Travis County Commissioners Court
November 15, 2005
Item 21
21. Consider and take appropriate action on a reorganization plan for the transportation and natural resources department.
>> judge, [inaudible - no mic] if you don't mind going through the discussion, that would be fine, but I would like to maybe delay action for at least one week.
>> there's no action posted for today, right?
>> that's fine. We will give everyone a chance to --
>> [multiple voices]
>> yeah. Okay, thanks.
>> I would like to -- if it's okay with the court today, I would brief you on what I知 proposing to do here. I知 joe gieselman with the transportation natural resources department. Periodically I look at the functions that -- that t.n.r. Is designed to perform and the organizational decent for doing that -- design for doing that. I have felt over the last year that we don't have our resources exactly lined as we should have -- aligned as we should have to perform our functions. More and more time is being spent addressing issues like the landfill siting, the tceq applications and permits, other environmental enforcement issues. And as well as what I believe is going to be more eemergencying role of -- emerging role of Travis County with the area of storm water management within subdivisions. Of course we just recently authorized another $150 million in our bond program. So that -- that also renewed for another five years. So what -- actually I looked at what was occurring in terms of these functions and with the existing resources that I have, I知 for the asking the court for any additional money -- I知 not asking the court for any additional money, I知 asking the court to take resources that I have and move them around so I can fill some needs that I have. What I would like to do is take the division that is now the parks and natural resources division and split it into two pieces. Natural resources division and a parks division. I believe it's timely for a couple of different reasons. We have been growing our park system, we are now at the phase of opening another metropolitan park, east metro park, that should open at the end of the spring. We are in full gear now to -- to develop a new metropolitan park, southwest metropolitan park at the reimers ranch and take on additional properties to manager with regard to open spaces, so that whole parks program is really emerging into a major business of ours. At the same time, that same division is responsible for all of the environmental affairs of the county. And I really think that it's -- it's more than one division should accommodate and so I知 asking them to split it into two pieces. I would promote john kuhl to division director position, he is now a division manager. And I believe that you have seen quite a bit of john here at this table addressing the court on issues. I believe that he's also the environmental officer of the county. So this would basically take his division, and to that division I would move what we call the tpds program, the Texas pollution discharge elimination program. This is something dave holler has been working on, it's mandated by the state. The court authorized two additional positions underneath dave. I知 going to be moving that program over to the environmental section to become one of five major elements under new program manager. So I will have project managers reporting to a program manager. They will basically be the environmental component of natural resources. Then the other part of that house will be the -- will be the -- the conservation lands management, that will be such things as the bcp, the ongoing administration of that permit, as well as managing open space properties, even ones that we may be acquiring through the bond program or ones that we happen to have some management role in by virtue of subdivision regulations where we may be seeking additional open spaces through dedication. But in any case these lands -- once in the public dough main, don't just sit there. I mean, they have to be managed from anything from wildlife preservation to -- to -- to not native species and brush control. I mean, these are all things that have to be looked at when you have a piece of property. I think the best way to do that is to put into the hands the people who know what that means and develop some management plans for the property. As we have done with the bcp. I would also like to elevate positions within that division. There are some resource management technicians and by and large these are biologists and we have been basically gifted with very bright people who have a master's degree in biology who are helping us in this program area. They are not recognized, however, in our classification schedule as professionals. Certainly with the title of technician that certainly signifies an entirely different level than what they are actually performing at. I would like to retitle their positions to something more at a professional level, which would be the environmental specialist. We have submitted those titles to h.r.m., human resource management, to evaluate. We have lost several of these individuals to other organizations such as the lcra and the city of Austin just because of their skill set. And -- and so we would like to be able to retain these people and because they are of value to the county. Then in terms of the parks system, it will take the parks system, we are going to centralize law enforcement. Now what we have is two district rangers and they basically -- the rangers, those positions manage the park. We are at a level now where we believe that the function of law enforcement is really more a centralized system-wide function. We are also looking to reorient the management of the park system to be management. You don't have to be a peace officer to be a manager. We are going to try to focus on management first and if you happen to be a law enforcement over as well, that's fine. But that's not required for the job of managing the parks system. So we are reorienting the way the park system is managed, we are also taking our park system and dividing it into two districts, an east district and a west district. There will be a district manager over each one of those districts, then all of the rangers will be under the direction of a chief ranger and they will be administered on a county-wide basis.
>> joe, can I ask you a question? Not to get into a great discussion about this. But the statement that you just made that you don't have to be law enforcement background to be a great manager. I would agree with that. But I do think that there can be huge issues with people that have technical skills that a lot of law enforcement people do and the last thing that you need is for a so-called manager not really understanding law enforcement, so I think that that's delicate. I mean, I agree in that a good management person ought to be to take and manage whatever kind of a department. When it comes to law enforcement the last thing that you want is somebody saying that person really doesn't even know what we do. Maybe a good managings out and impresses whoever they are managing that I know enough about what you do to be able to make calls. But I -- I know that you thought this thing through, but that's just initially kind of gets my attention.
>> understand, all of the law enforcement will be managed by a law enforcement officer. That supervisor will be the chief ranger, so we understand that the law enforcement officers within t.n.r. Will be managed by law enforcement personnel. But we are saying that that is not the prevailing manager of the district. In other words, we are now into so much operations and maintenance and truth management and I mean the skill set that I need on a -- on a general parks manager is more of those other things than necessarily law enforcement. I do need someone to understand law enforcement because it is a component of the park. But it not the prevailing. I think the way our park system evolved is we used our rangers because of their higher pay as being ranger/manager, so we did double duty and what I知 saying is for two positions which are the district level managers, I would prefer that those be managers first, if they happen to be law enforcement that's good, too, but I want the prevailing skill set to be management because it involves so many other things that are emerging in our parks right for you.
>> I agree. I知 sorry I might have misunderstood exactly how the management level was going to happen. But I -- you know, I concur with that.
>> let me just highlight it. You will have charles berg, roy turly, three people, district managers, east-west, then a chief ranger who will have all of the law enforcement. That's how it will be set up. Those -- the chief ranger duty will be to -- to manage those resources county-wide in all of the parks. So be able to rotate his law enforcement, east, west, wherever they are needed. I think they will be more efficient also in the way we watch our parks.
>> also could be sometimes there are seasonal big event. We all know in terms of first splash, last splash, certain kinds of tournaments, et cetera, there will be a way to basically move the resources around because of heavy weekends because of a particular need without regard to the precinct.
>> the parks part is on your I guess chart number 6, the last one that you gave us? Is what you just described on this chart?
>> yes.
>> that's the part over to the right? Is that --
>> the last chart shows the parks -- actually still mislabeled, called parks and natural resources division, should just say parks.
>> yeah, going to have to change.
>> what you have just described is over to the right under park ranger chief.
>> if you and I are looking at the same chart, it does describe the parks organization. The parks division manager and then there will be a chief ranger, you have two district park managers, so you have -- you have the division director, the program -- the division manager and then three people underneath that, that would be the district manager, park manager, a district park manager east, and then a park ranger chief.
>> the fiberoptic is kind of small -- the font is kind of small, it's a little difficult to read some of this stuff.
>> already in house, just moving them around.
>> yes, sir.
>> what do the yellow mean.
>> the yellow positions are ones that linda is going to need to look at. These are like on the natural resources I知 taking a program manager, moving it up to a division director of natural resources. That job title does not exist at the county. Every time you do that, linda and her group over at h.r. Has to take a look at it, make sure that they are in agreement with my recommendation. If they are not, that they will recommend the court something other than that. So the yellow kind of highlights for the court and for h.r. Titles that are not currently available in the county or there's something going on there that -- that will need the review of the h.r. Department.
>> the blue?
>> the blues are positions that have been modified, the blue ones are basically demotions. I have one program manager who is going from a division manager to a program manager and I have -- an executive assistant going to an administrative assistants. The blue effect the lowering of the position.
>> probably the appropriate color as they are going to be a little blue over that.
>> you run that by hrmd and the county attorney.
>> we have briefed the hr, I won't go so far as to say that they've had a chance to evaluate it. We did sit down with them and go over everything.
>> I guess -- go ahead, judge? Judge?
>> I知 moving to another color. You were on blue, right.
>> well, yeah, blue, yeah, blue. I知 just wondering, also, I guess I kind of -- a kind of catch-all question, may be, especially on the reorg itself, also have the valuation looked at whereby it be the hr folks are either the county -- or either the county attorney office. My question to you, joe, is do you have any idea on the process as far as time lines when we would get some type of inkling of the results of the reevaluation to see if what you have is actually in compliance or out of compliance? And not only that, looking at this whole -- I know it's a lot that's here, I mean it's a bunch of stuff that's here that we are going to all go through, but looking at all of this, with all of the moving parts and components to this thing here, to this reorg plan, the question comes back to me, when will it be, as far as time lines is concerned, that we could expect to see a difference in the service that we render under all of these components that you have listed here in your overview as far as what we end up dealing with, whether it be landfill issues, solid waste, permitting, all of these other things that are moving parts at this time. When will we be able to see that type of [indiscernible] and also evaluation, because all of those are all in my opinion all one of the same because they are moving parts and you haven't really landed on it. So when we could -- when could I expect to see some results in the measurements of these things?
>> the first -- I知 expecting that this will become effective January 1st. I will be working from now until January 1 with h.r. And the county attorneys, any other -- actually the individuals because it's not just a matter of doing this on paper. These are individuals, you have to basically train into certain procedures, you have got to move people around, office space, the whole thing, so I am looking at January 1 as being the time when everything is settled and then beginning to work under the new organizational structure. As far as the results, because of the organization, I would say in some areas you would see that almost immediately. In other areas it will probably take six months to start seeing areas where it may be new to us where we are actually doing things differently as a result of the reorganization.
>> but it may still be things that may -- in other words there's no guarantee on any of this. As far as the process is concerned. If there's a process that says, well, joe you can't do this because of whatever, then of course you may have to revisit it. Ain't nothing etched in stone that's what I知 trying to tell you at this point. You may mention January, but what I知 trying to say is that there may be some outside forces that we can't see right now from this point so -- so that's why I was looking for a kind of a ballpark because there may be some things coming up that may not fit into what we are doing here today. So I知 trying to make as many -- trying to open up as many doors as possible to make sure that those things are flushed out so that the process can move as smoothly as possible and yet still be able to render the type of service to the public out there that we have suggested doing this reorg setting. Otherwise we are just putting something on paper. I want to make sure that the services that are being requested here are actually something that we can put our arms around.
>> I am not picking up brand new lines of business that I have not done heretofore. I am not creating a new business. What I am doing is looking at changes in what we already do, looking for ways to do it better.
>> right.
>> so that is sometimes as simple as just getting someone to report to a different supervisor because of the way things are communicated and performed it's better to have these people under this program rather than this other program. Sometimes it's just a alignment where you can get better results by realigning your resources. As I see these programs grow, I have got to adapt that to do better with what I have got. I知 more tweaking the organization than just totally turning it upside down. Then to give you an example that is -- that is in the area of capital project design, we have been doing design for 20 years. We have engineers, we have got inspectors, we have got surveyors. But I think we get better performance when we contract to have design done by outside consulting engineers. That our role should be in managing those contracts, reviewing designs done by other people than doing them ourselves in-house. And from what I have seen in our own performance in that area, that I think we do not perform as well designing a project than if we had an outside design under contract with performance standard to perform. So I would -- in that area, what I would suggest my organization will do is actually try to develop our skill set better in project management, stop doing in-house design and do better contract management. In terms of contract management, I also watched the state of Texas, txdot, I have watched the city of Austin in how they solicit contracts to the design community. We tend to send out an rfq every time we do a project. There's a tremendous amount of energy that has to be devoted by the consultants to prepare those proposals. And for my staff to review them. Everybody else prequalifies design consultants by the nature of the work. And they have them in a pool. So if you go out to design a bridge, you don't go through a six-week process to find a consulting engineer. You already have one prequalified in a pool, you know they can do the job, quite frankly in Austin we are blessed with a lot of good design companies. It's not a matter they can't do the work. It's just a matter of selecting one. I would prefer we work with purchasing where we have a design pool, go into the pool, say you are next in line, let's negotiate a contract for you to design this bridge. Saves us time, saves the consultant community a headache in all of the work they go through. We may get up to 16 to 20 proposals on one project and only one firm is going to get the contract. That means the other 15 had a lot of work to do knowing they weren't going to get the job.
>> right.
>> so it's just inefficient sometimes [multiple voices] trying to look for ways to improve our processes so we can get the results out and not have to spend so much hours getting it done.
>> joe I am not in disagreement at all with some of the things that you put forth. I understand what you are doing, I understand looking for the efficiencies so we can provide a better service to the community. Then in doing that, I want to make sure that things, while we are being proactive, I don't want to end up looking at a situation, an example of [indiscernible], I still want to make sure when we do go out, you said next in line on the -- on the list of -- list of persons that could provide this service, what -- through designing and anything else, I want to make sure that the community is still treated fairly as far as making sure that we have minority participation in a lot of these kind of things. As we look through participation of person who is going to be able to do the design, of course we are going to end up doing it. I want to make sure we don't end up having to reinvent a situation where the business community out here is not looked at in the same line of light as far as having equal participation and equal access to do some of the work that Travis County ends up doing, the h.u.b. Vendors, things that we have, those are the concerns, there's a whole bunch of things, but that's just an example of what I知 talking about. Yes -- [multiple voices]
>> you just mentioned, is this part of this reorganization.
>> yes.
>> that needs to be an agenda item.
>> I understand. There's a lot of processes here embedded and when I say what I知 suggesting that my engineers be the -- the title of my engineers go from engineer to project manager, embedded in that is a philosophy that they will be doing project management. Not that they are not doing that now, but they are also doing design work directly. What I知 saying in this reorganization, I知 reorienting how we do our capital projects to more outsourcing of that design.
>> but the outsourcing of design and managing that in-house makes sense to me. But I don't know if this is the appropriate agenda item to discuss it in full.
>> yeah.
>> seems to me that -- that that needs to be agendized, we need a full discussion. Doing it is fine, there's a proper way to do it, though.
>> sure.
>> I mean I -- but I知 -- this did -- this does not put me on notice of that idea.
>> okay. Back to the blues, though.
>> all right.
>> on the first chart, you have got the environmentalist, environmental specialists, there's five of them. Four have been demoted.
>> there are two type of blues here. I thought that you were referring to the blue boxes. There are --
>> blue letters. Blue letters are actually promotions. So there's --
>> promotions?
>> yeah.
>> all right. Then that -- that eliminates two of my questions.
>> all right.
>> but so -- you still got two blues on each side, that's four. Then there's an environmental specialist on the bottom which is in black.
>> that's right.
>> that simply states what he or she is. But the one in the middle answers to the resource management specialist.
>> that's correct.
>> the other four answer to the program manager natural resource management.
>> that's right.
>> that's intentional?
>> that is intentional.
>> the reason for that is?
>> because that environmental specialist has a role that is different than the other specialists.
>> okay.
>> now on the green lettering, which is on the next chart, those are promotions, also.
>> those are actually just lateral. Those are changing engineering positions into project manager positions. There it is no pay change. It does -- we will require professional -- I mean certification project manager. Which means again develop the skill set for -- to improve the project management.
>> green means lateral.
>> yes.
>> and red lettering --
>> red in blue blocks is a demotion.
>> that's the one that you submitted to hrmd.
>> no one is color blind, are they?
>> you are going to have a hard time reading this chart.
>> rather than --
>> demotion really signifies a lot of other things that I don't think you just meant by that. What we are doing is downgrading the level of -- of that in the organization. There will be a different beginning salary, midpoint and end point. It doesn't -- it's just a downgrade of that position. It is not -- people think different things when you say demotion.
>> change of job duties.
>> there you go, thank you.
>> there's only two positions that -- in which that is done. And so I -- I have changed the job duties enough that I would not pay the same money to that position as I知 currently paying.
>> what -- paying those people less.
>> yes, I will be paying those people less.
>> you have asked hrmd and legal.
>> I have advised hr, I have not visited with legal, but I am fairly confident that I am within the legal framework for it.
>> okay. The black boxes, stay where they are, reporting duties, pay remains the same.
>> that's right.
>> joe, you did have one on-- what is this? Number 4. Who is underneath the executive director. You do have a blue box there. If I read it correctly you had somebody who was an executive assistant, that you don't need that, you need an administrative assistant, so it is taking a lesser set of skills and -- for that slot.
>> that's right.
>> same with the senior planner.
>> senior planner actually was taken from a -- we have a planner and we are a senior planner, so the senior planner is actually a promotion of a step.
>> have you shared this with the affected employees.
>> I have, I have briefed them beginning last week.
>> they are all happy with the good news?
>> um ... Actually I think for the most part. I would say month the most part.
>> some are not?
>> I need to be cautious here because this has not been approved by hr. So I am not -- I have laid this out. I said there's two events that have to happen here. One I need hr to say you did it right, we agree this is what ought to happen and how it happens. And then more importantly, the Commissioners court has to say okay, we've heard from you, we've heard from h.r., let's go. So I cannot tell employees that this is a done deal. I知 going to be very careful about that if anybody is watching that promotions, demotions, all of this is not done until the court says it's done.
>> what about legal, joe? Some of this still have not been run by legal.
>> you will seek legal advice, as I will, before any action is taken.
>> especially where there may be adverse impact, reduction in duties and compensation.
>> that's right.
>> well, if we need to say also out loud, joe I would like you hear you say this, the basis for doing this is based on the organization and how you want to match job duties and responsibilities to getting your work planned, that this is not about individuals. There are individuals who will be impacted by all of this, but this is not about I want to elevate a certain person who is sitting here in the audience as opposed to I need a higher skill set. That person happens to be the person that fits in that box, but that is not about people in terms of why these things are being made. It is about the organization and the job skills and of course that will impact the people who are in these jobs and are being moved around. We need to be real clear about why this is being done.
>> is all of that true.
>> it is absolutely true. This is programmatically driven, I try to keep people out of it. What I am looking for as a manager is to get some efficiency out of the human resources that I have. And as I said in the beginning, that can be as simple as having them report to a different individual. Giving them, expanding their skill set to do their job better, reorienting the program, this one area in particular, we have talked about a storm water management. All right. And I think that -- that the -- that that whole area probably needs another look two years from now. It did not evolve to the extent that I thought it would evolve. I think there's good reasons for that. I think until we really tackle the issue of -- of storm water maintenance, and the resources needed to do that, and perhaps even the enabling legislation that would allow county governments to do that, I don't think it's going to go a -- very far until we do, get all of that under one tent. So whereas I may have forecasted that we would have been in that business in a much bigger way two years ago, it didn't happen. And I知 to the point now where I believe that -- that on the minor drainage projects, that should be done by road and bridge because primarily they are the client. And I would move one position from what was the storm water program over to don's shop and they will advise themselves on how to put a culvert in or out and reroute the drainage related to the roadway. On major drainage projects, ones that affect the entire subdivision or entire watershed, those are truly capital projects that need to budget, we will manage them like any other capital project. That will be under the public works department. We will hire outside hydrologists and engineers to design the project. We will put it under construction as a capital project. We will manage it just like any other c.i.p. Project. On the tpes, I believe -- now I知 moving that to natural resources, that will become a permitting issue as -- as an environmental permit as we would air quality, as we would any other environmental permitting program.
>> y'all excuse me for maintain, I have to go make my jury call, excuse me.
>> joe, some of this stuff has statutorily requirements that we must adhere. Can you tell me other counties that an example of the storm water management is the thing that we looked into and something mandated by the state, you have got to do this, da-da-da, other things here also that are driven, where we do have a relationship with state statute. Can you tell me any counties where any other county is in their particular parameter dealing with some of the storm water management stuff at this time? Are we -- are we ahead of the curve or where are we positioned right now as far as where we should be? In this process. Since we have been here. Can you give me some comments on that?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...on the other hand, we are in a metropolitan area that is very environmentally conscious. The continue has probably some of the most sophisticated regulations in the united states. We have the outcome of that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. We have storm water detention features that need to be addressed either by the city or by the county. When it comes to the practical aspects of municipal regulations, I don't think we have addressed those as well as we could or can. That comes back to the issue of what is the role of county government, can we do what we need to do and do we have the revenues to basically offset the cost of mounting such a program? I would say the answer to that is no, we're not. We're not there and I don't think there's -- and I think there's a ways to go before we will be there.
>> joe, you hope to reduce administrative overhead.
>> we have eliminated several positions, those being in the administrative area. We did --
>> can you tell them how much money we saved?
>> that's pretty much where we got the resources to redirect into the other line programs. That's why I知 able to do this without requesting additional funds. We did delete a network architect, we deleted an office specialist, we deleted two inspectors that we've had vacant for about two years.
>> you've generated savings, and turned around and spent them to basically complete the plan.
>> that's right.
>> where do you put our work on landfills in the future.
>> that will be under john kuhl in the natural resources division.
>> do you need any other additional resources with impact on the level of need?
>> with regard to landfills?
>> or solid waste facilities.
>> that's a good question.
>> the county judge, before you indicated in response to e-mails from several interested residents that in my view we should turn to assisting local operators in their efforts to find green field sites and focus a bit more on waste reduction, recycling, etcetera, which two or three committees are working on already. We invested an enormous amount of energy into contracts or mou's with the northeast Travis County landfill operators and at some point I realized I think that it's all been for naught and that a better investment would be green field sites, waste reduction, recycling, etcetera. So if we do that, do you think -- are we all right staffwise or do you think we should plan to do something in addition?
>> I have my opinion which is the same as john's, but you have a couple of ways of doing a green field is probably a term commitment --
>> this is us stepping out, not us really out there taking a lead, but it's sort of us assisting --
>> it's a matter of whether you want to staff up to do that on an ongoing basis or whether or not you want to hire an outside consultant to assist you over a period of time and then when you're finished you're finished. You don't structurally change your budget to do that over the long time. That's just over the top. It really depends on whether you want to add staff as an ongoing function in these areas or whether you have a particular task you want to do in and out and whether or not you do that with in-house resources or contract it out.
>> judge, I think the other thing is since there's a solid waste committee on which john and melinda serve on, they're addressing the zero waste, which I think is a goal that is worthwhile pursuing. Because that brings in all kinds of recycling and not only household waste, but commercial waste. And the city of Austin is doing a pretty good job with the auditorium in recycling all the material they're removing and putting it in other places. And so I think that is a worthwhile goal. And in the green field. But I think we need to look at those things, new technology, new ways of looking at waste, and we need to move on to that, I think, since I致e been sitting here listening to all of the discussions that have gone on and in the process thinking about what else we can do that's more efficient and serves us better in the long run. I would agree with you, judge.
>> Margaret, I知 on board with that. As you know, we have looked at and we've had a lot of testimony given here by the community, tceq representatives just over the years, and in fact the last rendering of testimony coming from the folks that were here -- I don't think there was no disagreement in looking for a designated area which would be in compliance with tceq regs as far as statute, as far as where a county can designate an area for solid waste to go to. And other counties, we've shared information, I致e even given some to the clerk when it was on the agenda. When other counties, I don't remember which ones, have actually done that, and it has stood the test of scrutiny with the tceq that, yes, this county has is the aside a designated area. And it also may be possible to work that in a multicounty regional area which we talked about a regional situation where you will have multijurisdictional control as far as having a designated area for the local green field site. So I think this is a direction -- I haven't aired any opposition to that particular concept, where the waste stream can go to a designated site where you can do all the things, recycling -- it's a process with that type of setting, but -- so I think it's someplace that we can go and visit, but I think that we are all in agreement in looking and pursuing a designated area whereby we could send our waste stream here in the county or multicounty regional setting, but not only that -- gentleman, I had asked you a question before on the storm water deal. The reason why I want to go back and visit that question again is because on your storm water management setting here, we went through some interim rules here not too long ago where the court decided to approve some interim rules in subdivision and things like that, but within that there was a lot of things that we talked about, talking about storm water management, runoff and a whole bunch of things. My question is to you, we've approved the interim, but of course we haven't come and made it permanent. We haven't taken a vote on a permanent rule setting. And my question is there has -- I think there is a time line with tceq that says, yes, you've got to deal with storm water management by a certain time line. So do you know what that is and when we need to move forward as far as setting up some type of permanent situation who can deal with the storm water management subdivision regs? Can you tell me that now?
>> I don't want -- you've got two questions on the table here. I want to make sure we get back to the issue of resources needed for landfill. But very quickly, you're talking about two different things with regard to the storm water. One is the Texas pollution discharge elimination program. And that is a very specific legislative program. We expect that to be coming back to the court very soon. I believe it has to be implemented this year. They changed the date. It was earlier in March and I think they've now slid that back. Tceq has given the local governments more time to put together a plan and adopt the plan. That is being done. Dave fowler is basically working on that plan. That is a program in moving to be under the division of natural resources. With regard to the final rules, those are subdivision regulations. And yes, they will have the storm water regulations within them. That is still very much part of the development services division under anna bolen. And we are working on final rules that will encompass not only the storm water runoff from those subdivisions but as well as other issues associated with the subdivision of land and taking one position and moving it to basically a senior engineer position. It's a vacant position right now. It will be actually supervising the planners and the engineers who do the subdivision review. And the hiring of that position, in looking for an engineer that has some water management background in his training. So I知 trying to also -- in the reorganization, beef up how we organize subdivisions in all fashions, but with a higher understanding of the issue of storm water management from those subdivisions. There's really two different issues going on there. One is truly a federally mandated pollution discharge regulation program that will involve permitting and field reviews and all sorts of that. That will be under natural resources. There will be an environmental enforcement program. I hope that answers your question.
>> it does. I wanted to make sure we get that done.
>> now, I do want to get back to the resources needed for landfills, so I壇 like john to jump in here because I知 not sure we answered that question.
>> right. I just want to clear the air on -- I guess in two different areas. One is the past and one is the future. The past issue that I wanted to just kind of clear the air was on in '05 we had a couple of f.t.e.'s that were approved by this court in the budget to be added for environmental enforcement. When joe and I began our discussions there, what we -- we came to a conclusion -- at the time I had 11 direct reports and in struggling to effectively manage that kind of number of staff professionally and jump to the technical needs that are needed by the Commissioners court. That was simply a structural issue that we needed to resolve, and it took this time to get to this place and resolve it. So I appreciate y'all's patience with that and that's a big part of why we're here. We couldn't make that change overnight and we did not want to implement something that was haphazard and not run well at the expense of staff that's on board right now. The second approach that I wanted to touch base with you guys on is the future. And chition ergo mez and Commissioner Davis already began to talk about that. We don't know -- we are really in my opinion at this point where we mayor we may not see quite a paradigm shift in the way that solid waste is dealt with in Travis County and frankly across the nation. So I think that as joe mentioned earlier with the storm water program we need to come back and look at that in a couple of years. I think that's the case with the solid waste area. The position that we expect to be on the ground, inspecting solid waste facilities is sort of a code enforcement position and there is just one right now, however, that person will also be expected to hop in and look at potential violations of orders of state in terms of water quality. So we both feel, joe and i, there may be a possibility that this person as well as the folks that are in the storm water get a bit overwhelmed especially as we get into the final rule and so fort. I think it will take another look and I think it also depends on which way we go with general waste and so forth. If there is emphasis on a new district that comes in that's created legislatively or whatnot and takes all that on, maybe that takes that responsibility away from us. We don't know yet if that's going to happen. The converse of course is if existing structures, local governments are expected to pick up that slack, then a yeah, we may need a bit more help. Over the past five years, beginning with captex and all these other things, in guilty of trying to seven y'all's needs just about alone and with a couple of staff members' help every now and again and that's taken away from frankly the management that we should have been given. That's where we're headed.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. ... In terms of external zero waste. But we have also got internal efforts related to zero waste and that's kind of the charles williams box, management of a contract with keep Austin beautiful, but also a lot of of our cleanup projects, educational projects, outreach projects, but also to make sure that we aren't internally wasting paper and cartridges and we are also generators of waste here and need to do what we can as an internal government. Where are those boxes here?
>> if you look at the program manager environmental quality side of the natural resources chart, you'll see that there are four environmental project managers. And charles williams' position is underneath one of those as environmental specialist at this time. There is no change happening there at this time.
>> that's where he's at.
>> right. That has been a very full menu and that's again something that may need to be looked at down the road.
>> solid waste is on the left side. Left side of the chart.
>> right, on the right-hand side if you're looking at the page -- solid waste, program manager, environmental quality?
>> correct. And that is actually one of the two positions. I mean, when joe came and said, hey, we've got these two positions approved in the budget, what should those positions be? I said frankly, I need some structure below me to better effectively mechanic this. We decided to create that program manager of environmental quality position and then the other new one is -- is a code compliance inspector down there on the far right?
>> where is the solid waste management specialist? Which box represents that position? Any?
>> well, I guess you could say that charles williams does that type of service. In terms of recycling and waste reduction and that type of thing. It's spread out within the organization. Belinda has done enforcement issues on the criminal side. And capcog and so forth. So there isn't any one line right now that's purely devoted to solid waste services.
>> my last thought is on this, over the last two or three years we have invested an enormous amount of time on solid waste related matters. If we plan to -- if we plan to invest roughly the same amount of time, but on assisting landfill operators in locating and acquiring green sites, green field sites and in waste reduction efforts county and region wide, we're talking about the same -- using the same staff, but redirecting that energy or do we need somebody to analyze it and see whether we need one more person? I知 not necessarily saying let's increase the work load, I知 saying let's take the same work load and shift it away from the mou and whatever is taking place in northeast Travis County, give that to new energy as more related to accuse with acquisition, permitting of new landfills and waste reduction, recycling in conjunction with efforts of the city of Austin committee, capcog advisory, capcog swak. Not necessarily in permitting applications filed by bfi or for that matter waste management. So I知 thinking our focus should be more future oriented, sand should we depend on the same people help outing that way or should we plan to add another person?
>> I would plan too add another person. And I say that because you're looking at the person whose time has been spent in the last few years doing that. But this same position is responsible for all the other environmental programs at the county, the bcp, code enforcement --
>> but what about the two john say we added.
>> this gentleman needs another person to be working directly day-to-day on the solid waste issues so he can begin to manage more broadly all the other programs he's responsible for.
>> what are the two new ones doing?
>> my hope was in that hiring process is to pick up folks with direct quantifiable, technical and/or policy experience in the solid waste area as well as areas. The person who is that program manager frankly needs to be a miracle person. I don't know if we'll find that, but that's what we're looking for. And then the code compliance, I want somebody that can tell me, yes, I have walked through and infected landfill, sludge farms, whatever it might be, so that they have that as a primary area of focus when and if it is needed as well as areas. So we are admittedly taking -- with those two positions anyway --
>> pardon me on my last thought on this. Is joe, shouldn't we try to fill these positions, make sure we understand exactly what we need them to do and how much of that they can accomplish before deciding whether two are enough or whether we need a third run.
>> that's fair enough.
>> and a second one, we still have $98,000 in a solid waste reserve. Don't we? Didn't we rebudget that? [overlapping speakers]
>> it's hidden in allocated reserves.
>> okay. But I guess -- what I知 saying is that is a big deal whether we want it to be so or not. And it seems to me that while we're organizing we ought to at least think about that and think about how to address it. And unfortunately, when you are part of a big committee, not to mention two big committees, then I think you spend a whole lot of time just trying to work with the areas. And at some point hopefully some viable recommendations will come from those initiatives that we'll be able to help others implement. But I see us really having to spend more time in that direction than we have over the last two or three years.
>> judge, when we set that solid reserve, and I remember a couple of budget cycles ago, during the discussion of the budget cycle, it was the intent to look at that $100,000 that we set aside in the solid waste reserve and when they were brought forward, the discussion was looking at possible relocation for a new site. That was pretty in-depth discussion. So $100,000 was really set aside to do that now. If we need somebody to go out and say, well, look, can you find a site within the 10 county region, wherever, like I mentioned, designated area. It just occurs to me if that's the direction that the court would like to go in and the recommendation is coming from staff, utilize that to find a green field site because in my opinion it was set aside just for that preference when we went through that process, to do -- to have part of the money utilized for locating a green field site or we could deal with our waste stream. So I知 still in agreement with what we did a couple of budget cycles ago in ut liesing money to -- in utilizing money for the green field site. [overlapping speakers]
>> it's still there and --
>> we can always turn to allocated reserve if that's what we need to do. [overlapping speakers] f.
>> let's be real clear here. In terms of trying to find a green field site, we still have to find willing sellers of land. And a lot of time and effort has been put into this and so far nobody has said, oh, please, make my land the designated landfill for this region. And not one county has stepped up to the plate and said, we would adore hosting the landfill for not only your county, Travis County, but potentially 15, 16, 50 counties. So Commissioner, I do not disagree with you, we need to find a green field site. Are we finding a green field site for the public purpose that's to be resolved here, but also to make sure --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it has to do with whether we are adding people within this reorg to do this or you contract it out. And are we doing this because it's good public policy or are we doing it on behalf of -- are we doing it on behalf of private businesses who are trying to do this same thing? We've got to keep -- what is the public interest here in terms of why we are trying to find a green field site.
>> that's why I use the term assist.
>> thank you, judge. But somebody still has to say yes, I want this to come.
>> if you recall when barry boyd came down and we discussed this, we looked at the capcog setting and this had been discussed with that particular group because we considered the multijurisdictional type, and it was her testimony that there still may be a possibility because there has not been any support as far as what I致e heard. Now, I don't really know, but my concern is the money that we set aside a couple of budget cycles ago to assist in dealing with that. And I was trying to find out the amount of money.
>> the Commissioners court appropriated $100,000 in special reserve in fy '04. We're currently in the fy '06 budget year.
>> okay.
>> in fy '04, either two or three thousand dollars was spent. I fort get which. It was either 97 or $98,000 remaining. In fy '05 the Commissioners court reappropriated that reserve to a second year. Your planning and budget office in its ultimate wisdom looked at that reserve and said it hasn't been spent for two years and proposed to the court that that reserve be taken to zero. And the court moved forward and approved that recommendation. And in the fy '06 budget there is no special reserve dedicated for that purpose; however, the allocated reserve was -- there were resources added to the allocated reserve above and beyond what the preliminary budget had for a variety of contingencies. One of those contingencies was inmates. Another was katrina victims and another was solid waste. So the money is there if you so choose, it's just not in a special dedicated reserve.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> you're welcome.
>> and for anyone that's noticed, I知 still here. I致e been completely released from jury duty by making a phone call saying I知 here, do you need me?
>> let the record show that you indicated full willness to serve as a juror.
>> I was looking forward to it. There was no way I was going to get picked even if I made it over there for voir dire. So you are blessed with my presence for the rest of the day and week. [ laughter ]
>> joe?
>> there is one last item thaipted to have a correction to my memo. The chart does not reconcile with the memo. There is a position called environmental tech. It's at a level 12. And that is moofg to an engineering tech senior 14. It's reflected on the organizational chart, but it was not listed on the table, so I wanted to make the court aware that the two did not line up. I wanted to get that into the record. I think that pretty much covers the topic. Again, I want to highlight that this is not requesting additional resources. This is reallocating resources that have been allocated to tnr. It is basically moving money from spending in administrative services to spending in environmental programs. That's -- if I had to highlight what's going on here, that's where the bulk of it is going. The rest of it is alignment of reporting relationships within programs, reassigning duties from one program to another program or one division to another division or I think it will be -- where I think it will be more effective. But in terms ever of just sheer resource allocation, if you look at it from a programmatic standpoint, you have allocated resources to tnr. I知 asking for authority to move those resources over to the environmental program.
>> you're on page 3? You reference a net savings of $59,135.
>> and that is split in two separate funds. One is the general fund, and with the correction that I just said on the senior engineer tech, the savings, the difference in the general fund is 1 pow 330 -- $1,330. And in the road and bridge fund it represents a savings of $103,105.
>> so if we approve all of the recommendations, requests, etcetera, we still have the net savings that you just talked about.
>> that's right.
>> the problem is a bigger one is in the road and bridge fund.
>> it's not a problem, but there is a larger savings in road and bridge.
>> in terms of our ability to fund the environmental position that we may need.
>> that is correct, that is a problem.
>> so we will mull over this and get the appropriate legal advice on the demotion that is not a demotion in fact as Commissioner Sonleitner --
>> it's a down grade. A change in duties and rebanded.
>> so there is no rif or anything close to it. There is a reduction of duties and responsibilities for one or two positions.
>> there is an elimination of availability positions. And I don't know if you technically qualify that as a rif, but no existing employee will be released. There will be positions that are vacant that will be eliminated.
>> I don't think that that inadvocacy our rif policy, but run that by hrmd just to be sure. And you expect us to take action preferably next week?
>> let's repost it for next week. I値l check with linda at the attorney general's. If there are major issues I may ask you to roll that until they have a chance to thoroughly review it.
>> anything further from the court? Comments, questions? We'll have it back'. Have you very much.
>> you mentioned a separate posting especially for the hiring of outside vendors as we go through this process, when do you think it will be appropriate to look at the design -- looking at that list and making sure that we address the hub community, the minority community as far as the listing that exists, when do you think that would be appropriate to come back to the court?
>> when do you think you will be ready, joe?
>> I think there's a larger issue not just with how we procure outside design services, but we need to be talking about the assumed cash flow of the 2005 bond program. You understand that we cannot issue debt for all the projects the first year. That's got to be spread out over the next five to six years. And we have made iewmtion assumptions and we have give inthose assumptions to pbo with regard to what project, first, second, third, fourth. That is imbed understand your debt models. But the court needs to understand that it ties right back to how quickly any of these projects gets launched and that ties to when we need design services for any of the projects.
>> so you need to see that first?
>> yes.
>> and christian will have that ready for court consideration --
>> actually, it's mine to present. The assumption about the projects, he already has the cash flow.
>> he's working on the cash flow, I think.
>> you are going to see next Tuesday a presentation of the fiscal impact of all the requests you have before you. The implications on the homeowner. The implications on the tax rate. The implications on going beyond the white lines for many more years than you anticipated. And what originally proposed in the preliminary budget and what the amount that you have when it's all added up together, including cost overruns due to inflation and other purposes. You may choose to say that's fine. You also may choose to ask your staff to reprioritize.
>> let's think in terms of three weeks for you, joe. It looks like christian lays it out next week, we may take a second one to look at his. So three weeks for you. And in addition to that, we may as well go ahead and look at solid waste management and figure out what the two people on board might be able to do. Do you need input from the court about what we would like to see us go? There's a big definition of assisting with the location and acquisition of green field sites, locating and acquiring green field sites, there's a whole lot of difference there. I think we need to try to agree on our language and figure out exactly what we think it is we need to try to do. Historically I致e said you locate the sites, you try to manage as much as of the property as you can, and if the county can assist with the completion of the acquisition, for example, if you need 12 ta tracts, but you can get nine, then we would try to figure out a way to try to assist with the acquisition of the other three. That really is shifting all the up front responsibility to the landfill operator with us coming in on the tail end to use our authority to complete the acquisition. So my notion has always been a bit more limited than us out there proactively looking around the county for potential sites and doing the due diligence, etcetera.
>> it would be helpful to have -- the more I hear from what your expectations are and the more I can get a cue to what type of people I need. What you just described is not john as much as it is our real estate, greg chico and our plan negotiators. We're actually out there acquiring properties for landfill. And.
>> that's two or three tracts, not two or three hundred.
>> maybe I already have enough people to do that. I have the skill set, but it's in the real estate section under public works. And that's what I would do.
>> I think we need to discuss it. There's a neal sellman notion of echo industrial project. There is what tds is already doing. There are various ideas coming from the city of Austin advisory committee. I致e heard various ones from the swac. And then there are residents who claim to be in the know who will give us input on whether we want it or not. And when you put all that together, there's us trying to evaluate and trying to figure out where to help.
>> they're our partners.
>> they'll become our partners. They're our partners already?
>> yes.
>> they are or will become our partners.
>> and also with that, judge, if you can continue to still look at the designated area along with the possibility of looking at that whole regional concept approach through capcog, there may be something that need to be put on the table. So I壇 like to make sure that the swac folks, john and amelia, your team there continue to keep that on the table. And along with the relocation of green field sites. All those things maybe can work in concert as we go through this process.
>> our goal would be to have both on in three weeks. And on the solid waste thing, even if we're not ready to land on a specific issue, I do think we ought to set them out in such a way that we can discuss them, let the court provide input and if we're ready to land, if not, we'll mull another week or so. Three weeks from today?
>> that sounds good.
>> 12-6.
>> December.
>> December already.
>> all right. Thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, November 15, 2005 2:56 PM