Travis County Commissioners Court
July 22, 2008
Item 26
Are we ready for the efficiency committee item?
>> yes, sir. Item number 26, consider and take appropriate action from the efficiency committee regarding fuel cost and consumption reductions and other cost saving measures.
>> good morning, judge. About a month ago the Commissioners court created the efficiency committee. We immediately began working on fuel consumption issues that are facing us in anticipation of about a $475,000 shortfall, we took up the issue and we have come before you today with five recommendations. Joe, I'm going to let you touch on the percentage of consumption.
>> basically what we've -- we took a look at our fuel consumption over several periods. One full year, which was fiscal year '07, because we haven't completed '08 yet. We also took periods in '07 and '08 to see the comparability. And we are talking about the general fund, road and bridge also has a line item of fuel and that's covered by the road and bridge fund. But for the general fund, we basically took -- we wanted to find out what percentage each department consumed. So we took a stock of each department and to use the fuel system to determine how many gallons of fuel each department used. And then in those proportions, we asked the departments to, first, look at coming up with their share of the $475,000 shortfall that we need to meet our bills to the end of this fiscal year, '08. And asked each of the departments to look into their line items to find ways to cover their share of the shortfall and the table accompanying the backup shows what each one of the departments contributed toward that end. But we are also recommending prospectively in fy '09 we start making departments accountable for their usage. Right now all the fuel is centrally budgeted in one line item within t.n.r. Meaning no single department really knows what they are consuming and manages that consumption. We're recommending in fiscal year '09 we allocate the gallons of fuel in some proportion to historical uses of fuel. For instance, we would tell the sheriff if in f.y. '07 or a five-year period in the past five years they've used 60% of the fuel, we would take the shave, look action your fuel allocation for f.y. '09 is this many malls and t.n.r. Will give a reporting on how much you are using on a monthly basis. It allows the sheriff to manage that fuel allocation. We will still budget the fuel in a single line item and t.n.r. Would purchase the fuel for the county as a whole. But we would have each department manage that like any other resource in their budget. I think that way we'll have at least better consciousness of how fuel contributes to their bottom line and what they can do in their operations to manage that resource.
>> we're confident that we'll be able to generate a monthly report?
>> yes, I am. We can generate it by department, actually by vehicle. All that would be a fairly voluminous report, I think by department will not be a big challenge.
>> have we shared the recommendations with the departments?
>> we have not. Other than the departments represented on the efficiency committee.
>> okay.
>> and to date, judge, just so you know, we have received the updated table d that you have been given this morning. It represents the departments that have responded to t.n.r.'s request to internally fund the shortfall, and as of this morning we have $243,602 that are going to be internally funded and we're asking the court today to cover the balance of the anticipated $475,000 shortfall or $231,398 from allocated reserves. That should get t.n.r.'s budget through the end of the year. And then as we go into 2009, as joe said, we'll begin to generate monthly reports, total consumption, consumption by department and report those back to Commissioners court and to the departments that are affected.
>> just give knee the number again please of what is committed by departments.
>> $243,602 has been committed as of 5:00 p.m. Yesterday afternoon.
>> thanks.
>> when we received the request for $950,000, that was a projection.
>> that's correct.
>> have the facts between the time of that discussion and today pretty much supported that projection?
>> a little more optimism just recently. There's been a slight drop in the price of a barrel of oil, and if that is translated into wholesale and retail prices, perhaps our projection is a little more pessimistic than it needed to be. But those things can change on a day-to-day basis. If anything, if we are pessimistic and there ends up being a surplus at the end of the year going into the ending year balance.
>> my recommendation would be rather than add $31,398 from the allocated reserve that we sit on this, let the facts unfold.
>> that's fine. We can come back to you when that day comes. Okay. That will work.
>> okay. But the departmental commitments that we see on table d were numbers we got from the department.
>> yes, sir.
>> so they not only know about those, but I assume they think they can do it.
>> I think most of the departments have given us line items to do a budget transfer.
>> with your permission, we'll bring that back on the general budget amendments next week to address those. I'd like to also touch, if I could, on just a couple of other initiatives that the committee is recommending. The sheriff has done some -- taken the initiative and I have to give him some kudos. He has initiated, saved a gallon a day for his patrol fleet and I think you have seen the memo on that. In addition to that, he is recommending to increase the per hour charge for off duty officers from $15 to $20, and we'll be making that donation back to the general fund. So those are two initiatives that he has taken upon himself.
>> could you explain that to the public what that really means by a gallon a day? As far as what the sheriff's department is looking forward to doing that, and I appreciate everyone thinking out of the box as far as trying to come up with some solutions to the crisis situation. But anyway, explain to the public basically what is that gallon a day.
>> just to highlight a few of the things that they are initiating internally, for example, patrol deputy assignments to their quadrants. They are realigning those assignments based on their geographical residence so that when they leave their home, they are for the most part reporting directly into their patrol quadrant. Instead of reporting to the command station and then going out or going to another quadrant that might be a little further from their home. So reducing the miles driven from their place of residence to their patrol quadrant is one example. No idle policies where they can. Also walking patrols where they can. Things of that nature they are initiating in an effort to try to reduce fuel consumption.
>> so the goal is for each patrol officer to try to reduce fuel consumption by at least a gallon a day.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I think there are 279 --
>> I think 249 or 250 cars.
>> it's 200-plus. I don't know the exact number.
>> the point is if you get that many to generating a gallon a day, at the end of the month it's a fairly sizable total.
>> yes, sir. And the idea will be that from the reporting that will be set up, we'll be able to graphically report the impact of some of the initiatives that the departments are taking.
>> okay. The sheriff did do a good job of putting together a comprehensive list of the recommendations. And has the sheriff implemented those himself?
>> I believe he has, yes, sir.
>> I did see representatives here from the sheriff's department. Any comments?
>> come on up here and get on the mic.
>> if you would give us your name, please.
>> sergeant jeff anderson. Some of the other items that we've implemented is turning our vehicles off for 15 minutes per hour. Instead of doubling up and parking side by side, we're trying to cut costs that way as well. Can you come up here? Give me a little support on this. I wasn't prepared to talk this morning. I was here just to listen.
>> we really just wanted you to come up so we could say thanks very much for the initiatives.
>> right.
>> darla fuller with the Travis County law enforcement association.
>> good morning.
>> good morning. How are you all today? And the sheriff implemented the -- some of these things a month or more ago in order to help save fuel. And we don't know yet how well it's working. We haven't seen those figures yet, but we're thinking that it's going to be pretty significant.
>> great. Good to know.
>> one of the things which I think is relevant to the sheriff because they've got a large fleetist that I think what the sheriff is looking at is eliminating inefficiencies and wares. Once you go beyond that, the question is do you want as much patrol as you had before and does the price of gas mitigate that. One of the things that one of the sheriff's officers said in the meeting was that, you know, you approved 22 new officers and they are getting trained and they will go on the street. So there will be, in fact, 22 more vehicles that, you know, were justified and need to drive. So one of the things that the committee is looking at on everything is, a, eliminate waste and be more efficient. But then once you get into is this a service issue, then that requires more depth conversation and with the court. So I think the sheriff has done a really yeoman's job of working on looking at anything they know that will eliminate waste. And, of course, for those of us who are not in cars, we need to do the same thing, turn lights off, you know, that type of thing. So just as kind of a general comment there.
>> so the sheriff and other departments will monitor the impact of these measures over the next few months and see if they are producing expected results or not.
>> I think the measurement is going to be the consumption reports that you see that will be generated on a monthly basis. I think that's going to be the telltale sign of how successful with some of the initiatives we're putting forward. And as the sheriff's department representative mentioned, it's a little early to tell just yet if this save a gallon a day initiative has, in fact, made a difference. I think it may, but until we start seeing some monthly trends, it's going to be very difficult to tell at this point. But, you know, we have to aplayed their efforts.
>> it's a great start.
>> but those fuel reports won't show adverse service impact.
>> no, sir.
>> other things other than fuel cost and utilization.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> I appreciate the work you've done on this, but this is not -- this is not going to do it for us. I mean, this -- I mean, we're going to have increased fuel costs this next year. I mean, maybe beyond what any of us are going to want to tolerate. We're already beyond that. You all know where we have got to go to look at true efficiencys in fuel costs. 55% of our consumption is tcso. No one in this community wants less law enforcement. As a matter of fact, I think all parts of the community need more personnel to really cover adequately, you know, the areas that we need to cover. And all of us have seen the articles that have -- that are bandied about all over the country. I mean and especially I mean the articles that we're all reading in Texas in all the other cities and all the other counties. And some of the things that are being suggested, y'all, are something that I think we have really, really got to look at. And I mean I applaud the sheriff for finding $100,000 out of the $259,000 line item because I don't know that they can really quite honestly they can't probably cover the 259. If you look at table d, the places -- I mean all of the departments are covering their commitments for their shortfall except for law enforcement. Now, no one wants less law enforcement, but you really have to start asking yourselves how do you really deal with perhaps more savings than just a gallon. And we all know where that takes us. The controversy that we've had over the years about take-home vehicles, and I for one will be the first to admit that you need to have the officers take their vehicles home because I think the advantages that you have for that for law enforcement far outweigh not taking them home. But I will tell you when you ask people on the street is law enforcement being able to take a vehicle home and not pay for your fuel home to work and work to home, that is where you see a needle move with people saying why are we paying for that. Now, maybe at the end of the day we continue to pay for that. And we know that there are is not a popular subject to bring up because obviously if officers have to do that, then that's coming out of their pocket. But if we really are looking at trying to find ways to really get efficient, I think that everything has got to be on the table. And we know that price of gas is going up. We know that we're going to try to add officers, which is put more people on the street, which is more vehicles. And it does us no good to go through this exercise if we really aren't really serious about doing something with gasoline and people being conscientious about what you do with it. And you really get conscientious about what you are doing with it when it has the potential of affecting you personally. I mean I'm happy to talk with the sheriff. One of the things I would like to know is where -- what are the miles that are used out of tcso with home to work, work to home. I mean I would just like to know that because I know that you like to have people that if you live on the west side and you are the west command, that you try to get people west command to live, you know, west.
>> all of that is being studied.
>> yes, sir.
>> now, what we asked them to do was address the $475,000 shortfall first. We will have other discussions where we Tuesday more long-term strategies. That will be one of the issues. Remember, they came to us and asked for 150,000 -- I mean $950,000. We said let's find half of it and try to figure another way to cover the $475,000 that we didn't take from allocated reserve. So I thought the primary purpose of today's discussion was really the $475,000, and they've kind of covered all that except 31,000.
>> judge, I agree with what you are saying. But go ahead, I'll let you finish.
>> but there are other things that the committee needs to report today and we need to have a followup discussion where there are a lot of other issues, for example, a 10-hour day, four days a week instead of five and for some employees that will help, for some departments maybe a little help. But that's on the table. A lot of other communities are doing it. There's no way to get around discussing it. But we kind of need a little more backup dealing with that specifically. On the take-home vehicles, I understand the sheriff's office and p.b.o. Is studyingy. Get with p.b.o. With whatever the results are, bring that back to the court so at the appropriate time we can discuss that and other recommendations that have come forth. I've been getting e-mails probably like the rest of the court, some of the ideas are novel, some I hadn't thought about. Some may impose a lot more inconvenience than financial benefit for us, but at least we ought to weigh them because we invited them from departments.
>> judge, I agree with a lot of that because when it first came up, it was a big number, almost a million bucks that folks was asking for as far as fuel is concerned. However, I think what this approach is trying to do is give us at least a bird's eye view of how we can reduce that amount of money, and I think this exercise is doing just that. But there's been some other relevant points that have been brought up that I'm jog and taking notes as we go through the process. Last budget cycle we did, this court, the majority of this court supported the new f.t.e.s for the sheriff's department. Of course, some of these folks in training, some of them have not even gotten on the street. How many of those f.t.e.s that we approved to staff, to sheriff's deputies to get more on the street, which is a good point because the community has been outcrying about more public safety and, of course, we tried to address that during last budget cycle. When will those persons being able to move into the vehicles, get on the street which will be something that will also address fuel needs and consumption? When will that happen.
>> judge, scott burrows.
>> Commissioner.
>> Commissioner. 11 of those f.t.e.s are on the street today.
>> all right.
>> the other remain a couple more slots filled with reallocation because we had a reduction in one of our s.r.o. Contracts and we reallocated those f.t.e.s. So those officers are on the street. And then we have 10 in the field training program right now, and they are scheduled to hit the street in early October.
>> early October. Okay. So this will have to be, of course, revisited and it's a situation whereby we are having to I guess crawl our way through the steps, but making sure we get there. So anyway, I'm not going to belabor the point, but short term solutions as far as what we're looking at now with the long-term possibilities, throwing in a whole lot of different things that we need to look at to see if we can get there to reduce the fuel costs and by doing all of these things. So I didn't mean to interrupt you, but that's just part of what we're doing.
>> something that I probably should have mentioned when we began the discussion, when we initially came together as a committee and started talking, we knew that we had an immediate need that had to be addressed of the shortfall for 2008.
>> exactly.
>> and so that's what we took up in terms of discussions and trying to address those immediate needs. We identified three -- what we're calling charges of the committee. Those immediate needs for 2008, short-term needs going into 2009, and then long-term needs going beyond 2009 looking at operational efficiencies down the line. And so those are areas that we are going to be looking at. We've had a number of discussions regarding fuel consumption and a lot of them centered around the sheriff's office, obviously, as the largest consumer of fuel. And so -- and we'll continue to have dialogue as we go forward for long-term recommendations to make to the Commissioners court. But for this discussion, we really were focusing on the immediate needs of t.n.r. In terms of their fuel shortage or the funding for their fuel shortage for the remainder of 2008.
>> scott, do you think you can get the information from the sheriff's office with a breakdown on how many miles are traveled home to work, work to home on-with all three of the commands?
>> yes, sir, we're already working on that and we think we'll have a report ready in three to four weeks.
>> we need look at it because this is going to get down to where do you find the money to take on county government in the most efficient way that you can. I will support more officers because we've got to have more officers in probably all over. But with more officers come more costs. And more costs, and we have got to find a way to find those efficiency, and I think we've got to put out the table and talk about it. I mean it is an elephant in the room and we need to discuss it. And I just don't want the committee -- because when I read the report, it didn't make it sound like there were what I call really hard things being looked at. Now, if that's being looked at, then great, and scott, if you will get me that information.
>> it's not only on the table, sir, it's the centerpiece.
>> okay.
>> so what was the general fund central line item budget for fuel for 2008?
>> about 2 million.
>> so basically when all is said and done, we will have added another 950,000 to the 2 million to really make it about $3 million.
>> roughly. The current rate of price per gallon that we budgeted for 2008 going into fiscal 2008 last summer was about $2.45 a gallon.
>> so budgeted 2.45 and the actual in '08 is what?
>> I think we're running about 3.80 now. Roughly 3.80.
>> is that even with the reduced efforts of combining purchase of gasoline through a multi-purchase source. In other words, governmental entities coming together and also purchasing fuel?
>> that's based on the current contract that we have today. I don't know if that's a joint contract with anyone else.
>> I wonder what the joint contract looked like.
>> we haven't gotten that far along yet.
>> it would be good to know that.
>> what are you predicating '09 on?
>> I think it's about $4 is what we're -- a little less than $4.
>> we're looking at less than -- why would we do that, y'all? We're looking at $4. I mean it has gone -- y'all went from 2.40 to 3.80 in -- and it's already -- I mean the state average is, what, I mean 3.93 or whatever moves on a daily basis. It goes down a penny, goes up three cents or whatever. But to predicate our spending and our costs on $4, y'all, is wishful thinking. I would rather miss it on the other end, I mean and it looks like, I mean, that gas -- I mean if it goes down, it's not gone down much, but if it goes up, it's probably going to go up. Why wouldn't we put 4.50 or -- I mean let's get it right so that we don't have to come back and do these kind of things. I mean we can't get it right probably, but we can sure as heck do a better job, and $4, if we're spread indicating, you know, the spending on gasoline at $4, I mean y'all got a better crystal ball than anyone I've seen.
>> we have two things to address that. Number 1, the $4 a gallon is taking into consideration that we do get a -- we do not pay the tax on that so we do get a little discount on the per gallon rate. But more importantly than that, we have a reserve, a fuel reserve in the preliminary budget for any anticipated fuel increases in the '09 fiscal year. And so we've tried to look at everything that we can do. We've looked at historical pricing, and this is at this point the best we have given our discounts and with the fuel reserve. And we recognize that it's a moving target at this point. The barrel of -- the price for a barrel of oil has just been on a roller coaster the last couple of weeks. And so we just don't know at this point.
>> and I hate to be the bearer of bad news as your purchasing agent, but these fuel costs increases are going to be across the board in every -- almost every contract we have. We are already getting requests on our food purchases have gone up because of fuel. Asphalt on problems. Everybody who makes delivers is suffering because of fuel prices. When you say are we fooling ourselves, no, we're not foolings ourselves, but we can't predict, but we have all these other factors playing into this. That's just something to be aware of when you start trying to get this across the board increases for us on all of our products and services.
>> how much is in the preliminary budget for fuel? This year.
>> going into --
>> there's approximately 900,000 added to t.n.r. Plus or minus and there's approximately 300 to 400 suppose thousand dollar reserve. I don't remember the exact number.
>> so maybe 1.3 over and above '08?
>> that's correct.
>> about 4.3 million off. 3.3 --
>> I can get you the exact numbers, judge. I'll be happy to e-mail that to you.
>> okay. Any other -- anything else to report?
>> at this point the only thing that I can touch on as relates to fiscal 2009, we've talked about some initiatives that are being discussed. One being the idea of mandatory reductions in the consumption of fuel. The sheriff's new deputies coming on board posings a bit of a problem because we have historical trends that show 50 to 60% of total consumption being on the part of the sheriff's department. Added those vehicles, we have to account for that. So we have discussed that. And then there's other things that are being discussed as well that we'll be bringing back to the court at a later date.
>> on the way to work this morning, I mean a station that boasts 200,000 listening audience, it was from about 6:00 until about 8:30, it was the county is talking about going to four, 10-hour workdays. Y'all, that may be a great idea, but there are a lot of implications about four, 10-hour workdays. And the last thing that we need is for the media to think that that's where we're headed with this thing unless we do one heck a lot of due diligence. And the implications to that are going to be, you know, I mean pretty amazing, you know, to at least some departments. So I don't know how that got out. I mean maybe -- maybe it was in print.
>> I don't know, Gerald, but let me say this. That four 10 and other various schedules have been kicked around here for a while. This is not the first time this has been discussed. We discussed it before you got here. And it always has amazed me that you always hear folks talk about it, but really when it comes to doing things about it, you get the ifs and ands and buts and bolts and nuts about it. I asked susan on a July 1st memo asking her could the h.t.e. System, our financial system, could it actually house a four 10 workweek. And she said yes, it will. In fact, she stated that the sheriff is now doing that right now in his department. And it seems to be working pretty good. And there have been surveys that have been sent out, and, of course, there has been a lot of great responses, and I don't want to jump ahead to what's in this report because those surveys I think were very statistical and critical to look at the -- not only the departments but also the appointed officials and elected officials here in Travis County, and it gave some very, very telltale signals that this is something that may be considered. Now, what happens, I don't really know, but according to some of the backup, there is savings. In fact, in certain parts of the country there are significant savings. So we can't just rule it out completely, and I think until we actually go through the process as far as trying our best to remedy and save the taxpayers money, and also looking at fuel costs, long term, short temperature, immediate, right now. Stuff that we've got to deal with. Now, I -- as far as my office is concerned, and I say this right now publicly, we are going to go to a four 10 workweek. And as an elected official, I have all the authority and right to do that. But it will be staffed five days a week. So that is something I think that as far as some of the responses from the employees have been overwhelming. And deficiency of the operation, my office will not diminish at all. I don't want to jump ahead to what folks are saying, but you look at different counties, different counties and the state is doing it, a whole lot of folks are doing it and there's a reason for it. And a lot of point of the thing is that there's some savings with it. But I don't want to jump ahead of what the survey indicated. It's all there in black and white and I don't want to jump ahead of staff because it is a part of the report. And, of course, there are significant savings in this and, of course, they all haven't been realized. We haven't realized what we're doing in short term right now. Right now we have to deal it with it on fuel, but it's a long-term process in which we're going to look at a whole bunch of different categories that we need to examine, place on the table so we can at least see where we are. And those reports I think will be coming up in the future. So I'm looking forward to embracing this challenge to make sure that Travis County taxpayers don't have to suffer, but not only that, but the services will not be diminished. And that's very important. So I think we can do all of it.
>> move that we accept the departmental recommendations contained in table d.
>> second.
>> and that we figure out another way to creatively cover the shortfall of $31,398, if my math is correct, and that we notify the departments that we've accepted their offer.
>> has that been second understand.
>> uh-huh.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any discussion?
>> tell me how you are coming up with the 31,000. I'm seeing the difference between 475 and the 243. What --
>> it's 231,000.
>> it's 231,000. It's not 31, it's 231,000. Which is the reason I said what I said. It's not 31, it's 231,000.
>> correct. $231,398, to be exact a we really do need to pass this motion then.
>> yes.
>> we'll continue to look for ways to cover that. Any discussion of the motion? Corrected motion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Move that we authorize t.n.r. To I guess put together a written proposal that contains item number 2, which basically was allocate fuel to departments based on, I guess, current use. If there are new factors that we need to take into account, for example, additional personnel, additional vehicles, we may as well go ahead and try to factor that in. But I think it needs to be in writing so we can get departmental input.
>> second.
>> what we're saying is look at your historic use and then try to reduce that, if you can.
>> historic is probably a better word than current. Let me see if I can get a five-year trend line. And then also factor in additional fleet where a fleet has -- it's probably more like a per capita -- historical per capita use. That way it can float depending on how the court has authorized additional vehicles in each department.
>> we will continue to budget the fuel in a central line item and also to purchase, but we'll allocate the fuel by department, generate monthly reports, share those with the departments and the Commissioners court so we can monitor use monthly throughout the year.
>> right.
>> all that's in the motion. That really was mr. Geiselman's recommendations.
>> I support the motion, but let me ask this. When will all of these particular examples -- and jessica came up earlier and spoke, from p.b.o., there was some indication we would know exactly how much that fuel situation would have to be for the -- within the preliminary budget. So can that still -- those numbers still be plugged into the budget prior to receiving -- I know a
>> [inaudible] will be coming out soon, preliminary budget, as far as what we need to carry us out aggressively for the next year. Would that need to be plugged into what we talked about today?
>> yes, sir. We currently have the preliminary budgets for the most part locked downtown we have a fuel line item mentioned. We have that increased as well as reserve for fuel increases. If by chance we missed the mark on the per gallon rate. And so yes, all of those will be addressed and are contained within the preliminary budget.
>> okay. Well, I support the motion because I see a lot of aggressiveness being made as far as some of the recommendations. If we go through all of this stuff and look at the things, there's a lot of departments making great suggestions as far as fuel conservation, fuel reduction. So I'm just looking forward to that. But I support the motion, judge.
>> there will be a written summary of the facts taken into accounted to support the amount in the preliminary budget, the fuel plus the reserve.
>> yes, sir.
>> even with that, there's no way to be totally accurate, but we may as well be realistic. At the same time, though, it's not like we have an unlimited amount of money to work with. So part of this is kind of wishful thing, but we're reasonable in setting up reserves that we can access for emergency situations. As we always have done.
>> right.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Weed be interested in hearing what departments have to say also. Now that is correct sheriff's report, instead of three or four weeks, we need that in two weeks if we can and that way we can have it back on the agenda in three weeks. So if we could get the report a week before we have it on the agenda, we would be looking at today is the 22nd, 29th, August 5th, if we could have it on the court's agenda August 12th. We're kind of running out of -- when we get to budget, we start departmental hearings on August 6th. And by the 12th, we will have had several, probably all of them unless the money mysteriously increases somehow. So can we try to get that report done in two weeks?
>> we'll do our best, sir.
>> and that way we can aim for an August 12th further discussion. And these will be more meeting recommendations than just the fuel and $475,000.
>> yes, sir.
>> what else do we need to do today?
>> I believe that's it.
>> we appreciate the work of the committee who generated half of that 475,000, which is a ways down the road, not all of it.
>> can I say one thing, judge?
>> I would like to talk about it too.
>> about what, now?
>> the four 10s. We have results from the survey. I just wasn't sure if the court didn't want to talk about it today or you want to bring it back or --.
>> well, I just thought it was worth talking about since it's on the air.
>> post it for next week. Why don't we post it for next week specifically. It would help me to have -- look at more backup on that item than we have. It's a lot of employees are kind of looking at it and a lot of jurisdictions are doing it, one whole state, and I'm still with an open mind, but I'd rather have some backup, rather have that specifically listed, and we can do that as early as neck week.
>> we need to look at productivity. There is no question about that. And the other thing is I was disappointed to hear out the air because there are employees that cannot work found 10 with children. We're one month from school starting. If people think they can't take their kids to day care and schools with their jobs here, they are going to start looking for another one. I do think that we need to say it is in the thinking, analyzing stage that we're looking at. Benefits to the county, benefits to employees. Productivity for taxpayers. We're trying to look at all of that, that's why it's not that simple. Commissioner Davis says can we handle it on the computer, we can.
>> that was my whole point. And I understand that like even in your shop I did get a chance to look at your memo. Five different.
>> policy issues.
>> schedules that you have in your shop. Working schedules. As that accommodates whatever from six to whatever, it all varies. But your productivity is not void and what I'm suggesting is that I'm quite sure of the elected officials and every department head that has been looked at considered productivity and I'm quite sure in my mind I believe they would think that the -- there's no compromise for the services that we need to render to the taxpayer. And I think they probably have looked at that also, as I did when I looked at my department. Because I'm definitely going to four 10's. Those are elected officials' decisions and also the other departments who may want to come to the court and stuff like that, but those are department decisions.
>> there's a lot of policy issues.
>> right.
>> we will have it posted next week. For full discussion. Thank you.
>> thank you.
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 22, 2008 1:51 PM