Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-29-12:00PM-WORKSHOP SESSION ~1 PT_r--,<PF IBJ9 JAN 23 A tCk 3 1 r c •ttU Fj. li{l 1Rtf1 Y LLK B12_AZOS COUNTY j r y +al x~ BRYAN, TEXAS NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP SESSION THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION ON THURSDAY 29 JANUARY 2009 AT 12-00 NOON IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 200 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE, SUITE 332, BRYAN, TEXAS, 1_ Ca►1 to Order 2. Discussion with the District Judges, County Court at Law Judges and Magistrate regarding courtroom renovations in the Brazos County Cou rthouse_ The County Administration Building is handicap accessible- Handicap parking spaces a e available- Any request for sign interpretive services must be made two working days before the meeting. To make arrangements, pleas, call (979) 361-4102- Office of the County Judge 200 South Texas Ave- Suite 332 Bryan, Texas 11.03 Fax: (97g) 36'1-4503 VO FAGE ~3 I of 31 COMMISSIONERS' COURT WORKSHOP SESSION January 29th, 2009 The Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas met in a Workshop Session on Thursday the 29t'' of January, 2009 at 12:00 noon in Room 332 of the County Administration Building, 200 South Texas Avenue, Bryan, Texas, 77803, with the following members of the Court present: Randy Sims, County Judge, Presiding; Lloyd Wassermann, Commissioner of Precinct 1; Duane Peters, Commissioner of Precinct 2; Kenny Mallard, Commissioner of Precinct 3; absent. Carey Cauley, Commissioner of Precinct 4; Karen McQueen, County Clerk; absent. Attached is a list of the citizens and officials in attendance. Attached is a transcript of the meeting. Vol ► ) Page c,:~7 q 2 of 31 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Courtroom Renovations in the Brazos County Courthouse January 29th 2009 Sims: Very good. I think it's a good document, I think we probably need to take a long hard look at that and I will open this meeting of the remodeling of the courthouse and, Fred, are you going to start this thing because we have some things we didn't even know about last week. Or I'm not even real sure you guys knew about them, that has come to play on the room and several other things. Patterson: Sure. Basically what I wanted to do is kind of update you on what Brazos County has hired our firm to do and kind of the direction that the committee has been going and update you in that regard. And then we will be having a users meeting with everyone that, basically, will have a stake in the renovation. We have a process that is going to continue through March which will be interviews with each of the elected officials and the head staff from all of the County agencies that will be left in the courthouse. Just as a premise, we've been designing all of the new facilities for the County based on the 2005 study that was done by SGS in conjunction with Wiggington/Hooker Architectural firm. It is a study in 2005 in which they did projects for all of the County offices through 2025. The last construction that they recommended in their phasing... which a lot of it is obsolete because of, for example this building here that we're seated in today... it was not considered on the original study that they did as far as future projects. Basically, they have facilities constructed through 2017 that would take the County through 2025 that provide all of our needs for future growth. Now, the Sheriffs Administration Office as well as the Admin. Building here and the new jail are all designed to meet the 2025 requirements. Now what the committee has hired us to do is to evaluate the existing building which would be the existing courthouse, the 1956 building, the 1986 building... evaluate that facility based on your needs and what I have in this study. We are going to create a master plan, if you will, for all four floors of the courthouse. So that will be the first floor and whatever departments end up on the first floor, second floor, third floor, and the fourth floor which won't be the jail in 2025 or 2017... actually, probably not even after 2010. Some fraction of the jail may actually still be in the courthouse and that will be determined while we're doing this initial study that will last through April. So from February through April, Vol 11 Page C P9 5 3 of 31 we'll be reviewing your needs for each of the departments that will stay in courthouse and then we'll be evaluating a master plan. Then from the master plan, we are anticipating a much larger project, obviously, to take the County through the 2017 construction or the 2025 needs. We're in the 12 to 15 million dollar range and we'll be constructing renovations through multiple phases. So the committee is going to be charged at some point with determining what those phases will be in each of the subsequent construction projects. The goal is to provide the needs for everyone. And if you read the facility report, that includes four new courts in the courthouse; there will be two County Courts and two District Courts. So those are factored into the growth of Brazos County and the needs for Brazos County. An interesting fact is the way the construction has been progressing with the Sheriff's Administration Office and the jail and the Administration Building here is we have just about the right amount of space left in the courthouse for the spaces that are supposed to remain, including the new courts. The existing building, including the basement, has about 133,000 square feet. That is all four floors, the 57 building or the 1956 building and the 1986 building. Of that 133,000 square feet, roughly, about 91,000 square feet is currently utilized for office spaces and courts. So, we call that our net square footage. So you can see that there is approximately 40,000 square feet that is being utilized for exit stairs, elevators, restrooms, hallways, and mechanical spaces ...those things that you can't really assign people to. The report indicates that the remaining spaces that we currently have programmed to stay in the courthouse... we're going to need about 96,000 square feet. So my responsibility is going to try to streamline your needs and the existing configuration of the building to try to get all of your needs for 2025 into the existing building envelope. We're not planning on making any building additions to the courthouse. If some of you are familiar with the earlier schemes, there was some discussion about having a court annex or an office annex and that there would be two buildings associated with the courthouse. Some departments, for example, the County Attorney's office had some offices in this new building and some offices in the old courthouse which seemed problematic to me but there would be some connection between the two. But, right now, the way we're planning is everybody is going to be contained within the existing courthouse building that we currently enjoy. Vol I I Page 4of31 So what I wanted to do is...I brought some schematic drawings ...we used these in the interview and I don't know if you can see these or not but, basically, it's how the courthouse was utilized as of last year. We've got quite a bit of vacant space on the first floor now. As you are aware, the County Commissioners have relocated to the Admin. Building here as well as the Sheriff has moved out to his new Administration Building. We have about 40,000 square feet on this ground floor. Here is 26`h Street, William Joel Bryan Parkway, County Clerk's office and her records storage is currently here. This light blue area is what the jail currently uses for their booking and their holding area ...that's their processing area. The dark green area was the Sheriffs offices, County Commissioners, and then Purchasing and the County Judge have, of course, left the building. So we've got quite a bit of vacant space on the first floor which gives us an opportunity to do construction on that first floor now while it's empty and then start adjusting people through the courthouse to these new spaces. One of the things that would be a big part of this project will be logistics. The courthouse will have to maintain operations throughout the entire construction periods for Phase 1, Il, 111, or however many phases there may be. You can see that currently on the second floor is mostly courts; we have the 85th District Court, the District Clerk has a nice central location and they are very crowded ...most of their records don't even exist in the courthouse anymore, they're stored in other locations. Both County Courts at Law, 1 and 2, the 272nd District Court, and the Magistrate's Court. You'll notice the little jail area or detention area that we have here serves as our main vertical circulation from the holding area downstairs to actually the jail on the fourth floor now but also serves as a holding area on this floor if there is any inmates that need to be involved in any of the courts. One of the main problems with the building as it exists is this large central corridor system that separates the courts from the secure area. So we've got some difficulty there. That is not going to be solvable in the renovation or at least not economically. The current third floor is the District Attorney and the County Attorney utilizing all of the space there now. These central spaces with the exception of the District Court here have been vacated and we'll be able to utilize those also in the future renovations. So either some of the first phase ...we're not sure exactly what's going to be involved in which phase ...but some phases of the construction, Vol 1 t I Page 'a 7 L 5 of 31 obviously, these empty spaces would be more attractive now to renovate than it would be in the future. My goal is to have you displaced only one time and not two. In some of the other schemes, they have people moving twice which is never a good thing. It really disrupts your operation, you can find anything, and it's really not a good situation. Now the fourth floor right now is entirely set up as a detention facility. The fourth floor would be vacated in 2010 and all of the prisoners would be located to the Sandy Point location. Some discussion... and until I meet with the jail administration and the Sheriff to determine what portion of the facility would remain as a detention facility for holding prisoners... discussion has been centered around whether we're going to hold them overnight here in the courthouse if there is an ongoing trial, or if we're going to send them back and forth. There is three basic scenarios for that; one we renovate the first floor and make the holding cells downstairs, or we put holding areas on each floor, or we maintain a portion of the existing fourth floor somewhere near this detention elevator system to house prisoners. That will have a big impact on each of the phases also. Right now, the Sheriff s office or the jail portion of the facility has about 7,500 square feet on the first floor that they use for booking and holding cells and that includes their sally port. So there is a lot of real estate on the first floor that could be utilized, in my opinion, for more public type offices. One of the goals that I would like to see in this renovation would be to try and minimize the amount of public that has to go through other spaces to get to the public offices. So if we could keep the majority of folks on the first floor that have courthouse business and they don't have to go through all of the other subsequent floors and wander though the courts and courtrooms, that would be great. A lot of it will be determined over the next several months as we evaluate the needs of not only the court but the court system support units. Initially we talked about the study that we're doing for the project and Judge Sims had alluded to some of the exterior concerns our first study that we're going to be completing next week is the evaluation of the existing facility itself ...much like we did here. We've got a facility that was renovated roughly 25 years ago and the life span of a lot of the equipment over there has expired. Vol I Page Co 6of31 So, one of the things that we're looking at is replacement of air conditioning systems and controls. It's a pretty good sizeable expense to incorporate the new air conditioning units in there and the controls. One thing that we will be looking for, of course, will be more cost effective equipment, more efficient equipment. We'll be looking at a little higher level of indoor air quality because the fresh air requirements have changed a lot in the last 25 years. And also, your individual comfort and control. We're going to try to balance the existing environment that we have over there with respect to the air conditioning; chill water, piping, mechanical room locations, duct work, and things like that with our budget to try to provide your new office spaces with the most economical air conditioning and heating systems that we can. That is going to be a big part of our renovation. Electrical will be another one; replacing light fixtures with more energy efficient lighting. There are a lot of the existing ceilings over there that are the concealed spline ceilings that don't repair well. They are not in very good shape. So we will be doing some cosmetic things in many areas. If they are not schedule to get major renovations, we'll have at least some upgrades with respect to lighting. A lot of the electrical panels in the old building... they don't make parts for so we will be swapping out some of the power panels in those locations. So we'll end up with a more maintainable facility as well as a more user friendly facility. We'll be working with the IT department providing your needs for telephone and data connections. I know from your perspective the courtroom and the courtroom media system will be very important and, of course, that will be included in our discussions individually and I believe it's going to be included in our package when we bid the project out for your media and telecommunications needs for each courtroom. Another big factor on the project... well, it's still an unknown right now... is, of course, hazardous material survey and abatement of that. We're going to have to take care of removing any materials that have asbestos containing materials in it as we progress through each of these phases. So there will be some abatement going on. The good news is the preliminary review ...we haven't found much of anything in the project. The 1982 design which was completed in '86; apparently they took a lot of the old piping and pipe insulation out. So the good news is that most of those issues that we had over with respect to the mechanical system are gone. So the County is in the process of having the evaluation done as we speak and so we're encouraged that it would lessen the impact on our budget and leave more dollars for renovation rather than remediation. Vol II1 Page 00 7 of 31 The other area that we're looking at right now is just the overall exterior of the building. We have a lot of deferred maintenance that hasn't been completed on that facility. We have control joints, expansion joints, and sealant around windows and other openings that needs to be replaced. They're 25 years old and the useful lifespan of most of that caulking and sealing is about 15 years maximum. And so we have moisture that is migrating through the exterior wall systems and the roof at one point that we would like to take care of. What we are going to do is in our Existing Conditions Report is we'll just present that to the County and the Committee will have to decide if that is going to be taken care of through regular maintenance operations or if portions of it will be included in our construction contact, then we can include that in our phasing. There are a few elements around the building that need immediate attention, for example, sidewalks; if you've walked around the outside of the building. With our expansive soils, the courthouse itself was built on a very substantial foundation system; drilled piers, structural slab ...the courthouse isn't moving. The concrete around the paving and parking since it relies pretty much on the soil conditions to support it have been moving over the years. And you can see a lot of subsidence where the sidewalks have sunk as many as six inches around the perimeter of the building allowing moisture to get underneath the building. I have included in our original conceptual budget some dollars for replacing sidewalks on the outside to help waterproof the under floor area of the courthouse. So, having said all of that, we're not really talking about any of your spaces or any esthetic aspect of the project. Right now, we're still, basically, talking about the technical part of the project. Those things that do affect our dollars per square foot for your renovation that you won't really see. You may feel in terms of air conditioning or lighting but you won't necessarily see in your court rooms or your public spaces. Like I said, the committee is going to determine... right now our budget is fixed for Phase I based on the 2008 budget that the County has established. And, currently, we're at about 2.5 million dollars for our first phase. The phases, preliminarily, have been locked into floors and I'm trying to keep people from focusing on Phase I meaning the first floor and Phase II the second floor and Phase III is the third floor but it could very well stay in that order. It depends, again, on the committee and how we're directed to proceed. I think the overall master plan for all four floors to provide your needs for 2025 will be important so that we can determine what ...I think it will Vol M Page 0. ~ 0 8 of 31 help us determine what is going to be the most important areas to renovate first. Or what may be required for logistics so that we can get people moved in an organized manner without having to move twice. So that's kind of a brief overview of the direction that we're headed in at this time. I've met with the full committee one time. We're going to meet with the executive committee to review our existing conditions report findings next week. And then we also start meeting next week with the individual departments and the Judges for our investigation of your needs. At some point in time, we'll probably have some discussion with the full committee on the exterior needs and renovation requirements for upgrades. Things that we would recommend that we will include in the renovation is obviously new air conditioning, lighting, and power are very important in that exterior envelope that we have. We're trying to give the building another 25 years of use. Typically, major renovations are required every 25 years. Technology, of course, changes quicker than that but your equipment generally needs replacement at that time... especially air conditioning. I've been told that Carlos has changed out the chillers and the cooling tower two years ago in that building so the main plant for the chilled water will remain intact so that will save us some money that we had to spend over here in this facility. But the hot water side will have to be redone; the boiler over there is quite old. Sims: And the survey of the existing conditions you'll have done by when? Patterson: We'll have it here Monday. Sims: Ok. Patterson: So I can review that at your convenience, Judge. Howard: We'll set it up. You might also tell them that once you meet with everybody and you get the design that you'll come back to let them be sure and sign off on it so that they know what they're getting. Patterson: That's correct. In our contract right now, we're planning on designing two phases of the project, Phase I and Phase Il. The funding for Phase I is secure and we'll be designing that portion of the project. And our current schedule is we would release those drawings in July for bids from general contractors. The Phase 11 construction documents would be considered an alternate and our hope would be that the funding for Phase Il would be approved in Vol 1 I _ Page 1 9of31 the 2010 budget and then that alternate would be able to be accepted in October by a general contractor so that we can continue the construction process into the next year. So we'll get one contractor as opposed to two trying to work within the courthouse. I will say that as we begin to leave the ground floor, the construction challenges grow with primarily vertical circulation and how we get building materials up and down. We still have to deal with the general public and with the circulation of the staff in the courthouse and the general contractor now as well as security. And we've worked in the courthouse on numerous projects and have dealt with those issues. It takes a little more cooperation on behalf of the security staff and the general contractor to make sure that yalls safeguards have been met throughout the day to day operations of the renovation project. So, right now, as far as what is contained in Phase I or Phase 11 is, basically, a budget number at this point. There is no specific departments. There is a lot of thought that has been put into it and a lot of wishes and dreams at this point but the actual delineation of what is included in Phase I and Phase II will be determined as we complete the master plan for all four floors. So we are not targeting any specific area ...there is a lot of concern for some of the departments that are extremely overcrowded and their relationship to service for the general public and services for the courts themselves. So I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion on where the County Clerk really needs to be and where the District Clerk really needs to be and the County Attorney and the District Attorney and whether all of the District courts are on one floor or not. There will be several scenarios that we'll be going through. Many of them were presented in the needs assessment study. As I said earlier, some of them are not valid any longer because all of the administration has moved out of the courthouse and the original scheme in 2005, they were going to be still included in the courthouse complex... whatever they define as the complex. So, probably until April, there won't be a clear understanding of what Phase I and Phase II will be until the committee decides. So, I'm not making any recommendations at this time. I'm trying to keep the design free flowing and not try to be too preconceived. Obviously, we've got the existing confines of the building; fire stairs, elevators... those things we can not change or we can't move them very cost effectively, so we'll be working around some of those existing conditions. Existing columns ...I know that Judge Munoz really wanted those poles out of his courtroom and I just told him that we just couldn't move those out of the way because the second and third floor was actually being supported by those columns. So, we'll have the same problems when we're in the Vol 11 Page a?;t 10 of 31 courthouse. They'll be some existing conditions that we'll have to work around that we won't be able to modify. So I'll be sure and explain that to you as we're reviewing your design. Pat mentioned earlier that there is a two step process that we'll go through; we'll review the conceptual design, the overall project design with each of you after we've come up with a conclusion for the master plan. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that if you're phased construction is in four or five years that we won't take another look at it then because things do change in our industry quite easily these days. So we would be able to take a look at upgrades if we needed to at that point. But based on the information that we're going to receive from you and then information that you're going to receive from us, we're going to put our best foot forward for the master plan for 2009 for the courthouse to present to yall in April is our current plan. I have visited with the City and the building officials, the Fire Marshall with respect to the building code compliance for that project. Currently, we are not planning on putting a fire sprinkler system in the courthouse. The building was constructed in 1982 to the Southern Building Code and had ample fire protection for the structural steel flooring components and they still meet the current code with respect to egress without the fire sprinkler system. So we're not renovating enough of the building where it throws us into a compliance problem. The other issue that we'll be dealing with from a code standpoint will be handicapped. So we will be upgrading as we go through these phases. We will be upgrading the building to meet the current handicapped requirements. Currently, in Texas, we're required to meet the Texas Accessibility Standards; the Federal government has determined that the TAS meets the requirements of the ADA and so, consequently, we've got plenty of people in this State that are registered accessibility specialist that are familiar with the Texas Accessibility Standards. And, actually, my registration act requires me to design for the Texas Accessibility Standards, not necessarily the ADA. They are very similar. The ADA for the last four years has said that they are changing their regulations and they will actually be a little more user friendly but they haven't been adopted yet. Jett: Can you go back to the part about the renovation not being sufficient to change the sprinkling system? Is that because it's grandfathered in? Because if we're going to renovate all four floors, can they change the code to make it where we have to? Vol 10 Page ;93 II of 31 Patterson: Well, that's why I went over there and visited with them up front because I told the that we have an existing building and the long term plan is to renovate all four floors. So we would, basically, not necessarily be moving walls on every floor and we wouldn't necessarily be tearing down all the walls but there would be significant changes in the courthouse. The City of Bryan, primarily because of the downtown area; in 2005 they adopted the 2003 Existing Buildings Code by the International Building Code Congress. What that does is allows us a little leeway on existing building over new construction. So by adopting the existing building code, it gives us a little more flexibility in designing renovations over new construction or trying to interpret what the new construction requirements would be in a renovation project. So what the requirements for the sprinkler system is, is if we renovate more than 50% of the total aggregate area of the building at any one time, then the sprinkler system requirement would come into play. Now, currently, even with Phase I and Phase II, we're don't exceed the 50% requirement. And so I just wanted to make the City aware of the fact that we weren't trying to skirt any issues, we weren't trying to pull a fast one on them and rig this up where we wouldn't sprinkle the building but primarily dealing with financial issues and logistics within the building we weren't going to be able to renovate the entire building at one time. Jett: So do they look at it that it's a phased project and not all at once? Patterson: That it's a phased project. And so the sprinkler requirements will not come into play. Jett: Ok. Smith: Is that why you had to sprinkle this building... because the code required you too? Patterson: Yes sir. Actually, this building was a little bit different; this building was required not so much because of the renovation requirement but because of the change of use. When we changed it from assembly occupancy to office occupancy then the building code is very clear that you have to sprinkle the building. And you have to realize when you're looking at the building code ...the International Building Code's primary goal in life is to put a fire sprinkler system in every facility in the world. And so they've got it set up where it's pretty darn difficult not to put one in, in a facility. And so when you do a change of use, you have to include the fire Vol 1 ii Page O Y q 12 of 31 sprinkler system and that's what happened when we changed the church over to an Admin. Building. Now, we have talked about the courthouse; the jail is actually an accessory use to a courthouse facility. The jail is leaving so there is not really a change of use, per se, but we will be going from a detention facility to office facility on the fourth floor and they don't consider that as a change of use. So we're able to skirt the fire sprinkle issue on the change of use and we're not going to be required to include the fire sprinkler system because of the renovations because of the phasing. My initial estimate on the sprinkler system if we did have to sprinkler the building was $750,000.00 which is nearly half of our initial first phase budget. I think that is significant. Jett: Is that for all four floors? Patterson: Yes ma'am. That would be to upgrade the service. Sprinkler systems are nice to have, it does allow us to do other things in the building ...it actually allows you to be more flexible with the building if you have a sprinkler system in; fire ratings or corridors are eliminated and closers on doors and panic devices are eliminated. So there are some benefits to having the sprinkler there but I don't think we'll ever get to the $750,000.00 mark. Primarily because all of those systems currently exists... all the stairs meet all of the current requirements. The building is fireproofed. There is a three hour assembly on all of you columns and beams. Basically what they've done is take a cementitious and put two inches of this fireproofing on all of your beams and columns over there. And there is a two hour assembly between the floors. So if a fire was to develop on the first floor, theoretically, you'd have two hours of protected time to get out of the building before the second floor would collapse. So the building was designed to meet the current code in '82 and, actually, still meets the current codes. So we're not putting anybody at risk by not sprinkling the building. Smith: If that were the case, would that mean that those of us on the 2°d, 3`d, and 4th floor would have to come down through the first floor to get out from the fire that's on the first floor? Patterson: Your fire stairs are enclosed and separated from the rest of the building. So you would be able to exit directly out of the building without running through the burning building. Now just as a rule of thumb, fire sprinkler systems are kind of...I guess the misnomer is that one sprinkler head goes off, the whole building goes Vol it Page &_5 13 of 31 off which is not true. There are deluge systems requirements for that kind of environment that's usually dealing with hay storage or volatile chemical storage or something like that. But if we were to set this head off right here, that's the only head that would go off until something set this other head off. And, usually, it's just heat. Unless it gets to 155° and there is a fusible link in there that melts and then that system would... and the system was not designed to preserve the building or the contents. It is only designed to give you enough time to get out of the building. So the sprinkler systems are not there to save the building. It's just there as a life safety issue. The current courthouse already meets all of the requirements of the building code with the exception of the sprinkler system. Sims: If anyone has any questions for Fred, just pop in there and ask them. Patterson: Yeah. `Cause the sprinkler issue has been around from day one when we first talked about working on the building... whether or not we were going to be required. It kind of took us back a little bit over here when we got started on this one that we had to spend a quarter of a million dollars on the sprinkler system when we could have used those funds for something else. So I checked on that right away when we started with this project to make sure that we weren't going to have to do that work. Of course, the codes are minimum and so the committee could require us to do that much like Texas A&M every building on campus to be sprinkled now. So if it became important enough for yall to include it in the project, it would be included in the project. At this time, it appears that the City of Bryan and Fire Marshall's Office agree with our phasing concept and not requiring the building to be sprinkled. Langley: I hope we can get that in writing. Patterson: Yes sir. I've got enough correspondence going one way right now, anyway. And we work with them a lot on lots of projects and they are very good to work with. We've spent months with them on the new jail. And we've got a lot of concessions with the jail administration, the State of Texas has certain requirements that's not in the building code, the building officials wants this, handicapped wants that, and the jail administration wants something else, and the State of Texas wants something else ...it's a real interesting thing to design a jail. So have I forgotten anything else? I don't know when you're particular area would be impacted. Obviously; most of you are on the second floor for your court rooms and so when we say Phase II that might give you a glimmer of hope that maybe we'll be working on your court space. We do have a limited budget and so Judge Sims has always charged me with Vol I Page a 96 14 of 31 maintaining budget constraints and so we'll be designing with budget in mind. And so some of the areas may receive more dollars per square feet than others. Right now, our conceptual budget just takes into account the whole building and not any particular area. And so we're just looking at the big picture right now in terms of cost per square foot. I've talked to Judge Langley on numerous occasions and we've talked about our budget number, the $80.00 a square foot and the $110.00 a square foot that I've proposed in the renovation project. Of course, a lot of these existing conditions like the air conditioning and the electrical service will be included in our construction budget. Some of the other items; roof problems or exterior water proofing of the building are currently not in the project. So if it involves the interior of the project, we've included that in our $80.00 or $110.00 a square foot. We're going to be looking at salvaging as much of the existing partition systems, duct work, conduit, and so forth that we can like we did over here to try to keep the cost of the work to a minimum. I will say that some of the court spaces that we've got designated as $110.00 a square foot, but in some of those spaces we're not going to really be doing much. Judge Locke just left but his courtroom is in great condition, it's brand new so I'm thinking that 5,000 that's attributed under the big umbrella, those dollars for his courtroom are going to be spread out through other courtrooms within that program of requirements. So, right now, the $110.00 doesn't sound like much money and it may not be but that's kind of a little bit skewed. It's the same thing with our $80.00 a square foot for office space. I've included the gross square footage of the building in there so that includes fire stairs, corridors, mechanical rooms, janitor's closets and those kinds of things. Well, we're not going to spend $80.00 a square foot in those janitor's closets and the fire stairs. Those dollars will be attributed to the overall project. But when we start out we're just looking at the big picture and it's very difficult to break those things out, especially when I don't know what the real scope of work is. I'm anticipating, for example, in the old Commissioners' area, that space was renovated ten years ago and I'm anticipating that we do very minimal work in there and that we are able to utilize the existing office space to meet the needs of one of our groups that is going to be relocated to the first floor. And so therefore, we may be painting walls and doorframes and replacing the carpet but we're not moving walls, we're not putting new sheetrock up. It has new duct work, it has good light fixtures, and so forth. So it would be that portion of the building that's about 16,000 square feet would be more attributed to a Vol t 1 Page a8~ 15 of 31 painter/fixer-upper than a real renovation. So that way we'd be able to utilize the majority of the funds for the first floor... whichever phase that ends up being ...to, say, gut the Sheriffs administration area that really needs to be replaced. And, perhaps, even the County Clerk's office to upgrade for her space. Everybody, if you read our space needs analysis, each department is in dire straits with respect to the space that they need. Not only for 2025 but even for 2009. So I know that everyone will be excited to get started and I know that everyone would like to be included in Phase I but there will be some phasing that will be a couple of three years before we get to you. And then I'm gonna let him take the heat for that, not me. Sims: I guess I'll have to do that. Smith: Is there a Judge or a representative of the Bar Association on either of the committees that you've referenced? Patterson: No sir. Judge Langley is probably an ad hoc committee member. He's been involved in all of the meetings although I don't... Smith: I just wondered why... since those are going to be the primary users of this ...why they weren't on the committee. Howard: Judge, I think I can explain that. What we did was come back and the people that were going to be specifically... the users on the first floor were on the committee and then when we go to the second floor the specific users of the second phase will be on the committee. We'll change committees every time we change phases with people that are directly involved. Langley: But see that was the rub that we were concerned about is that you were making the master plan with this first committee but the people that were affected by the master plan were not included. That was the problem. I think we have gone a long way to overcome that; but still, for approval of this master plan, we need to get all of the end users on this committee. Howard: Absolutely. Langley: I really recommend that yall do that. Howard: Then we would do that when the whole picture, when Fred has... Langley: But you're making the master plan decisions with only the first floor committee; is what was scaring us all. Vol l Page P98 16 of 31 Smith: And there's not a courtroom on the first floor and there's not a prosecutor on the first floor. Patterson: Currently. Smith: Currently. Langley: Now the County Attorney was on the committee but the DA was not. Howard: 'Cause he's not going to be involved in the first floor. Langley: But he's one of the major end users of the space. Patterson: 10,000 square feet projected in the 2025...I see his point. Langley: And we have six courts that are twice or three times as much as that space that we're not involved except for the fact that I just showed up at the committee meeting. Howard: Every meeting we have is open to anybody. Smith: And it's great to be notified of that. The problem that I see is that there may be a misunderstanding of how interconnected the clerks and the attorneys who use the courtroom and the courts themselves are. And how what affects one directly affects the other and we really would like ...I think, most of us when we had this meeting... would like to see a little bit more acknowledgement of the interplay of these things. Because what you do with the courtrooms, for instance, directly affects the prosecutor, it directly affects private attorneys out in private practice. And if they are not being able to...we're in the position we are right now because in 1982, I don't think there was a lot of consultation with Judges and lawyers. I don't think we would be in the position we were if there had been. That's just one person's... Peters: And really, that's what Fred is doing. When he goes to all, every... Smith: Duane, I know that. But sitting down and talking to a Judge for 15 to 20 minutes about his or her courtroom, or talking to the prosecutors... it's more than that. It's really more than that. Matzke: And I think another concern was that we didn't want it to be Judge Langley's courtroom, Judge Matzke's courtroom, Judge Smith's courtroom because we all realize that, you know, we're not, maybe, going to be... Vol Page ~~`7 17 of 31 Sims: Not always going to be here. Matzke: Right. Smith: We'll be prohibited by law from being here until 2025 even if we wanted to. Matzke: Right. So we wanted there to be a uniformity in the end product so that it's not only uniform for whoever is going to be using that space as far as Judge but also uniform for the attorneys. So that they know that if you have a civil case come and they have a knowledge the courtroom are equipped with allowing a certain type of media device to be used ...then they can go from courtroom to courtroom to courtroom and they don't have to say, `Oh, I need this drive for this. And I need a disk for that courtroom.' And so we were trying to make them all uniform and not individual Judge's spaces. Sims: And I think that's what we're going to try to do with technology. I don't disagree with what we need to do. Pat, if you will ...with all of these meetings, we need to find a bigger place, I know that ...what we need to do is include all the department heads that are involved in that whole courthouse over there. They may show if they have time to do so and if not, maybe they can talk among themselves and bring information to us at that meeting. Howard: There won't be another committee meeting until what Fred? March, April? Patterson: April. Peters: And I think what Fred is going to be doing as he talks to all of the Judges is taking ideas from everybody, he'll be taking ideas from the defense attorneys and then take all those ideas to hopefully incorporate it into all (inaudible). But once you have all those ideas together, I think it would be a great idea that all these Judges, the Prosecutor... we all should sit back down and listen to what Fred has come up with and then... Sims: Well, I would hope the Judges would not give input directly objectionable to a prosecutor. I mean if that's his area and yall say, `Wait a minute, we need to do this, this, and this.' And the Prosecutor said, `I don't need that. I don't want that.' And, of course, then we would take a look at it in context of how long this is supposed to last. Vol 1 Page a ' 0 18 of 31 Peters: Because whatever Fred comes up with really isn't set in stone until we decide that's what we're gonna do. He's going to come up with... Patterson: Multiple ideas. Peters: ...the big idea and then, hopefully, we can start laying it down on paper. I agree. I think everyone... Smith: I just don't want this to be...for instance, and I hope this doesn't sound sexist, but for a kitchen built without any input from a woman. You understand what I'm saying? Peters: I understood. Howard: But I don't think we have any intention of doing that. Sims: Well, we have to make sure everybody is informed that this is gonna be...probably can't change it once we get 15 people on board. Howard: We'll have to have it in the courtroom, probably. Sims: More than likely, yeah. Smith: By the way, that analogy came from a lady attorney who's involved in my capital murder trail who told me to tell you all that. Patterson: How big a kitchen does she want? Smith: That's right. Langley: Well, that was the reason why we had the meeting that we did with the members of the local bar. Sims: I like what you did. I liked what you did. I liked the suggestions too. Langley: Trying to come up with something that was the total common characteristics of all the courts that the architect needs as far as minimal design standards to go by and trying to meet those requirements. And this gave us the input. I brought copies of all of the response emails that I received. This was distributed to every attorney in town that I had an email address for. And, so far, I've only gotten about seven or eight responses. The Judges have all gotten those responses, I believe. Sims: Has Fred gotten them? Vol 10 Page 91 19 of 31 Langley: That's what I brought copies of all the response that I have so far. Sims: Good. Great. Great. Langley: I don't want yall getting inundated by too many people so I tried to get them collected back to the Judges and then we can give you those as the ideas start to flesh out. Patterson: Yes sir. Langley: We don't want to constrain the architect's creative concepts too much but we also don't want the end result to be unworkable. Patterson: And I've had several people stop me in the community and tell me what they thought they needed in the courthouse. So I'm getting input daily from citizens as well, not just attorneys. So it will be quite an experience over the next several months. Langley: I can go ahead and give yall... so you can get a chance to look at what kind of responses we are getting from the attorneys. I don't want to inundate you. I also wanted to pass around a couple of courtroom designs that the Judges have not see yet either. But these are designs ...one comes from East Contra Costa County Courthouse in California and the other is a design in the U.S. Courts Design Guide. Patterson: U.S. Courts has a nice website. Langley: Yeah, they do have a really good website. These courtroom designs get very close to the minimal standards that we're looking for according to this last meeting. The downside to these two designs are that these designs are less majestic. When you walk into the courtroom it looks more like a hearing room than it looks like a courtroom. But this is just a philosophical choice that the County is going to have to make as to what they want. But as far as gallery size, interview rooms, and a location of the witness box relative to the jury box relative to the council tables, location of the court reporter ...this design meets all of these fundamental guidelines. I'm not advocating this design, I'm simply saying that I found it and it looks like it meets those requirements. I would recommend that we decrease the total square footage to about 2,200 verses 15,000 because it looks a little cramped. Smith: The one comment that I got today from another one of the attorneys with the capital murder trial is he practices extensively in all of the surrounding counties and he says that our courtrooms are, by far, the Vol t Page 20 of 31 smallest courtrooms that he practices in anywhere in Brazos Valley with the exception of J.D.'s. Langley: Yeah, except in mine. Peters: And, of course, as Fred works through it, we've got the restraints of the building we've got. Smith: Right. Langley: Uh-huh. (positive) Peters: So we have to fit whatever we do in there and that's where we had a problem over here in that we had a building and then we had to work around, `How do you get this stuff in there and make the flow work.' But that is what Fred has to do is to take all of the information he can get and see if he can plug it in and make it work. And I agree, I think we need all the ideas that are out there. Patterson: Your current courtrooms, with the exception of Judge Langley's, are about that size right there. I know County Court at Law 1 and your court and I haven't checked your's are 1,500 square feet. So they are kind of at the minimum size that is shown here on this typical courtroom layout. What I like about what Judge Langley has given me is your thoughts on minimum sizes. So we would take those minimum sizes and we would adjust them for each floor or each courtroom condition and work it around existing corridors, fire suppression systems, or whatever we have in there and create a courtroom space. Now the courtrooms themselves might look identical but you're suites will probably all be different. So, if that becomes a consideration that all the courtrooms look the same, then we can certainly try to do that. We tried to do that with the courtrooms in this building for the JP 2.1 and 2.2. They have the same components but because of the different size, the widths of the building, things got changed a little bit but essentially they look the same. There're a little more the majestic looking courtroom facility and they're pretty good size. They're about 1,200 square feet and for a JP court they're pretty good size. So we have the space here and we'll be able to utilize the spaces over there and, fortunately, we'll have the fourth floor at some point in time to be able to expand into. Langley: The areas that we did not really talk about in this judges meeting last week were things like holding cells, security corridors, common attorney waiting room areas, the law library. The law library has been a sore spot Vol 1 Page a- 3 21 of 31 with the local bar for a long time now. They have been really upset at having to pay filing fees but have no law library that they are paying money for. The kiosks are not... Smith: User friendly. Langley: ...not what they want or not what they're expecting. So we need to really talk about a law library space, possibly on the first floor that could be maintained by one of the clerks, possibly. Because that's been the problem is maintaining the space to where the lawyers don't walk out with the books that are there. And by having a common law library, we might be able to reduce our judge library sizes. Things like that that we could throw into the design. But the holding cell systems are going to have to be really looked at hard providing a secure transport from the holding cell to the courtroom really needs to...we need to pay a lot more attention to that. Because we are having to transport very violent people through public corridors which is not safe for the public or the officers that are having to transport them. Sims: Judge, is there any jury rooms in here? Langley: Yes. In this design on this floor of this courthouse, they had four courtrooms on a floor but they only had two jury rooms. Which is not a bad design, actually. Sims: Well I was just looking for it in that indentified jury room. Langley: See, I only took a piece. But, interestingly, I started looking at the public comments on this design that came out after the design became public and the public comments were almost outrage that I read in the newspapers in this county. That there wasn't enough administrative space. In this design, the judge had a chamber for him but there was no space for secretaries, coordinators, court reporters... Smith: The rest of the staff. Langley: It took a lot of public heat when this design was published but this is a pretty common design that is being utilized throughout the Untied States. Smith: You mean for courtrooms. Langley: For courtrooms now. And that's why I only gave you just a copy of the courtroom space because that's really all I was talking about at this point. Each Judge's space, I think, can be better designed by the people that are Vol 1 I Page ;~Ii 22 of 31 occupying those spaces. They know what they are having to deal with. And then the architect... try to resolve the conflicts, the turf battles that go on. Patterson: Really, what Judge Langley is talking about is this corner concept for the bench where we have a more secure area. It's easier to defend, if you will, from the standpoint of a defense behavior for courtroom spaces. And it's less majestic... that's what he mentioned earlier ...than the current court configuration that we have now where the court is all focused around the bench and the central performing area. So, it's just a different concept. It's a little more efficient doing it this way but we'll look at both. Like I said, it's going to be interesting. The whole process is going to take some time and I think if the security aspect ...and this is something that I really need ...I have several meetings with judges prior to meeting with the administration for the jail to talk about the security aspects of the courthouse with regard to prisoners. Obviously, the way the building is designed now...I guess Judge Smith's comments about the previous design concept where we have this hallway that separates the secure area from the other spaces and we have courts now that have bled over to the other side. With the fourth floor, that may allow us to keep all the courts, basically, on the left side of the building where the secure area is and we can put court supports on the east side. But again, that's going to be a concept that if everybody decides we want all the courtrooms on other floors then we'll have to continue with the security problems that we have now. But that is a concept that we'll be working through throughout the design phase as we master plan the facility. And we may end up with two master plans; my first initial sketches will be very conceptual and we'll talk about some of those security concepts where we've got all of the courts on one floor or two floors or the east side or the west side or something like that. And then once we decide what's going to work best for Brazos County and the court system in general then we'll focus on expanding those plans to specific areas within there. You'll be able to see how your courtroom functions with the rest of the courts, how it functions with the security aspect, and how your court functions within your own suite. So, we'll be getting some input from that. So, it's gonna be a very quick three months but it will be a lot of work and pretty intense. Peters: With security, to me, it would make sense to put the district courts along that elevator shaft whatever floor they're on...they're dealing with the higher crimes so for security reasons it would look like you could put the district courts over there then they're coming in and they're going to be Vol I I Page 3L9 5 23 of 31 right there in a secure area. With misdemeanors, I know there's probably some criminals that need more security too over there but it's not as bad as it is with felons. Langley: The only two courts that don't have a secure corridor is Court 2 and the 85th. Smith: And the Magistrate Court. Langley: The Magistrate has a secure court. Smith: Yeah, your's is the one that's really in bad shape because I've got security, Travis has security, because we can bring them up through the back way. But J. D. has to be walked through public area after public area. Patterson: Yeah, and I'm concerned about his because you don't want ...once you start down that hallway, there's no way out. Smith: Exactly. Patterson: At least with Court 2 you've got some flexibility stair down there. But you could be in a hostage situation real quick and hold the whole courtroom. Langley: Don't give them any ideas. You don't have to publish that one Steve. Patterson: Normally the way we've been working in the last couple of years on these projects, we've involved pretty much everybody on a personal level and not excluded anybody. I think it's important to understand what you're needs ...you may not get all of them met but at least you'll have an opportunity to present them to us. Usually Pat Howard is my designated person here at the County. She is involved in all of the meetings and she kind of acts as mediator and she sets up on the County side with all of the staff that needs to be involved. So she is involved in all of these meetings throughout the next several months as well as myself. I told the Judge before they hired us that if we need to get specific consultants in here for media or anything else, we're certainly open to that. We need to provide yall with the best facility that we can afford within our budget and within the confines of the existing building. I'm figuring that this is like a six or eight year project. Langley: As far as expanding the size of the courtrooms, really the only ones that need expansion are the 272"d, the 361St and County Court 1. And within Vol Page 29 tl- 24 of 31 the confines of the spaces that are already designed there, there is enough expansion there where I don't think you're going to have to do a lot of changing of walls other than interior ones. Patterson: Right. You've got the courtroom. Langley: Yeah. The 272°d and the 361St don't have nearly enough seating space in the gallery. Jett: Judge, are you suggesting that, maybe, that we should look at leaving them where they're at instead of changing, perhaps, to have all courts in all... Langley: I don't think we have the money to do a lot. At $110.00 a foot, we're not going to be able to do a lot of redesign work. We just can't afford it for $110.00 a foot. Patterson: And those budget numbers, depending on what the needs are and how important that becomes, those numbers could change. We could end up putting more money on the court side. If we decided that one of those spaces needed to be new then we would just have to allocate funds for that and the rest of the building program would be adjusted to fit out budget. Smith: Ultimately, I think one thing we need to remember is this; when we're talking about redesigning the courtrooms, we're talking about all of this stuff. We're not talking about, necessarily; making it more comfortable for judges or the attorneys... we're talking about making it more comfortable for the tax payers of Brazos County. Because they are the ones that have to sit in that jury room, sit in that courtroom during voir dire ...and I think J.D. you would agree that they are the ones from whom we get the most complaints. Langley: Oh, absolutely. They do not like those little jury rooms. Smith: And they don't like when we have to sit 57 people in my courtroom with 12 in the jury box and some on the floor as we're trying to conduct a voir dire examination. It just doesn't work. Langley: All of the jury rooms that we have are too small... even Court 2's jury room is small. Smith: Uh-huh. (positive) Vol I - Page C 25 of 31 Langley: And we really need to do something about expanding those things. Plus now, we've had some changes in the law relative to alternate jurors. When you seat an alternate juror in a case, now, in criminal cases, we have to keep them until the end of the trial after the punishment phase. We don't get to let them go once the trial is over. Smith: Yeah, once the testimony stops, we don't let them go away any more. Langley: Yeah. They still have to come back and do punishment phase which is a relatively new change that happened in 2007. And we are having to pick more alternates because, generally, the nature of our cases in District Court are getting more serious because of changes in the law. The only way that a defendant can get probation in 3G cases now is to go to the jury. So there is no incentive any longer to cut a deal. Smith: That would be one of your unfunded mandates too. Langley: Yeah. Smith: Our discretion to give probation is gone. We can't do it. Langley: So we try more 3G cases now than we ever have. Particularly aggravated sexual assault of a child cases ...the hardest to get a jury on. Sims: Yeah, my wife didn't want to serve on that. She would not look at probation for that dude. Langley: Yeah. And that's why. Because you're wife was more the norm than the exception. Sims: Right. Smith: Thus, that's why we have to call the huge panels ...to have enough left that would not be like Brenda. That could actually consider probation in that kind of case to qualify a jury. Because if we don't, we have to start all over again. Jett: I thought the I jury system that Mark was looking at was going to help us with how many people we're having to bring in? Langley: If we have a central jury room it would help. Peters: Is that something that might would work? I mean if we had to get a parking garage and maybe... Vol t I Page d `1 s 26 of 31 Smith: Well, technically, under the statutes, we're supposed to have a central jury room. We were supposed to have had one ever since we had 125,000 people in the County. But it's one of those `no harm, no foul'...nobody had ever brought it up and it'd be hard to prove any kind of detriment that we poll individual juries as opposed to a big central pool and then pull however how many we needed out. But we are supposed to have had one since ...how long has it been since we had 125,000 in Brazos County. Sims: We're up to 170,000 now. Langley: The reason why I haven't been pushing it is because we've got a parking problem. But someday, when we get a parking garage, the probability is that the use of the sanctuary is going to be best applied to have a central jury room used there. That would make it not so important to have a 100 seats in the courtroom for those hard cases. Smith: You could get down to 45 or 46. Jett: So if the plan now was long term that we were going towards that, would it be acceptable to take that into account with the remodel now? Langley: I think that would be a good plan for the Commissioners to have overall. That would be a best use of that area without having to remodel it too much. Smith: And the problem is if we are going to have two more District Courts, two more County Courts of Law and what we have over in the courthouse right now then we don't have room for a central jury over there. Patterson: That wasn't included in the original program. Jett: So, we'd have to look at if we do remodel the courtrooms like that, then we'd have to look at how long it would take us get this set up. Sims: There's not much to that. Smith: You put a couple of tables in there. Sims: We'd have to throw in the fire suppression system in there. Because we can't have 300... Patterson: You can get 300 people in there as it currently is. Langley: You don't need more than 300 for a central jury. Vol I Page 27 of 31 Smith: Except for something like a capital murder. You might. Langley: In those situations, I think we could adjust our own schedules around so you would only have a panel coming in for one court. Smith: One panel being pulled for that one. Yeah. But you'd still pull... regrettably, you'd have to call a lot more than 300 to get 300. As you can tell ...we call 800 and I got 229. Sims: You called 800? Smith: Yes sir. Langley: And that's about the normal turnout. Smith: And in defense, I now the media writes about it but many of those come back as undeliverable and they are not forwarded by law. Number 2, a lot of people exercise their exemptions or excuses or disqualifications by sending the card in. So, in reality, of the people that actually gets the cards and don't respond immediately, we get a pretty good response. It's a lot better than it seems like. Langley: It's usually been about 10% to 15% no shows. Smith: Of the ones that actually got them and had to be there. Matzke: And just as a side... ultimately, a central jury pool will help, probably not the District Courts as much as the County Courts at Law, efficiency-wise. Because when you have ...as I had last year ...a juror's best friend in the world that they considered their mother died during the lunch break and we had to declare a mistrial. And if you have a central jury pool, you can let jury services know... send me over 25 more people and you can just kick right back up with voir dire and not lose that whole time slot. Langley: Now, the flip side to that is you have to have the one day, one trial service system. That means that the jurors have to come here and they stall all day or until the jury coordinator releases them. And so there has to be a lot of communication going on between the jury coordinator and the courts about, `How long do you need me to keep these people sitting here?' Sims: Right. Langley: Or you're going to have a lot of citizen complaints about coming up here to sit at the courthouse just sitting around doing nothing. Vol Page 300 28 of 31 Smith: And it would also require us to sort of redo what we've done before because, right now, in order to minimize the problems with parking, we all have our own jury trial weeks. He does a criminal week and he does a criminal week and then I do a criminal week so that we don't have five juries going on at one time. And that would alleviate that problem as well. Jett: The parking garage won't be ready for another two years. Patterson: Two years. Jett: So in that interim you could work on the logistics of that? Langley: Oh yeah. We could develop a plan that would be functional and work to be able to jump into it as soon as parking was not a problem. Smith: And for the next two years, we can just keep doing it the way we've done it which is stagger weeks. All of our court coordinators meet at the end of the year and get their calendars together. Jett: I'm just thinking about the money part so that we will know what we need to do so that at budget time we can start to plug that in if that's what we're going to do. Because we'll need some heads up on what kind of changes you need, either here or... Smith: Well, from just a standpoint of the space and Randy talked about fire suppression, whatever... but just from the standpoint of space, you need two things; you need seats which we have and you need some tables for the lawyers which you can easily bring out. So there you are. Sims: How many will that seat in there... 1,200? Patterson: About 800. And then the balcony which is not real conducive to that kind of thing. Smith: Well, you wouldn't put people up there anyway. Jett: And a speaker system, maybe? Sims: You'd have to have some technology there that we have in the courtroom, I would think. Patterson: Well, basically, I guess you would... it'd just be a sound system. Vol r Page ao 29 of 31 Smith: A sound system, probably. You're not going to have to have the presenters because the way it works in most Counties is one of us would take the black bean of qualifying the jury panel. Everybody get qualified, everybody get excuses, exemptions, and then they'd be sent off...40 of you head over to Court 1, 60 of you head over to 272nd, and then we'd be done. Langley: And the jury qualification can also be done by magistrates. Smith: It can be done by magistrates and by jury coordinators for that matter, can't they? Langley: Well, you have to have a magistrate or a judge grant the excuses. Smith: Exactly. But prior to that, all of that can be handled by the coordinator. Langley: Yeah. But the magistrates are, by law, authorized to do that jury qualification process. They just can not preside over jury trials. Howard: Judge, do you want to talk about the auxiliary courts, what you talk about out of the courthouse? Sims: The what? Howard: Child support and the... Sims: Oh, A Yeah, I'm working on trying to get the Child Support... Smith: CPS, driver's license. Sims: Yeah, the Drivers License Revocation out of the courthouse so that it will free us up some more space and...I think I've already talked to J.D. about it...having to do with putting them over there where the City of Bryan's Municipal Court was, it's over on 29th Street. And there is bench already in there, there is an entry and exit to the courtroom for the judge in there. It has temporary holding cells over there and I've looked at them and they'd probably handle about four men in one and four women in another at one time. I'm talking to the gentleman that owns that shopping center over there because they're losing tenants over there so the parking area would be fairly good. Just to see what we can come up with, I think he had...what'd I say Peters... 10,000 square feet? Peters: A total of 10,000. Vol Page 3bd- 30 of 31 Sims: But I don't think we're going to need near that much to have office space for everybody that needs to be with those judges. Langley: The only big question mark that keeps coming is security. Sims: Security. Right. And we talked, briefly, about that. I know Isaac has been providing security when they meet now. Child Support and CPS is probably the biggest security problem we have. License Revocation is not a big deal. Smith: Oh yeah, licensing, no one is going to get upset about that. Sims: But I think... Tape ends. Vol Page 30,3 31 of 31 The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Workshop held January 29th, 2009, have been examined and approved in open Court this the ( day of 20 in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. R4Si CLloyd I~assermann Commissioner, Precinct No. 1 Duane Peters Commissioner, FKen~~nayMalll Precinct No. 2 ommissioner, Precinct No. 3 C rey Ca e Jr. Commiss ' ner, Precinct 4 Attest: Ka en McQueen /y County Clerk Vol Page 3 b __jj~_ BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Meeting on 2 -1 Q @ 17,00 2008 Yl®OI'1 Name Organization /Department it Ina z- # / v u ti ~s C o tA.%. C UV i~ sSe✓ ~ ~ << J . Lan gs~ 'N r4 ric, I s ( `19- Z72n.,c -}-r c PAGE ` of VOLJJ;~YAGE '30,5