Travis County Commssioners Court
May 27, 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 19
19 is to discuss the restructuring of tnr's road and bridge division and take appropriate action.
>> several weeks ago we brought forward in a work session the restructure of our road and bridge street division. The restructure and what we're requesting is that you change your program manager, which we had retired employee into a division manager of road and bridge. We're asking that you take the traffic program, which we moved last year. We created a traffic manager in that program. And we're now asking to move the traffic function under the road and bridge division as well as the engineers associated with that. And the management function that we do within that program into the road and bridge division. That would require that lyndon's group, hr group, review the new job description that we've provided here in this agenda to decide where that division manager of road and bridge will fit within our staff organization number. The entire savings, the entire restructuring will create a savings of approximately $10,000. As you know, we've been through several changes within our road and bridge division. We've consolidated as much as we can. The whole idea is to create efficiency throughout our program and saving as much as possible. We've discussed this in its entirety of three weeks ago and in the work session. I don't know if you have any specific questions.
>> I just have a couple of questions. I'm looking at the big picture rkts meaning that the possible unfunded mandates that I think will be handed down here to Travis County that will affect your department and several other departments in the county, my question is does this particular organizational chart reflect any absorption of those particular unfunded mandates that we know will be coming down and if staff can change the reorganization, would they be able to handle that without coming back to the court again? Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to talk to you about and tell you. We looked at the -- we started talking about hb 1445 and of course a combinedest would be city and county to come up under one umbrella, a one stop shop situation where we can take care of things within the city's e.t.j. There may be requirements from that that will call for additional staffing. Another example, the storm water management program that also we would need to look at on a funding type basis. I'm looking at this and I'm saying, well, is this all of it? Or is it partial based on what we may expect that may affect staffing, not only in your shop, but in all the other shops here in Travis County that we have to deal with as far as the funding mechanism possible from the mechanism as we get ready to go into the budget cycle. I want to make sure what we're doing will encompass and embrace all of those types of financial impacts that you may suggest later that we're going to need additional funds and I would make suggests of that through staffing requirements. Could you basically answer that for me?
>> Commissioner, joe gieselman with tnr. We're headed in that direction, but I can tell you that the answer to your -- I can't tell you that the answer to your question is yes. The magnitude of the storm water program could be very large. I don't think that what we're doing today will be sufficient in its self to provide resources for the storm water program. But I don't think that the resources that we have on hand will be sufficient to take care of the unfunding mandate that may grow over time. So the answer -- the straight answer is no. This is not sufficient.
>> this is not sufficient, what we're doing today?
>> no.
>> I can't remember what it was, but it seemed like something had to be done before January '04, what was that?
>> that was the adoption of the plan, the storm water management plan has to be adopted. It was actually March of '03. And now we have it next year. But that has come to the horizon once that plan is adopted and we will have to look at additional resources to implement it. But we believe that over time we will be able to shift resources from our road and bridge, our traditional functions into storm water. As you know, the quality of the road and bridge system has been going up over time. And we're at a point where we believe we'll be able to start shifting resources away from the traditional paving of roads into management of storm water within the right-of-way for those same roadways. So we believe there is some -- some ability to shift resources, existing resources, but with that said, they may not be sufficient to cover the program as einvolves over time.
>> okay. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. I'm looking forward to a dinner with you in -- to getting with you in the future on some of these funding issues.
>> I guess the question I have is I continue to get calls that trash isn't picked up on, you know, frequently, and so how will this reorganization address that?
>> Commissioner, we don't currently have a maintenance program except through our csr program. We are currently upgrading our weekenders because that's a resource that we just recently -- as you just asked about, they contacted me and said that they have -- for some reason we have an excess of weekenders through our system. As you know, we have an employee that we -- two employees that we split their time on the weekends. For the summer i've got permission from our management here and also we can fund it internally. We don't have to come for any more monies, to run two crews on the weekend so we can address the trash issue more. And we will continue to address them as a work order. We have our trash trucks, our clam she will trucks that are collide dploid that the areas where there's large amounts of trash. But our csr program will be handling the roads where people just throw out trash on the side.
>> but you have here eliminate the csr outreach supervisor. Who is going to now --
>> i've eliminated that position, not those duties. Those duties will be transferred to the supervisor.
>> to the supervisor?
>> it will be the customer service supervisor -- I'm sorry, on the east side it will be one of the field section supervisors in right-of-way. Which will be gill telez.
>> field supervisor in right-of-way?
>> we have one on the east side and one on the west side?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> on the east side it's gill.
>> and gill will still be coordinating with our csr group because he's very familiar with them and he's very familiar with that program.
>> okay.
>> our weekenders.
>> can I hear again the statement of the benefits that we expect to receive from the reorganization?
>> the benefits?
>> yes, sir.
>> what we're doing is flattening the organization of my supervisors and moving the traffic into that program. The benefit of the traffic program is we will have -- in one silo who will have the engineers who look at our traffic situations and programs, and then also our crews, our supervisor and our crews directly urn that program in that same program, so it will be a direct line of communication to that. Also, the shop that makes these signs. So we have all of that in one silo as far as the traffic. As far as the employees, on the supervisors, we're having, like I said, the schoollation of these, I'm having more direct supervision of each one of those programs in the roadway and right-of-way. In other words, hands on supervision of those. It would be the efficiency of having one supervisor over those. And two, the court just approved our maintenance tech seniors, I think that will be effective July one. Which will also be efficient, having a working lead person on the crew.
>> what directs from more direct supervision?
>> well, better communication, better understanding of what the work is and also have the supervisor out in the field looking at the work and also participating in the work.
>> what measurable results should we expect.
>> number one, there's a cost savings.
>> that would be demonstrated how?
>> the elimination of the position, the salary savings that -- it's approximately $10,000. You will set efficiencies in the direct communication and hopefully higher production.
>> I heard three, cost savings, better efficiency, better production, more production.
>> there's also perhaps an implicit savings, and that is on the traffic side, to make sure that we avoid liability on the execution of our traffic engineering and make sure that what is done in the office by the traffic engineers is correctly executed in the field, and to make sure that there's no miscommunications in that portion.
>> so of the the decision is to better coordinate?
>> absolutely.
>> how long would it take us to determine whether in fact these benefits are being realized?
>> the cost savings is immediate. You should see the improvement of the communications I would say within months.
>> because we asked for a report back in 90 days or 180 days?
>> 90 days would be fine?
>> because I guess at some point we need to figure out whether the reorganization was more about the change. The way to do that is try to anticipate up front what benefits we expect and show that. We're convinced that $10,000 is a best cost, most cost savings that we can generate?
>> for the time being. If we can come back with more, we will.
>> all right. Scoft soofgz, -- cost savings, better efficiency, more production, better coordination between offices and execution are the four that I have. 90 days or three months or four months, report back?
>> three months. Because we're in the middle of the -- [ inaudible ].
>> yes, we are.
>> questions, comments?
>> and that flattens the organization by how many layers?
>> what I have now, I have -- I will just have a field supervisor.
>> and what's the benefit of a flattened organization?
>> just more efficiency. I think it's something whose time has come. Better communication and the recognized efficiency. I think our workforce has become much better educated. It's become much better experienced with a lot of the programs we're putting into place such as our -- teach training and assessment and training that the court has given me. My workforce has improved in their knowledge and their skills and also their abilities. So I think that it's just -- it's time has come.
>> we found out in the past that the frontline workers are really the ones that make the Commissioners look good. And so we want that to keep working that way.
>> was this predicated at all with five percent -- it had nothing to do with the other other [overlapping speakers].
>> we were already looking into this.
>> and this is understand to it.
>> right. -- this is in addition to it.
>> right.
>> this something that needs to be passed on to the court. This is not something that wheeler dreamed up, okay? We've gone back to the employees. The supervisors and the employees. Now, let me rephrase this. Look at this. Wheeler and his top management. We went back to the employees and managers in the field, just like you're talking about, frontline employees, and asked them how can we be better, how can we be more efficient? How can we serve our customers better. They came up with the exact same scenario and plan that we envisioned about two years ago. So this isn't just wheelers plan or the tnr. This is our employees' plan to help become more efficient and effective.
>> the $10,000 that you're saving as far as the cost saftionz, that's something that's basically been vair fid by pbo and stuff like that, so these savings implications are something that we can live with and hopefully it will happen in the future when it comes to budget cycle time. So I have no problem with it. I really don't as far as item 19 is concerned. I would support what you're doing here?
>> second to approve.
>> yes, it will.
>> in this passes we will see you back in about 90 days with the report. Any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.he
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM