Travis County Commissioners Court
July 8, 2008
Item 12
12. Consider and take appropriate action on request to revise Travis County code section 10.0535, on-site residence for park staff and the ranger residence policy
>> good morning, joe gieselman with the transportation natural resources department. We currently have three ranger residents in our park system, one at pace bend, one at northeast metro park and one at bob wentz. What we are seeking today is a policy with regard to location of ranger residence. We would also like to place a residence at east metro park, southeast metro park, eventually at bob wentz when it becomes fully developed. We expect that two to three years out. Basically we have in each one of these large parks, capital investments ranging anywhere between 14 and $16 million. Of infrastructure. Some of them it's pretty valuable, the turf fields in particular high quality turf fields that could be ruined easily by someone just driving around after hours. We have noted that where we do have ranger residents we have been able to respond to emergencies after hours, we have 24 hour visitation at bob wentz because we have camping and so there -- the resident ranger is called out frequently to deal with -- with campers and issue that's come up as a result. But we have also experienced the same in some of our large metropolitan parks. We also have extensive drainage systems, pump systems, irrigation systems that -- that can break. Have broke. And so it's -- so it saves us time to get out and monitor these things. So -- but -- but it does require capital investment. The -- the resident ranger we now have at northeast metro is in a -- in a home that was there when we purchased the property. It really is a dilapidated house. It need to be basically destroyed and replaced. There is no -- we had expected to move into the taylor residence at east metro on the property we bought with east metro park. It almost burned down because of an electrical fire. And we again it's a residence that we would not suggest be occupied. It also should be tumbled and a new residence constructed. Southeast metro somewhat the same thing. We have an old structure there. But it's just marginal in terms of its quality. So but every time we build a resident ranger we are talking anywhere up ward of a quarter of a million dollars to build a new residence and about $5,000 every three years to maintain that structure once its built. It does come at a cost. In exchange for that you have basically 24/7 surveillance of the property. So we bring this forward, we -- facilities management did include in their fy 2009 budget request capital funding for the ranger residence, so it was understood that it would not be recommended by p.b.o. In the preliminary budget or otherwise unless the court has adopted a policy with regard to -- to ranger residence. The part of our interest here is establishing whether or not the court is interested in having a policy that's pretty much a predicate to any type of a capital allocation. Really the issue is -- is -- is having certified police officers in a residence on the property to give you 24/7 surveillance of these properties. You also have -- we are not suggesting that there needs to be a resident ranger in every park. We have divided up the county in such a way that every resident occupies a district and that resident ranger will be responsible for monitoring the -- the -- what goes on in those other parks within the district after hours. For instance, east metro would also pick up all of the other parks in the surrounding area, southeast metro the same way. So they will be watching properties. There's a map in the backup, excuse me. That designates the districts for which the resident ranger would be responsible for -- for after hours surveillance.
>> judge, I've -- I mean I think that I -- that I'm supportive of this. Although -- I mean, reading the backup, joe, I couldn't really discern what the actual bottom line costs, you know, would be, I mean, if you are factoring in the fact that you have got to have 24 hour service, you know, what would that do to offset, you know, construction building of facilities? I mean I agree I think that they are very valuable assets that we have in the parks that would really benefit from having this. But I would really like to see more backup on exactly what the costs are I mean obviously with it not making the preliminary cut, you know, I would like to talk with p.b.o. And find out, I mean, exactly what the numbers were. So, I mean, is this something that we can have another week and you can get me some of that information? I don't know if anybody else feels like they need it, I mean, but I -- I like the thought, I mean, I just want to know what the financial ramifications are.
>> we also need to clear up our differences with facilities with regard to the basic square footage of the residence and per unit costs. We got somewhat cross-wise with facilities on what we estimated the capital costs to be for the residence. We can clear that up in the meantime.
>> doing it in house as it's going to be done and looking at whatever the backup suggested, 1500 square foot, of course with facilities looking at that whole, you know, the design and all of this other kind of stuff, looking at that and then the -- then the -- the square footage of course had been reduced, what 1300 square foot?
>> I think they had it at 1380.
>> 1380 square foot.
>> okay.
>> I do know there is a -- there is a significant need. This came up -- this same issue came up -- was it last budget cycle or the budget cycle before? As far as looking at what the policy -- what policy we need to be embracing to -- to cover our parks. And then the -- the situation where I think joe mentioned about the vandalism and a whole lot of other things that occur. We have a lot of investment, there's no doubt about it. These metropolitan parks have a lot of investment. When we said $17 million and 15 or whatever, the cost, million, million dollars of taxpayer money. In my opinion, I need to have some type of -- some type of -- of park ranger or residence to cover that. I saw something though in the backup that when we listed the number of parks that was covered under the park ranger, residents, the area, span of control I guess we could call it, but anyway within that -- I noticed how would -- there's no -- for example ben fisher or any other part maybe not being in the network for service, are we not getting reports of things going on at ben fisher or just not looking at that per se? I noticed
>> [indiscernible] east metro, as far as precinct 1 is concerned and also big webberville. But ben fisher was excluded. I am just wondering would there ever be a need to visit ben fisher.
>> I think they routinely do. I need to take a look at the stats or information that you are looking at, let me try to understand it. But we routinely go through and patrol ben fisher park.
>> right. I noticed even in the southeast metro, northeast metro, you would have fact their situation down in precinct 4, also looking at richard moya, thing like that. It's kind of like a little network as far as because there are incidents and of course we have no end farcement, law enforcement type per se, these rangers are law enforcement persons that look at a whole cad cadreof things that they are abe to do, emergency services, on call, on and on and on. The question is the amount of money in the reduction of the square footage would there be also a reduction in the overall costs. When we looked at the 1500 square foot per resident, then of course there's an associated cost with that. My question, though, will the costs come down because of the reduction in square footage? Would the costs also come down?
>> if the -- if we're in agreement on what the per unit cost is, yes, the smaller the house will cost less.
>> yes because -- anybody want to respond to that? I mean per se --
>> partly, we need to get with facilities because I think roger probably is more current with construction costs than t.n.r. Is.
>> okay, well, maybe --
>> get a better handle on what the escalations have been recently.
>> okay.
>> do you have an answer to that?
>> yes. The cost was set for the square footage of 1,350 square feet for about $241,644. That's including all the construction and water and wastewater and electrical connection for the buildings also. And the -- what we're going to do is we're going to do all of the engineering, civil, mechanical, electrical and plumbing and house. What you see in front of you is 241, facility management submitted in the budget process is construction costs. The construction costs is not getting any cheaper. And especially we're going to do this if it's approved we're going to start doing it next -- next winter and spring the construction. And that's included escalation to the construction of that time also.
>> okay. So my question, though, is this would be the -- the nomenclature for everything as far as the residences, they will all be 1380 square foot.
>> yes. This will take care of everything excluding the furniture because furniture is a different issue that the department will take care of that. But let me just let you know what -- what the 1,350 square feet comes from. It's a mirror image, 100%, bob wentz park rangers. It is three bedrooms, one kitchen, one living room, one formal dining and a small porch on the outside. It's spacious enough that if you have a family you can live in those three bedrooms rangers house. That's where the 1350 come from.
>> not a swimming pool and tennis courts or anything.
>> those are provided by the ranger
>> [laughter]
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> I can probably give you some background on that floor plan at bob wentz. That floor plan came from parks and wildlife. That's a standard floor plan for a state park residence.
>> so the northeast metro of course feels that the one that's there, the residence that's there now, it will be demolished torn down with the others.
>> that's correct.
>> and erected would be the 1380 square foot with those type of layouts as far as the number of rooms and bathrooms and -- and floor plans.
>> absolutely. We have the floor plan already just like joe was saying, from Texas parks and wildlife. The floor plan is all ready. We have it. We will do the mechanical and electrical system and move it through.
>> judge, I guess my question then is do we have to -- in order to adopt a policy, do we have to -- do we need to know -- we see preliminary numbers here, I guess will these numbers alter? And in order to adopt a policy, do you have to have the numbers -- do you have to have the numbers per se as far as the actual costs in conjunction with adopting a policy or is that independent of each other?
>> I think it's independent. I think the main issue today is whether or not to have ranger residence. The policy -- the -- how much the units cost will be a budget decision that you will deliberate on during the budget hearings. When the budget is presented to you. You may decide that you -- that you don't want to do all of that. You may want to spread them out over several years.
>> I can support item 12 and based on the fact that it's independent action, one being a policy and then of course looking at the concerns that Commissioner Daugherty brought up earlier about the cost, well, that's another decision that we'll have to make. But I'm definitely going to support item 12 as far as a policy is concerned. Thank you.
>> I have a series of questions. First, I'm not sure that I understand what criteria the policy contains. So how would we apply the policy and answer the question could we have a park ranger residents at this particular park or not?
>> council --
>> okay.
>> do you want me to respond next week?
>> please.
>> or now.
>> right now is fine.
>> all right. Here's the thinking: number one, anywhere where you have 24 hour occupation of the park like pace bend, when you have people in the park overnight, that's -- that was one criteria. But there's only one of those, that's the pace bend. You already have a ranger residence there. The next criteria was --
>> the other county parks where there's overnight stays.
>> not currently. Not currently.
>> bob wentz has a residence.
>> it has a residence, but it really covers a series of parks that are close by, rather than trying to put, camping at sandy creek park and cypress creek park, which are quite frankly a very short drive distance away and so the -- rather than putting a ranger residence in those parks because they have camping, they don't have the magnitude of camping that pace bend park has. Pace bend park on a busy weekend can have upwards of 5,000 people out there camping over the course of a weekend. But at bob wentz is kind of strategically located in the basin area near Lake Travis, it's available. The resident there is available to respond to mansfield dam, sandy creek and cypress creek parks in that area. Arkansas bend on the outer edge of it. We currently have long-term plans if we do infrastructure development, arkansas bend and we have it in the backup, we would recommend having ranger residence at that location when we put the infrastructure investment at that park. Currently we don't have it. We don't have the numbers of campers out there.
>> what park is that now, make sure I understand.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> on the north shore of Lake Travis by Jonestown.
>> lago vista area.
>> so what's the first criterion? That you must be bob wentz park?
>> no. The first criteria would have been that there is a need to have 24 hour surveillance because people are in the park. In parks in the district. The fact that it's at pace bend is because that's where the majority of the campers are overnight. So the second criteria would be just the magnitude of the capital investment. When we move to metropolitan parks, we started putting a substantial amounts of infrastructure in place. That are assets that need to be protected. So those -- some of those parks northeast metro in particular, when we purchase the property, we purchased the single family residence that came on the property. We began to occupy the park almost immediately. But that particular structure is dilapidated. We had the same intent for east metro, same level of investment, we're talking about $16 million worth of investment.
>> what's the magic number? What number triggers the residence?
>> we're looking at metropolitan parks. They are all about the same level of investment. Southeast, northeast, east metro, level of investment in all of those are in the neighborhood of 15 to $18 million.
>> what determines whether we call a park a metropolitan park?
>> we have usually defined that as 2 to 300 acres. We currently have four or actually five if you include the pace bend. There are some in various stages of development. Northeast, southeast, metro are pretty much developed at this point. The reimers park we just acquired the land and are in the process of developing that park.
>> overnight stay, size of capital investment. That's two. Any other criteria?
>> well, I guess --
>> I didn't make those up, I just heard you say them.
>> I guess geographic. When we looked at the placement of the residence, it's not just the single park. It's whether the parks can be covered in a circumference from that residence. So we tried to get the districts and the residence in such a place as to optimize the coverage. So that was the other criteria. How can we basically consolidate the -- the enforcement of all of the parks within one district.
>> okay. Those three are pretty much covered you think.
>> yeah.
>> when we look at the policy it will set out those criteria.
>> yes. In one form or another, yes.
>> I think the form would be more understandable then, because when I looked at it I'm not sure --
>> you want it to be explicit.
>> I want it to be easily understood.
>> okay.
>> because my problem is how do you answer the residents that walks up and say we want a park residence at our park just like they have at the other park. I would like to be able to say well there's a county policy that helps us make that determination. Here are the reasons why your park doesn't qualify.
>> okay. Now, so the county owns how many parks?
>> well, you have about 28 active parks and a total of 33.
>> the county owns 33 or does the county manage 33.
>> manages.
>> how many does the county own? My next question is how many do we operate for lcra.
>> seven.
>> county owns seven. We operate how many for lcra.
>> seven.
>> no, we manage seven for the lcra.
>> the county owns 33 less 7.
>> 26, is that right.
>> okay. Of these 26 today we are recommending park residences at three of them.
>> there are three currently. We are recommending three more.
>> all right. All three of these are county owned.
>> yes.
>> what's the lcra's policy regarding park residence?
>> I don't think they have a policy. We have a residence, you know, at pace bend park, lcra, also one at bob wentz but the residence at bob wentz is actually on the county portion of that part. The romberg tract bought by the county back in the late 80s. That actually is there. The only resident that we have in the lcra park is at pace bend.
>> pace bend is listed on the three parks in our backup. It's lcra owned.
>> correct.
>> all right. Who would pay for that park residence?
>> when we -- when we retrofitted that building several years ago, the lcra c.i.p. Account paid for it.
>> okay. So -- so we would expect to expect for lcra to pick up the costs for that residence?
>> did already.
>> already did.
>> and in the future?
>> well, we don't expect another residence to be constructed --
>> same house -- the same house has maintenance costs based on the backup.
>> absolutely.
>> so the lcra, the lcra funds that we control will pick up costs associated with that park residence.
>> that's right.
>> so is pace bend one of the three parks that -- that we're trying to cover?
>> it is currently covered. But not that -- we are asking that there be three new parks.
>> pace bend is not one of those three.
>> no. What's the policy in other urban counties regarding staff residence at parks?
>> I don't have that information, but I can provide it to you by next week.
>> why don't we do that.
>> it may be that our parks are a lot different. Theirs may be smaller, more urban, if they don't have a policy or a residence then I would like to know that.
>> a lot of urban counties don't have the level of camping activities that we have. Me don't have the infrastructure investment in the metro parks that Travis County has. You'll see a difference I'm sure. But we will check.
>> what are the facts so I can deal with them. If they don't have park residences there, the question is what kind of vandalism and other harmful activities have they experienced, if any. That's the justification for these investments in the parks, right? That we -- the parks need to be protected and it is not enough to call 911 or the nearby park ranger, we need somebody in a residence there on the property. I looked at the formula and to be honest I'm not sophisticated enough to understand it. The formula regarding what the ranger pays the county for the residence. So currently what money are we reimbursed?
>> > I remember the court set that at one time.
>> it's not a reimbursement, it's a tax value.
>> I told you I wasn't sophisticated enough to understand it.
>> it's basically the auditor there's a --
>> I just want to know what amount of money we now get. From the rangers in the residents.
>> 0.
>> no.
>> is it considered --
>> tax value as a benefit of employment.
>> that's correct.
>> explain to me next week.
>> okay.
>> in preparation for next week exactly what that is.
>> okay.
>> so any way that I can understand -- in a way that I can understand it.
>> okay. We have three residences already. At some point the Commissioners court in the past I guess looked at the situation and determined we need rangers in these parks. We have not been able to find an old written policy that covers that. So I guess I'm asking was there a policy in place under which the current residences were established? Based on your faces.
>> I'm not aware of it. I know that we have an internal policy I'm trying to remember whether the court actually adopted it. We've had a policy in place to determine the taxable value to the ranger who is residing there. I know that we have thoroughly thrashed that through, I don't know whether that's t.n.r. Policy or adopted by the court. We will have to search the records of the court to find out whether it was adopted by the court officially. The action that we certainly took the pace bend ranger residence to the court because we discussed, you know, the size of the house and the fact that the lcra was going to pay for it through the -- through the lcra capital account. That was authorized by the court.
>> I supported that and I did joyfully when I realized that lcra would pick up the cost.
>> that may have been all it was was just a pass through, okay.
>> I think what brought this to that is really -- what brought this to a head is because we now have a system of metropolitan parks in place and may have been just an ad hoc, we just were doing things as they came along. Now we are at the points where we are stepping back and saying we have a whole system of parks here, how do we manage them after hours? And before we go invest quarter million dollars in the residence at another park, let's make sure that we understand the rationale for doing that.
>> a couple more questions, I will be done. If we put this policy in place, how many county parks do you believe will -- will need a ranger residence in the foreseeable future defined as within the next 10 years? I can get that answer next week if you don't have it at the tip of your tongue right now.
>> the backup says for sure in reimers park, we expect one there. If and when we ever develop arkansas bend we are going to suggest one there, also. Besides the three that we have that we would request funding for this year, we foresee the need for two more within the next 10 years.
>> that would be a total of seven park rangers in the county park system? Park ranger houses in the county system?
>> bob wentz.
>> seven.
>> pace bend, northeast metro currently. We would be adding southeast metro, east metro, and also reconstructing the one at northeast. That's where the three are this year. The next 10 year horizon, milton, reimers, arkansas bend, seven total.
>> we will effectively be in the real estate business.
>> well, we are already. Those parks are --
>> my final request ... I would like to see two or three examples of things that happened at parks with ranger residences but we can argue either -- either it -- it would have been a whole lot worse but was not thanks for the presence of the residents or if we think that something did not happen because of the residence then what that of. I think that in the end that's what it boils down to. On the other hand another way to ask that same question, if the rangers' residence were not there, how would we have responded? We would call law enforcement, et cetera. And in some of these parks located in the middle of nowhere the response time would be so great that, you know, prevention would be out of the question and the question really would be how quickly would we react to a problem. But based on my understanding of -- of why we need these residences and I would think that few examples would sort of make the case. And to be honest, if we need 'em we need 'em. But at the same time we are talking about a huge investment that does not go away. And once you put a policy in place and you've got seven residences, it's a major investment. On top of that you have to have whatever law enforcement you would have needed otherwise. These rangers are peace officers, all right? But when they respond, I mean, I guess it will be like a.p.d. And the sheriff's law enforcement. Typically you call for backup, then you do what you can. Until backup arrives. Right?
>> that's always the case. These are part of the sheriff network, so they can certainly call in backup of the entire sheriff's department if need be if it got out of hand.
>> we ask, this is a -- this is not a new direction. But you are asking for us to formalize what really has been sort of a practices and I guess we have acquiesced into the department's policy. And if there's a department policy we may as well see it.
>> well, the court did adopt the rents, the scheme that --
>> I remember that.
>> the values -- the court did don't that. That was probably separate from a policy that determined whether or not you should have residences in parks to begin with.
>> if we are going from two to three to seven with the cost per residence that we are looking at here, it's a much larger investment than I anticipated. And I mean I think that we ought to -- we ought to be sure that's where we want to head. If the circumstances require this -- this direction, then so be it. Those are my questions. I did write them down here.
>> okay. Judge, let me ask one more thing. Joe, I don't know whether this is legal or h.r. Question. But does someone living in one of our homes trigger any sort of on call issues with pay? I mean I think that's a, you know, because I know that in the six years that I have been here we occasionally get into this on call issue and, you know, given the fact that we have already got, you know, three, don't want to open pandora's box, but I would like to know that. If you would follow up, I don't know whether that's -- I don't know whether that's a legal question or whether it's an h.r., probably a combination. But I would like to know whether that triggers anything like that.
>> any other questions or comments from the court.
>> the only other comment was just the incident reports. Do you all still issue those?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. I hadn't seen one in a while. I think that's an important thing for us to review again since we're going to have additional time.
>> I think we ought to. Do we put the time on the incident reports, time of the incident?
>> yeah.
>> ms. Rio did you have additional comments for us?
>> judge, one week -- do you think one week is enough to pull this together? I mean joe --
>> two weeks is fine.
>> you want to have it back in two weeks, the 22nd? Yeah the 22nd?
>> that would be fine.
>> that's fine with me.
>> don't commence construction of those houses until we take final action, joe. Anything further on this item? We will have it back on in two weeks.
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:
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1:51 PM