we'll go at your direction, but last week you had talked about having your three names by next week.
and so we could come back, put this back on the agenda for you all to discuss or if you want another week or whatever you want to do.

>> judge, I'd like -- how long will it take before we can start focusing on a few folk that I have in mind.
and I don't know if I'll have three persons that are interested within that time line or not.
but I'm going to give it my best shot because of the different categories that they may have to fall in with some type of knowledge of these categories.
not saying they need all of them, but just some of them where there may be a hit to satisfy the request that we're looking at here today.
so i-i want to go forward with it, but, of course, I hope I can find those that are in this particular realm of where we would like for them to fit in.
so that's my challenge.

>> okay.

>> these would also be required to sign a nonconflict of interest statement?

>> yes.

>> they couldn't have a vested interest in the -- of the contractual part of the process.

>> conflict, yeah.

>> again, I think there were those recommended categories of expertise, but we did leave it open because I know you talked about there might be prominent citizens that may not have a particular background, but because of their leadership in the community would be appropriate for a committee like this.
we wrote it in such a way that it made it very broad for you to pick from.

>> so would the affidavit for the earlier group be similar to the affidavit that we require of these persons that we --

>> yes, sir.

>> would you want to run that same track by our county attorney to let them look at that particular affidavit for this end of it.

>> we'll be glad to do that.

>> okay.

>> I think you ought to send that to the court and let us look at it.
I'm sure I've seen it before.
but it's been a while.

>> yes.

>> okay.
I think we ought to keep posting this week to week and if we're ready to take action, we'll do it.
and if not, then we'll simply postpone it.
that way it keeps us on the radar and gives us an opportunity to be proactive.
and the other thing is word it in such a way we can deal with any issues that may come from the committee.
you know, maybe unexpected.

>> okay.
we would be glad to do that.

>> I think that would be the right move for to us make at this time.

>> okay.

>> judge, speaking of the committee, did you want to actually affirm the two committee members they mentioned today or we're dealing in classes of people --

>> we need to go ahead and approve the full committee t although we're just adding two.
what are the names?

>> shawn cranston and rebecca ray.

>> I move we approve these two.

>> second.

>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
you see why we need a lawyer at the committee the, john?

>> I have a question about our rolling item.
when appropriate, based on what the team thinks, could we get an update on developing a scope for going out for owner's representative once we do decide what the delivery method is?
just so we can go ahead and get that rolling.

>> just keep rolling.
one other thing, we have asked for brief bios for all the committee members so you will know who they are and where they came from and all that.
we'll be getting that to you as soon as we get that.

>> one time before we had sort of background information on the owner's rep position.
didn't we?

>> yes.

>> we have to pull that out so we can start thinking bit.

>> we'll get that to you as well.

>> I like your idea of

>> [inaudible] and have you consider doing that for the permanent committee since we're looking at representation that might be on there from an industry standpoint.

>> I agree.

>> that might be something you could maybe add in the letter, ask for their brief bio.

>> okay.
we'll do that.
anything else on this item today?

>> anything else?
that's it.

>> thank you.

>> we took all the action we need to?

>> yes, sir.

>> okay.
thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> 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.