Travis County Commssioners Court
September 9, 2003
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.
Item 39
39. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendations for reduction of the Travis County fleet by the fleet management committee. If there's a member of the committee nearby.
>> the committee of two.
>> the recommendations, continue having conversations with other --
>> are we going to tackle this before lunch? [laughter] the committee of two has arrived.
>> I'm not sure that I have anything more to add. You have heard my recommendations. I'm here for whatever direction or questions that you may have.
>> joe, [indiscernible] last Wednesday, talked about it a little bit, of course I -- I went through these particular recommendations and I see that there is -- that there is a lot of significance ongoing savings that we could experience if a lot of these things are -- have been adopted. Now my question to -- is to you have any of the departments, have you had any feedback from any of the departments with these particular recommendations that you have brought here before the court? On -- on the supporting or upholding any of these particular inserts -- in services as far as what you are putting on the table? Said yes, joe, come on, go on with it, I love that idea or someone said hey, joe, I think we ought to rethink that. Really, you haven't heard anything from the department per se on this. --
>> I have received one e-mail, that actually it wasn't a support or -- it was just really an explanation of why certain vehicles were assigned within the d.a.'s office. That was -- that was somewhat of an explanation of the use of the vehicles. That was the only correspondence or any comment in any form or fashion.
>> okay.
>> but by telephone or e-mail or any other variety.
>> if we were to go directly with these recommendations that we have -- that i've been able to look at, what is the bottom line total amount of the ongoing --
>> christian has something to say. To find out what it is --
>> there was a letter from the sheriff that has gone into considerable detail that has articulated her position on the recommendations and if you haven't seen it, it seems to me that you should get a copy because I think the members of the court have it. Commissioner Davis, you have not received it?
>> not that I'm aware of.
>> the sheriff has expressed her opinion rather completely.
>> fully.
>> we also got one from estella medina related to the vehicles assigned to juvenile probation. And then as you mentioned, mr. Earl has also sent us a memo on the d.a.'s as well.
>> there's other -- so, joe, you haven't received any of that information?
>> I haven't.
>> okay.
>> anyway, I guess my point of my question was I still would like to know exactly if all of these recommendations were to be looked at and accepted as is, what would the total amount -- that's with the fuel -- I think we looked at the fuel costs and stuff like that. 5% reduction, but just the usage of the vehicles in the deployment of the vehicles, what would that total cost be? I guess this is all ongoing savings.
>> our rough estimate was that the -- the approval of -- of savings -- the accrual of savings could be in the range of $4 million in capital, and close to $900,000 operating. Saved would be somewhere around 5 million with o and m also in the million dollar range. And these are very gross estimates. I don't think we anticipated that the court would buy off on all of the recommendations as a package, but that you would consider elements of the recommendations.
>> uh-huh.
>> this is a lot. Is it possible that we could, you know, bullet point these down to five things within this report that could be accomplished over this next fiscal year and it seems like the place we start are with the vehicles and the departments that directly report to the Commissioners court. Because those are ones where we do have the leverage to say, you betcha, we are going to do this after the budget has been adopted as opposed to vehicles and things that are much more complicated and are related to independent elected officials and we have that complicating thing about setting their budget and their resources and doing things after October 1st. If we show that we can do a good job related to pool vehicles, reducing trips, creating shuttle services, mail runners, getting work crews to jobsites, certainly related to heavy equipment, if we plow the way, it is so much easier to then with the clout of the Commissioners court during budget next time around say, and you guys are round 2.
>> well, Commissioner, you are talking about t.n.r. Quite frankly, I feel that you are asking one department to take a disproportionate share of the burden of balancing a fleet and I report to you if that's what you want me to do, then I will do that. But at the same time I must add that I think all of these recommendations can be done. I think that it's good management. Quite frankly I would say that t.n.r. Has -- is always up to the plate for better management and we can do this.
>> well, I guess some of the things related to things with law enforcement, there does seem to be much more consultation needs to be occurring there because to simply say you can use v 6's rather than v 8's or this size trunk rather than that trunk that's a whole lot more complicated than I think, they would like to be involved in that consultation. You can right size I think related to constables serving civil papers related to a down sized vehicle related to paperwork. But I'm not trying to pick on t.n.r., But you did offer up some things where we think your department can step up to the plate and I'm willing to go there.
>> I think that the chair of the committee is at a disadvantage because he has not had an opportunity to review all of the departmental reactions through the suggestions that were put on the table. And so because of that, it may be difficult because not all of the facts or perceptions or issues have been shared with everyone. Just as the [indiscernible] was not shared in one direction, the reaction has not been share understand the other direction, that's the way things go. But perhaps it's unfair to have all of the issues known by some and not known by others. I include members of the committee in that.
>> well, last year, I remember last year, we sat right at this dais and we discussed some of these same things. I mean it's not new. As far as I'm concerned I look add the some things, this is what we are going to take on, versus what we need to do with you with you, a partner situation where we have a pool of cars that are deployed from that parking area. Take home vehicles and a whole lot of other things. A lot of these things we discussed last year. But there are some things that the sheriff --
>> you are at a disadvantage because you haven't had the opportunity to read the sheriff's letter.
>> no, I have not.
>> but what I am relying on right now is the things that we discussed last year, in -- when it came to vehicle policy, Travis County, how can we save the county some honey. My whole concern is that I think all of us need to be working in the interests of how we can save and reduce costs to Travis County taxpayers. Now that is my principle part of where I am coming from I have heard some of these arguments. They may be similar, they may not be -- [indiscernible] from the departments again, but I do know that we did discuss take home, out of county vehicles, I mean we talked about that kind of stuff. I know we did. I was here last year. So that's what I'm saying. These apparently are some of the same issues.
>> actually, some of these are very different issues.
>> well, Commissioner -- hold on, hold on. Let me -- let me get my point across. They may be different to some degree, but I think the subject matter basically are some of the same things. Now it wasn't as defined as this is this year. But some of the issues were basically the same that we discussed last year. As far as the budget was concerned. But I would like to have an opportunity to ensure has what we are doing is in the best interest of Travis County taxpayers, I think that's what we are up here for. All of us are. If we can find a way to reduce costs we ought to applaud it, embrace it, move o. That's what I believe anyway. So I have looked at these recommendations again and some of them, you know, look pretty good. And I think we need to explore those opportunities. Everybody is squalling, but, you know, anyway, I looked at them, I guess I'm happy to hear from you. Individual departments, I heard from t.n.r., Fleet person, I would like to hear more. We need to [indiscernible] share vehicle usage, stuff like that.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> I realize that you haven't read the sheriff's response, but I think that you can sum it up as a first statement, this is what is confusing to me. First let me say that I do not feel that it is good government for any one or two people to deliberate in secret about issues which affect the public, much less public safety. Maybe you could have ended there and said harsh letter to follow. But then the next one is there is a process in place called the vehicle users committee to provide the court with input regarding fleet issues. This -- this automobile thing, I mean, it's worse than phones. Because phones don't cost as much. Automobiles are five or six or $7,000 to a person. I mean, in -- now, if that's part of the -- I mean, again, not lumping the patrol people into this thing, because I don't think anybody expects that you should take -- you should take a care, that you should do anything different other than, you know, perhaps find a way, if you can -- if you can find some efficiencies in fuel or whatever, but nobody wants less law enforcement on the street. But it is real obvious to me that this is an issue that you were -- that you are going to have to -- I mean I have asked a lot of people just throughout the hallway. Boy, if you want to get into a fist fight real quick, I mean, talk about taking somebody's car. I mean, it's unbelievable. I mean --
>> or truck.
>> it doesn't compare with the car. The reason it doesn't compare with the car is because it is several thousands of dollars if you don't have a car to provide that the county provides, then you have to go out and buy yourself a car. Now, you know, I -- I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner, this is a lot of stuff coming at us. And boy you have got a -- you have got to really find some grounds to tell somebody why you are not going to okay them to have a car. And I guess when push comes to shove the Commissioners court is the one in a can do that, even though they are elected officials because the budget is what comes from here. But I don't know why, you know, that we supposedly had this vehicle users committee and for some reason some people in here just think a couple of people did it. I mean, what's happened? I have heard all sorts of war stories about the vehicle users committee. That the reason that that never got anywhere is because people just wanted to do horse trading. Well, I mean, I will protect you, if you protect me and i'll understand your story if you will understand mine. But at some point in time when you take away the vehicles that you all have got to have roads, I mean, you are really talking about this -- this county provides somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 900 cars and then if you take away the 95 patrol people, whatever, you have got four or five, six hundred cars that I don't think there's a person around that won't go toe to toe with you and justify why every one of their cars are needed. You know, I don't know whether the Commissioners just holed up in a room and say you know what, we are going to bust out of the room and say boom here's how many cars that we are going to have in the county and that's all that we are going to have. Do you all trade around or pool your vehicles or whatever, but I don't know that we can get to a -- to a sensible way of determining this vehicle usage. Because apparently it's been for so long, that people have had the ability to have a car, I'm going to tell you that I have put a lot of miles on my car as a Commissioner, and I'm certainly not looking to get in line to own a car. Or to have the county provide a car for me. You know, I'm prepared to try to make some tough decisions on cars. I don't know that I'm not just a little too green right now to make the -- to make the calls. I mean, I -- if it's just you and mike that put this plan together, I think there are some things in there that make all of the sense in the world, joe. I mean, obviously you all were trying to collectively look for everything --
>> let me tell you the way I read this. I did not read the report as two people trying to impose on everybody else what needed to happen. But I do think that they looked at the issue from the -- from the perspective of this being a larger picture. The other thing is cars are expenditures, they are not investments. And so we needed to look at that issue in that manner. And then figure out how the expenditure would fit in with the amount of money that is being spent on vehicles. And but I do believe that we need a -- a big picture view of what happens with this kind of expenditure. And I also read it as that there was room, I didn't see -- I didn't read it that law enforcement was getting cut out. That's not the way I read it. And --
>> neither did i, Commissioner.
>> I think that we are getting a little too defensive here and that won't help us solve this issue. I still think that we need to maybe add a few more people to that committee to begin looking that the issue as an expenditure issue. And see how we can resolve it. Because I think there is room. For improvement. There always is. Always is. We can't say that there is never any improvement in anything that we do. I don't believe that. And so -- but I don't think that -- but I don't think that we ought to be able to --
>> in addition to those being expenditures, some of these vehicles are part of the tools that somebody needs to do their job.
>> sure.
>> I was very impressed with the letters written by juvenile probation and the d.a.'s office that they don't have any take-home vehicles and that at least for the d.a.'s office if they were forced to use their personal vehicles, we are talking about using a personal vehicle for a law enforcement function related to serving subpoenas and flat out cannot get insurance to do that on your private vehicle to do law enforcement work. Now, when I drive to a conference, that's something where I can get mileage reimbursement I'm not doing law enforcement work. In some of these situations it is law enforcement work and it's appropriately off of a pool vehicle. And some of these departments are already doing what we have asked them. It's just that because it is a pool vehicle, we don't have much of a distance to go, they are very much underutilized according to our standards. I thought the sheriff basically said listen, there are tradeoffs here. If you do this, there is a that represented to service plans, maintenance needs, parts, running out of warranties, I mean the sheriff spends five pages explaining all of these things.
>> by the way, I don't have that letter.
>> I don't either. That's why I --
>> it was delivered --
>> delivered on Thursday or Friday.
>> it's dated Thursday.
>> this --
>> I didn't -- but I do --
>> September 5th I received mine.
>> I didn't make the comments to offend anybody. But I did make the comments to ensure that regarding the taxpayers money, I think that we need to, I think all of us are part of that, not just one or two of us. All of us are part of that. I think we can, I think we can come up with a better fleet policy than we have now. I really believe that. I think that we can work that in. Gas reimbursements on some person's fuel that goes running down the street using a county vehicle, I think that's kind of maybe appropriate, I don't know. But a pool of cars being used I think that's appropriate. But I think all of us have to -- [indiscernible] reduce expenditures, that's the bottom line. I think that we can do bert than what we are doing.
>> planning trips, that's a very good idea. Some departments can, some can't. I would like to see law enforcement having cars especially if they are more visible in southeast Travis County. We really, really need to have that. So -- so there's a tradeoff.
>> sheriff frasier?
>> good morning.
>> I agree, I personally say I think there are efficiencies everywhere in this county that can be found. I think the way that you get those efficiencies is you have people put their heads together and have discussions and work towards those goals. Commissioner Daugherty said the vehicle users committee some people say it's horse trading. My comment would be we have the wrong people on the committee. What needs to happen is people really need to sit down and hold each other to task and explain how they use their vehicles and come forward and make decisions that are up front about the fact that why is it that someone has a vehicle? If it is because someone has a vehicle, we really can't justify so much the -- the length of time or the amount of time, you know, at least to have it be straightforward about what the true reason is, whether it is a compensation issue or an internal equity issue and let people make those decisions. My concern was as that as I -- I had heard that there was going to be the report come out and ask what the users committee was doing, I was told it wasn't really the vehicle users committee, it was mr. Joyce and mr. Gieselman and I couldn't get a copy of the report before last Tuesday. So when I watch it and I hear people talking about having basically what I could refer to as hot cars with the idea that law enforcement officers not only aren't supposed to have take home cars, you are right, Commissioner Davis, we talked about this long and hard last year.
>> yes, we did.
>> I thought that the court had made a decision, it's essential the court can reopen discussions and have them again, but I think the court had made the right decision of the fact take it was good public safety and also -- good for the officers to have the vehicles in their neighborhood. The fact that the officers serve a purpose going to and from work was confirmed like within literally days of your -- of the last Tuesday's meeting that we had an officer who was off duty on the way home who apprehended an attempted murderer. Now, if he had been in his personal vehicle, one, he wouldn't have had access to his radio and even I he had his side radio on, it would not necessarily have been a -- a good decision for him to have intervened in that situation. But he was able to take steps and we can show you time and time again where officers take action on their way or their way to work. And that that is beneficial to the county. But I thought we had that discussion, but I will be glad to have it with you again. What I heard mostly was the issue off--
>> it wasn't just that. Just the other part. The other departments take home vehicles. We talked about take home vehicle policy, period. Just that law -- just not law enforcement.
>> I understand, sir.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> but what I wanted the court to know is there are consequences as far as the vehicle and consequences for public safety. I live in western Travis County, and where I live, it probably takes -- because I know because I sometimes go to the west command from my home. It takes a good 45 minutes to get -- I live in the county. It takes 45 minutes to get from my house to west command. That means any officer who is in my area will have to work, if they are working 7:00 to 3:00, they will have to leave at least quarter after 2:00. They get to the station and trade off the car, the officers have got to check the car, so it would be at least 3:15 before that other officer leaves to go back to that area which means he won't get there until 4:00. That means my neighborhood -- I use my neighborhood because I'm aware of how long it takes to get to the west command. That leaves my neighborhood without law enforcement protection for two hours. I don't think these are the kinds of consequences this court would want to see happen. And we can have discussions about how to do things, but I don't think the way to do that is at the last minute in a budget presentation come forward with some ideas that will have incredibly far-reaching effects. And where it may be that people say, oh, we don't mean to apply that to patrol. My patrol folks are the largest consumers of -- I would hope, if they are not, then we really seriously have a problem in Travis County, my folks better be the largest consumers of miles and gas in this county because they are the ones doing the most travel. And when you say things like we're going to have a 5% reduction and this is the amount because we're applying on the whole amount, the only way you get there is affect patrol. I'm yet to figure out whether or not that means an officer is supposed to say I had 20 gallons of fuel and i've used it up so I can't go to that 911 call. That's not what we mean, but that's the sort of ludicrous results we can have if we don't have communication among ourselves and discuss things openly and clearly. If we have to, I mean I certainly am willing to, if what needs to happen is that -- just like when we were trying to get the jail overcrowding issue really moving, those of us who are elected and appointed officials ourselves had to serve on those committees and make sure that we were looking at that big picture in the best interest of the county as a whole. I'm certainly willing to sit down with anybody and have those discussions, but I don't think that we can just, you know, off the top implement some of these suggestions without having a severe effect on public safety, and I think you've heard from some other departments have concerns about their areas also.
>> move that we recess until 1:30 for lunch, then we take this item up this afternoon.
>> second.
>> we have the judges coming over at 1:30. I think after that item we ought to pull this one back up and at least decide how to proceed. And if we can mull over it between now and then in light of this morning's discussion and the various memos that are out there. I had three or four. If my making copies of these will help, I would be happy to do that.
>> judge, i'll make sure we get one to Commissioner Davis and mr. Geiselman and the court clerk.
>> I can just run a copy of mine right quick.
>> I have it.
>> that would be good. If we can just plan to do this item at around 2:00. Would that help?
>> that will be fine. Thank you.
>> I'm thinking the other with the judges will take about 15 minutes. We have two or three items we could take and get that over and at 2:00 call this back up. Second to the motion to recess.
>> yeah, I seconded.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2003 7:52 AM