Travis County Commissioners Court
February 17, 2009, 2009
Item 9
Now, number 9.
did we vote on that one?
>> yes.
>> okay.
regarding the following the following, a new policies that Travis County can adopt to reduce ground level ozone in support of the 2009 big push initiative; and b, additional initiatives that Travis County can take in conjunction with other governmental entities and Travis County residents.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
tom webber with the environmental quality and natural resources division.
i'm going to start with item a to address the big push from the county standpoint, t.n.r.'s recommending that you consider five specific proposals that we have given you further detail on.
what we're -- what we're actually requesting is that -- is that you approve all or a subset of the -- of these ideas with your direction to move forward to a final review.
by various county departments.
we are recommending that -- that we get input from the other county departments within a week.
and that we then bring back a final package.
the -- the package itself is -- is called exhibit a.
among what we have provided you in front of the five specific proposals that we have outlined something that's been discussed here on two or three occasions in the recent past is what -- what is the consequence of grand level ozone, what does it mean for the average person.
so we attempt to outline that in -- in terms of how it affects someone's health, how it affects more active people.
additionally the adverse economic costs representing to ozone or going into the non-attainment for ozone.
the air pollution sources that we think are most important to address with the big push initiative are largely voluntary reductions.
vehicle emissions, changes in operations by either governments or businesses, changes in personal household behavior.
these are -- these are diffuse actions that literally thousands or hundreds of thousands of people could take in this metropolitan area.
so that's really the most important challenge to this big push initiative is -- is any one person or any one government or any one business doing something would likely be kind of a diminious or small impact on its own.
but if it involves the greatest number of people cumulatively we think we could make a big difference.
there are resource impacts to the proposals that we outlined here.
what I characterized in a memorandum as being shortened -- required some short-term flexibility and there's several tasks that would need to be carried out and fairly quick order since the ozone season begins on April 1st.
some of these resources would be necessary beyond t.n.r.
and that -- that additionally is why we -- why we want input from the other departments.
so I think with that, each of us had a -- had a primary role in putting together the five proposals.
so we'll -- we'll start with proposal 1, which adel will describe.
>> the first proposal is about mowing restrictions on county property during ozone season between April 1st and October 31st.
these mowing restrictions would be there would be no lawn equipment operated that uses anything, diesel or gasoline powered.
gasoline power or diesel operated equipment emitts -- using a conventional lawn mower for one hour emitts the same as driving one vehicle for 40 miles per day.
a weed eater, typical gasoline powered weed eater, emitts the same emissions as driving a vehicle 60 miles per day.
that's a lot of emissions.
so therefore on ozone action days we are requesting court approval to limit these on ozone watch days to alternative, clean powered like the lawnmowers, propane powered that are electric.
another proposal is to limit fueling of county vehicles on ozone watch days.
we would like to implement a plan and -- in which the fueling gas stations are shut down between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m.
on ozone watch days.
this would prevent vehicles from being fueled.
as vehicles are being fueled on these days, more emissions are being released through the atmosphere through the fueling of these vehicles.
it will take some planning on the part of some individuals who do shift work 24/7, but it can be accomplished.
>> we discussed the fueling recommendations with the sheriff, have we discussed it?
>>
>> [indiscernible] mike joyce the fleet manager did talk about this in the vehicle users committee meeting, so they are aware of the proposal.
>> we need to find out whether the sheriff can live with this.
>> I think the two week process that the staff is recommending here that we will -- we will execute that.
>> okay.
if you are on patrol and going on all day, I have no idea of how much fuel you use in a day's time.
but if you are driving in an 8 hour shift, that's a lot of driving.
so I guess we ought to be left with the impression that if you fuel, get refueled the night before a full tank of it was would take you--
>> get you through the day.
>> yeah.
by the way, if we were to cover a certain fuel pumps, would that make a difference?
fuel pumps that I'm familiar with are outside.
but if you -- if you had to refuel, and you covered the pump, would that make -- would that matter?
>> cover meaning --
>> within a structure?
>> basically, mike can turn it on and off remotely.
if someone called mike and said let me refuel, mike could actually dial it up and open it up.
>> judge --
>> I had in mind a temporary cover.
not necessarily building a cover.
but in a deputy starts patrol at 8:00, and five or six hours later is out of gas, you wouldn't want him just to stop working.
>> that's correct.
>> but my question is really whether we can come up with a temporary cover that would be the same as not refueling.
from the -- from the emissions control perspective.
>> just something to think about.
>> okay.
i'm -- I'm finally tuning in.
i think you are talking about a vapor recovery, is that something that -- that recovers the vapors?
i'm not -- a cover meaning just a -- just a sheet for instance over the -- over the --
>> well, something a bit more durable than that.
but something of a temporary nature that we could use on an odd hock basis, I wouldn't be -- on an ad hoc basis.
i just thought of that because if you have got deputies patrolling eight hours a day, I don't know how much -- how many miles you can get, how many hours off of a tank of gas.
i mean, if I were a deputy sheriff, I guess that would be my concern.
>> uh-huh.
>> but -- but let's just chat with the sheriff's people about it, see what they say.
>> all right.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
fueling or more restrictions?
>> I just wanted to applaud as a concerned citizen the whole big push initiative and leadership that change exhibited by this request for change in household and personal behavior.
again to just urge my fellow citizens to replace those gas guzzling lawnmowers, air blowers, et cetera with human powered push lawn mowers or in this case big push initiative lawn mowers, I just wanted to throw that in there.
>> so does the county own many mowers that are not powered by gasoline?
>> we're in the process of replacing the ones that are powered by gasoline and diesel with the electric powered -- or electric.
i do not know the exact number but we are trying to replace those.
>> that's on the mobile equipment we have a lot of chain saws, weed eaters and that sort of small hand equipment that is gasoline powered.
and so -- those are I think if you just take parks alone and road and bridge, there are quite a few units out there being used on a daily basis.
>> as we look at what we're trying to get Travis County to do as such, I'm looking at the -- the greater participation that we are expecting maybe to happen in some of these proposals with everybody else other than just Travis County.
and I was basically concentrating on that first recommendation about the more -- mower and the gasoline powered lawn mower.
my concern is that there are a lot of -- a lot of lawn services here in the county, I mean all over the place, if you have lawn services, folks are cutting, you know, from probably early in the morning until late evening hours.
how -- how will this be -- this proposal, be -- be given to those particular persons whose livelihood is actually determined on the number of yards they cut per day, and how will they -- how will that be administered to -- to say lawn services this is -- this is what the county is proposing, however -- however during these particular hours -- how would that be handled?
because there's a lot of lawn services here, a lot of them.
>> those are -- Commissioner, we actually are proposing to look at those kinds of things via communication effort.
not by trying to regulate or otherwise in a hard fashion curb those activities by those private entities.
in the county, you know, if we don't have the equipment, if we only have a few pieces then we'll simply suspend and let the grass grow another day.
but for private operations, I think it's more of an education and communication to make them aware of what is causing that, not only in terms of ground level ozone, but potential health impacts to those workers.
>> right.
but I guess my point, though, is still what I said earlier, the more persons whether they are county employees or any governmental entity, private sector whatever, the more participants that -- that are compliant with what we are actually proposing here the better off we'll be.
and -- and of course we have some that are doing it and then others that are not.
then what factors will -- what
>> [indiscernible] factors will be there for non-compliant status, that's my concern.
i -- I don't -- I don't -- I don't knock what we're doing here, it's a good point, good start, stuff like that.
but I'm just looking at the multiplier effect that will -- that will be -- that would be relevant if you -- if everyone was -- was to do the same thing, if everyone not to do the same thing.
it would have to be a factor.
that's my concern.
>> I would -- inclusion of option 1 for final review by the county departments and return in two weeks for us to -- to decide whether it's a -- whether it's a definite.
>> yeah.
>> first what are you talking about.
>> I was figuring that we would go option by option, since they only laid out the first option.
>> second.
>> discussion?
looking at proposal one then, right?
>> right.
>> all right.
>> discussion?
the mowing restrictions and fuel restrictions.
>> can you do one and two.
>> can I throw in one little thing, I wasn't clear about the -- I wanted to ditto the need for education, mechanical air blowers, which can be replaced at very, very low costs by manual sweeping units, ie brooms, to cut down on air pollution and noise pollution and of course push lawn mowers provide much needed exercise with no need to pay for gym memberships, et cetera.
so -- so for the health of our community and our citizens, the more education, I think, encouraged leadership provided by you.
>> okay.
>> covers page 6, right?
proposal 1.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> that means that conditions are favorable for an ozone action day the next day.
an ozone warning means that we actually have had that.
>> all right.
so the clean air force, clean air coalition and others in Travis County will note that distinction and understand it?
>> correct.
>> everybody but the county judge so far?
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, as a matter of fact --
>> no problem.
>> the text of this was changed I think on Friday to better reflect the terminology that tceq's presently using.
>> just to let you know I read this yesterday.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> can we back up and pick up the preceding page then?
on page 5 the consequences of high ozone concentrations.
it strikes me that we really ought to have two parts, one dealing with adverse consequences, period, and you set those out.
the other one would be really additional adverse consequences if we are designated non-attainment.
think about that.
we kind of put the two together on page 5.
the reason that's important, I think, is that in non-attainment there are two other major consequences not mentioned here that have kind of scared me historically.
one has been loss of transportation dollars.
that's the federal government's hammer, right?
i didn't pick that up.
in meetings with other elected officials, that sort of comes up.
and the other thing is the requirement after you've been designated non-attainment that you take steps to address that issue for the next 20 to 25 years.
which is really scary.
but if you have the right value in '09, meaning we, then this one year gives us coverage and relief indefinitely.
that's a big deal, isn't it?
>> yes.
>> so that's why I would -- I'd have a section dealing with -- sort of consequences today and then consequences if we are designated to be in non-attainment.
and especially the loss of transportation dollars.
i don't know that the feds have ever followed through on that threat --
>> they have indeed.
the atlanta metropolitan area, because they were very, very reluctant to exert any kind of planning decisions, ultimately had their transportation dollars frozen.
this led to the formation of the -- what's called the greater regional transportation authority, which is a state-imposed effort then to impose planning conditions upon the atlanta metropolitan area.
over time those restrictions on the transportation dollars were released so the money is now flowing again, but it really has required a seed change in the way they dealt with transportation and its connection to development decisions.
>> when the clean air coalition meets, health effects are discussed.
then potential loss of federal transportation dollars, and then the long period that you have to sort of agonizingly follow e.p.a.
mandates, different reports, other initiatives that you kind of have to keep doing year in and year out.
and we think even if it's just 10 years, that's a long time if you can avoid it by avoiding the designation.
anyway, think about that on page 5.
>> is that similar to what was discussed earlier when the discussion came when we talked about the consequences and especially if we posted the consequences on the channel 17 and any other media sources that we had during the discussion of previous meetings that we've had before you.
here are the consequences if you don't do a or you don't comply with a.
well, this is what b, c and d looks like.
including what the judge has stated, but health and a whole lot of other things.
and part of that request was looking at some of the situations where people have had to be penalized accordingly.
so is this any different than the earlier request as far as making sure the folks understand that?
i'm trying to understand this.
because it's been discussed before.
come on, staff, give me an answer.
>> I'm trying to understand clearly what you're asking.
>> well, you remember the consequences of not coming in compliance with some of the things that we're requesting here today.
as far as some of the effects of not coming in compliance.
going into non-attainment situations when -- the question is has this been put on the media sources such as channel 17 and such as any other media factors that we have available to us to look at the consequences of what happens if you don't come in compliance?
>> we certainly would want to make this part of whatever message we present to the public.
their chief interest I think will be healthy facts.
for government officials we'll be interested in the impacts on regulatory requirements and the like.
it's a little bit dry in terms of talking to the public.
they don't really care as long as we get our act together, but they do care if their kids are in the emergency room.
so that's probably the chief message that I think we want to present.
>> and then proposed in number 4, you hit both ideas, both getting the message, the health consequences out to the public, as well as communicating with other counties and other governmental entities about the regulatory effects.
correct?
>> yes.
>> my recommendation is that if five is a document that we use to address adverse effects, it really ought to have those two categories clearly distinguished, I think.
>> I agree with you, judge.
>> and transportation dollars and -- is there 20 to 25 years?
>> that's what the feds have, 25 years.
>> that ought to be mentioned.
>> folks need to know that.
>> okay.
proposal 2.
>> proposal 2, we all know that the -- in this region the principal source of the emissions that lead to ground level ozone formation come from automobiles.
and one of the principal causes of automobile traffic, the vehicle miles traveled is our daily commute.
one of the approaches that one could use would be to have a teleworking schedule.
in this instance what we're proposing is a concentrated teleworking schedule for the ozone watch days.
this is an approach that's used in communities all across the country.
i permanently have had experience with that in the phoenix metropolitan area.
there are a number of steps that one would have to go through to make a focused teleworking schedule work.
first is you have the -- it's applicable to the ozone watch days.
we know by 2:00 p.m.
the day before there will be an announcement from the meteorologists that the weather factors are in place for a high potential for ozone the next day.
given that, we would have a plan in place, each department would go through and evaluate the potential that they have to identify employees who could stay home for a day and work from home or work from some alternative location.
typically it would be at home.
they would evaluate this potential in advance, identify the employees that they could potentially get by with, not being in the workplace.
obviously they would be interested in continuing their essential functions, so you can't -- you can't have staff that you need in place in your office to handle walk-in traffic.
you can't have them teleworking.
other kinds of work is simply not applicable for this kind of thing.
for example, we have a transportation function where they're going to be road and bridge folk and the like, they can't telework.
they need to be out on the work site in order to be able to do their job.
so teleworking does not work for them.
similarly park staff need to be at the park in order to be able to fulfill those functions.
and there are certain kinds of functions all around the county that simply are not applicable to teleworking, but there are a lot of things that you can do at least for a day and you can go through department by department and see the staff that potentially could stay home.
you have to identify that they have the wherewithal, equipment and such that they need in order to be able to do certain kind of functions.
you would establish an agreement with those employees that would identify them as eligible for teleworking on those days and then they would have an agreement that they would assign where they would say yes, in fact, I will telework under these specific conditions.
when the day comes, the announcement comes in, you identify your employees who can stay home.
you look at whether you have any particular high profile things you have to do the next day which will require them to come in anyway.
but you have your plan in place for a number of your folks to stay home.
there are a number of specific things that they will be doing on this day and have you a documented work plan.
it puts a lot of pressure on -- not pressure, I would say, but really it requires a high level of commitment of both management and the staff to make sure that we're providing a proper day's work for a proper day's pay.
it requires management to do a plan, it requires the employees to be committed to actually providing those functions on those days, but it has the potential payoff to greatly reduce the number of commutes that are associated with your own staff.
obviously this works best when you have a community wide effort so it wouldn't be just Travis County, but also perhaps the city of Austin, university of Texas, state agencies and the like.
we are not to the point yet where we have got that kind of coordination, but that's something we will definitely be working on, that's why we were talking about coordination in item b.
there are some issues coordinated with teleworking, some liability issues.
those are not insur monthable.
they have been involved in communities all over the country.
it's a fairly flexible and fairly easy kind of approach to take.
>> I think we ought to try it.
>> I second you.
>> okay.
if we have not gotten legal signoff on page 9, number 9 at the top, and number 3 the last paragraph, I would run that by the county attorney.
>> that's why we have the week of coordination and particularly with the county attorney to make sure there's not some fatal flaw in there.
>> the motion is to approve proposal 2.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
proposal 3?
>> proposal 3 is to educate county employees on commute options.
there is one thing that Travis County could do to encourage this, and that is the tax benefits set up like a tex flex programs for employees to set aside money on a monthly basis that they could take out to pay for commute options.
these could include pay for bus passes, van pools, things of that nature.
we also want to explore all commute solutions grant.
periodically other organizations do give out grants to government entities to explore how they can encourage more employees to commute.
all grant options will be explored and hopefully implemented for Travis County employees.
we also want to increase employee participation in commute options by educating employees about the commute options.
a lot of employees still do not understand, even know about the ride share program, the online service that's offered to get more employees within the same community area to car pool together.
one of the benefits of car pooling is with Travis County employees is that you move to the top of the list for a parking space.
that's a huge benefit there alone.
i think it has to be a total of three Travis County employees commuting.
we also want to educate employees about how easy it is to ride the bus.
a lot of employees think that it's difficult it's hard, I don't want to be bothered with it.
simply to use the bus and have your monthly 30-day pass.
a lot of employees don't know about that.
we have to educate them.
and riding their bikes with possibly a buddy program in which you partner up with someone who lives in your zip code area.
it makes the drive, the commute by bus, walking or riding your bike not quite so intimidating that way.
these are some of the options that we'll be pursuing.
we'd also like to do a before and after survey.
we'd like to find out, one, how many employees are actually using these options.
we know from a couple of years ago when we did our bus program experimental pass how many employees were riding the bus.
that's been helpful, but we would also like to find out how many employees are actually car pooling.
and find out how many employees would if they knew about these programs and knew about the ease of their use.
and around September or October follow it up with a second survey to find out how many employees have since then started on these options for commuting.
>> I think that's a good idea.
does capital metro have a special type of program to allow for a commute as far as any kind of discount?
>> they have a plan that they can discuss with the county.
that would be one option.
then there are others, of course, that they can look into and they can then compare and see which works for them.
>> I would like to move approval of this.
>> second.
>> and I just think that it's another option.
i think there's many of them that I can look at.
if capital metro and the other governmental entities can also tie into this, then it would be much more effective, I think, than just Travis County.
it's made available and we all do it.
>> especially the employee participation, I think we can get them involved.
they may have some ideas as well that will work well.
>> on the flexible savings account, is it possible to use flexible savings account -- is it possible to get reimbursed for emergency taxi rides home if you are utilizing public transit?
>> to use your flex savings account for that?
i'm sure there's a way to set that up.
i will look into that, explore it.
i don't see why we couldn't.
>> okay.
and also I just love the idea of employee participation and heightened awareness of the river city ride share as well as showers that are available around our area.
and I do want to push the idea of us adopting what the city of Austin has already adopted, which is bike loan -- a bike barn for loans.
>> any more discussion on proposal 3?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
proposal number 4?
>> okay.
this one is simply to expand communications and there's a lot of intersection between this proposal and some of the others that we've been discussing.
the two main purposes behind expanding these communications, greater understanding by citizens and county employees as well as trying to encourage the small behavioral changes also by not only the county citizens, but others.
so there's -- there's a few little components to this.
in some of our various discussions over the last few weeks here in this court, we have identified some ideas that we put in here.
not all of these would be necessary, but this kind of gives you an idea of the sorts of things we could do in terms of programming.
actually, developing short little pieces that would broadcast on our channel 17.
there's some things that we wouldn't have to produce ourselves that may be readily available that we could get from some other entities.
also just announcements on channel 17.
for instance, a screen crawl that could be used and then also kind of an interactive way to let people know web addresses where they can get more information and to also allow for the receipt of e-mails and ideas from people who view channel 17, including our employees.
there's some -- under the category of other media related communication efforts, we identify some things that would try to get our message out to the bigger media outlets than channel 17.
and some of that would actually involve -- I guess just developing a strategy and an outreach thing where some of our more influential managers and yourselves might try to approach some of these local television stations to get them to run things.
we also are looking at upgrading our website by April 1st where we could identify sort of a clearinghouse of things that the common, everyday workday and home life kind of changes that could be made, those are actually an attachment behind here, just some common tips.
this was derived from what the clean air force already has on their website.
and then specific communications to our county employees.
we've been talking about getting the ozone watch day announcements at 2:00 p.m.
as well as ensuring it goes out to people who aren't at their computers, perhaps to their pager or on some kind of a dispatch system similar to what we do for charity drives.
we could use the corner of 11th and guadalupe to actually announce to our county employees as well as all the other people that drive down that street that an ozone action day -- an ozone watch day is happening.
>> maybe we could use one of those solar highway messaging boards.
>> [ laughter ] we could put it on that.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it's something -- that's along the lines.
it's something people will see, something that will be noticeable and unordinary.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> could I make a comment?
there are two things that -- related to this.
one that I would like to suggest is that in creating your educational information, you try to do a kind of one-page hit the subject information, kind of all encompassing that can be sent to people who can then plug them into the listservs.
because there are a lot of us that can distribute the information through different contacts we have that just span out kind of virally in the community.
if we have a very well laid out page that catches the eye, then it's more likely to get read.
i think that would be a very useful way to send it to us and anybody else and we send it further on.
secondly, there's just a little bit of something that's been bugging me on the communication or education side of this.
and that's when crafting the educational pieces where we speak of why we need to deal with the ozone watch issues and how they impact us, and then the big push for this year so that we stay out of the non-attainment category.
i worry a little bit that we're sending a message that if we make the goal this year we don't have to worry about it in the future.
and we do have to worry about it in the future.
so I hope that we can pay some particular attention into how we craft that message.
>> second.
>> here, here.
i also would ask that although I think this is great as written, I think that we should think about in the next two weeks how we can also expand communications with the business community and other governmental entities.
i would add those two in to our list.
because right now we're just saying Travis County citizens and county employees.
i think we should broaden the audience.
>> and certainly item b will take that issue up.
>> one of the things we did -- I didn't mention on proposal 4 is to perhaps -- if we do come back in two weeks and we have a whole package that is finally adopted is to somehow communicate to these other large public and perhaps private employees that this county's doing and sort of a challenge to them, can you do the same or similar things?
>> sounds good.
>> so far the proposals that we've gone through have been Travis County government.
right?
>> correct.
>> any more discussion on proposal 4?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and ploam number -- proposal number 5.
>> this one is an investigation of potentially use parking restrictions on an ozone watch day.
the whole here was to -- goal here was to look at not parking by the county, county-wide, but to look at the congestion area of downtown.
it's the slowing traffic, it's the idling in traffic in a congested area that is something that we were trying to figure out ways to curb.
so we thought what could we do relating to our parking policy?
and so we looked at it from the standpoint of a surcharge that could be placed on someone who parks on the ozone watch day between -- we ultimately came up with 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 a.m., so for those three hours.
this proposal does have -- it has several advantages that we point out in terms of pros, but there's also several cons also to this proposal.
and I think it does warrant some feedback from some of the other departments as to whether something like this could work.
>> including legal.
by the way.
>> yes.
judge, we did -- I did have one conversation with the county attorney's office and -- not putting words in their mouth, what I understood is if there was an incentive basis to doing this type of a policy that it should be okay in terms of legal.
>> there's no legal impediment to charging for parking spaces.
>> that's my understanding.
i talked to john hilly a little bit about it and that was my understanding.
>> that was his -- yes, exactly.
he's the person I spoke with.
>> it's different from us charging the public at the expo center, for instance.
>> right.
>> for which there is a legal impediment.
>> tell legal that we will want to discuss that with them in executive session.
>> okay.
>> and this is one question I had in regard to this.
i'm also wondering -- one of the cons is having to find a county employee to actually man the parking garage during an ozone watch day.
i'm wondering, actually, if it would mean more efficacy -- particularly in light that this isn't really just about ozone watch days, but something we should be looking at for the long haul, whether it wouldn't be prudent for us to also investigate simply leasing the operations of our parking garages and using the proceeds of that to pay for bus passes, ride share and other facilities to promote alternatives to riding in your car.
i can hear the e-mails being generated right now.
>> [ laughter ] I'm not unmindful of what this will do.
i think we need to examine that as a possibility because this is not just for this year.
we're getting to be a more dense, urban area and we are going to face this challenge every year.
>> there's all kinds of ways that for a short period of time, for instance, this year is kind of a pilot that you could kind of -- you could kind of restrict how this policy applies, looking at county-owned lots versus leased lots.
looking at the -- I'm losing my train of thought here.
looking at general employees versus all employees that may have some -- some officials have assigned parking, so you could scope the policy.
it varies different ways.
so we're definitely interested in any input we get on this.
>> but on long-term parking changes, we've had an employee parking committee working for two years.
and I think that any systematic recommendations ought to be kicked to them or we ought to call them together and disband the group.
i'm assuming they're working.
in fact, I'm assuming they're working real, real hard and coming up with a substantial document after two years.
we ought to get a statistic tut report or -- status report or just to declare they've done the best they can and send them home.
two years is a long time.
i know this is a complicated situation.
my point, though, is if we're looking at something permanent and systematic, in fairness we ought to kick it to them and let them look at it.
anyway.
you say here on page 17 at this opening line, an average of 15 ozone watch days may occur.
i thought 15 was the maximum ceef had one year.
the average is much less, isn't it?
i think that if you're trying to get thousands of people to give maximum effort to certain sort of historic initiatives, you know, the smaller the number of days, the more realistic universal acceptance that participation will be.
15 is a pretty big number.
last year it was four or five, right?
i'd like to argue if we're looking at an average of x number of days, surely we can do that.
do you see what I'm saying?
and I don't know that I would lay 15 out as an average.
we can get the average for the last five or six years, can't we?
don't we know those numbers?
>> the average of the last five or six years may be a little bit misleading because that was based on the old standard.
with the new standard we're going to have more ozone watch days.
so we can-- we can look back and see what the record can tell us and try to come back with a more reasonable or more -- or better document or version of that.
>> speaking factually, whatever the average is.
>> whatever the average would be based on our new standards.
if we can do that.
>> then that's fine with me.
of the ones that -- the recommendations that we've seen, I think this parking one is probably most controversial.
not that we ought to back away from it, but we ought to do what's realistic.
the east Texas vein tells me that we should not impose on employees what we would not impose on ourselves.
>> absolutely.
>> and if I were rank and file employee, I would want to know what the county judge is doing on ozone action day or ozone watch day.
>> then too, in longevity, kind of it complicates the issue as well, which has value.
but -- too, how much do they make versus newer employees?
and would it be a bigger burden on them than it would for others?
>> generally speaking, the larger burden would fall on those of us at the higher end of the pay scale, which is appropriate.
>> but then do we displace the lower paid employees that have been here longer?
it's very complicated.
>> if we approve -- by approving proposal 5, we're basically giving the go ahead to further evaluate what steps we might take to have optimal impact.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> and we really -- we especially want employee participation on this one.
>> I think so.
>> judge, would you read what they are?
i haven't seen them.
>> proposal 5?
>> what your proposals are.
did I miss that?
>> we need to give you a copy.
it's 20 pages.
>> oh, I thought they were simple.
>> [ laughter ] silly me.
>> let me read the actual --
>> this is Travis County.
>> I'm sorry.
i thought there were five.
>> [ laughter ]
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> it's one is restrictions in county operations on ozone watch days.
two is special ozone watch day teleworking schedule.
three is educate county employees on commuting options.
four is expand communications to Travis County citizens and imt ct employees.
and five is parking restrictions on ozone watch days.
>> and I could -- let me just read like exactly what this parking restriction is as at least it's laid out here.
>> the judge says they're not smallish.
>> each general and key employee who seeks to park a singly occupied vehicle in a county owned or leased parking lot in the downtown campus on an ozone watch day between 7:00 and 10 would be required to pay a parking attendant $10 upon entry to the lot.
so that's --
>> I think you put that on there.
and there are many, many operational issues that need to be addressed.
and I think we would be foolish not to do that.
for instance, I am concerned because a lot of what we do is time driven.
there's a day we've got to get payroll out.
if our people say I'm not coming to work that day because I'm not paying $10, are you willing to put off payroll a day for ozone action?
you might be.
>> I don't think the employee would be able to use the excuse of having to pay a 10-dollar parking fee as a reason to not come into work or to come into work late that day.
>> but I think it might be a reason for the good ones to seek employment elsewhere.
which concerns me.
>> but we have to remember, y'all, it is not the norm to pay for parking in the downtown air.
it is not the norm even among major metropolitan counties.
>> but that's a parking issue.
the group is looking at it.
>> and the parking group has worked it for for two years and has failed to supply even a report to the Commissioners court because they are so hamstrung by this idea.
>> part of it is I remember when I was on the parking committee and cap metro came in and told us how we should not let any of our people have free parking that would force them to take to bus.
and I said to threet cap metro people, do you take the bus?
and they said no, we don't.
>> [ laughter ] and I'm with the judge.
if my people -- if we're saying to work here you've got to take the bus or you have to ride with someone else, we want to make sure that you really mean that and that that applies to everyone.
>> and we do have to do that.
i'm sorry I'm getting my hack he wills up, but two thirds of our downtown workforce pay for their parking.
two-thirds of our workforce, if they're driving pay for their parking.
the only third that doesn't is the third that happens to have gotten a phone call from lynn sometime in their longevity here.
and we're lucky enough to get a spot.
>> more than six years.
>> really we're not saying -- this is an issue that one-third of our workforce who gets a benefit that the other two-thirds do not receive.
>> not in my department, but you know that.
>> the other thing--
>> we've got to get over that mindset, not in my department mindset.
>> no, because you have to do what do you to keep a workforce and get your job done.
that's just a fact of life.
>> is that specific to your department or would you say that it applies to every department in Travis County?
>> I worry most specifically about my own, as you well know.
the other thing I think is that when we talk about people working at home, we need to understand what that means.
a, the person at home has got to have high speed internet.
do we pay for that or do we assume if you work here you pay for that?
good question.
the other thing is we need to find out is do we have the infrastructure in i.t.
to provide the security that would allow a workforce to be coming -- I don't know the word for this, remote sites from their homes with the security of county records that we need.
that's a question of fact.
do we have that?
i don't think we do.
so those are productivity questions that we need to look at seriously or we will make a decision for the right reasons and find out that there's a huge mess on the end.
i think that sending out a memo to employees, not on the e-mail, but in paper, saying these are things that you need to -- because I didn't know you shouldn't fill your gas tank in the day on ozone action days?
get that out there.
everyone can do that.
i think if there are specific things that people know they should do, well, they would.
they would dough noa that.
so I don't think that's been that clearly communicated.
i think those are really useful.
when we start talking about a rearrangement of basic work habits, we just need to be careful that we know what the consequences are.
and we may say this is more important than anything, and whatever it is we'll do that, but we may not.
i just caution you to let's make sure we know what works.
>> sue, I tend to disagree with anything that has been said today as far as you bring your points up.
there's been good points brought up all across the board.
of course we're going to finally decide exactly what to do on all of these and the implications that are behind a lot of these decisions we make.
of course we want to do the right thing and of course whatever that right thing is has not yet been determined.
but I think we're heading in the direction of doing the right thing with the comments that you have made, the comments that the Commissioners, everybody here court has made this morning.
i think it getting us there.
but let me say this before we -- let me say this to staff and everyone else.
on the flip side of this, let's say that we do everything that we can possibly do to not fall into the non-attainment category, we do all of these things -- let's say that everyone else, others may not be as dedicated as Travis County is.
and how will that be measured if we were to slip, Travis County were to slip into non-attainment even though we have done everything possible that we can possibly do under the sun, will they give us consideration, those that make the decisions?
this is what we're talking about here, those decisions that will impact us as far as transportation, health effects, all these other factors that are moving here, will those that are making the decision, will they say Travis County, sorry, you're non-attainment, however, -- what will that be?
>> I think, Commissioner, that we're all in this together whether Travis County or any other entity does good, if the monitoring results indicate that ozone is too high, then the area as a whole would end up --
>> would suffer the consequences.
that's what I figure is very important.
as we stated earlier in some of these documents to illustrate the significance of everybody pitching in.
that's why I brought up that earlier.
everybody should pitch in to make this work because if we don't have everybody's commitment, even though it's Travis County, somewhere along the lines these other folks are going to have to get on board that's not on board.
and that's the way I'm seeing t because because of what you've stated, regardless, you can play by the rules and do all the right things and at the end of the day you still get punished.
that's not a good situation as far as I'm concerned.
>> I move that we approve proposal 5 for further development.
>> second.
>> and report back to the court.
>> second.
>> I still think that our main thing can be getting cars off of the road, as many cars off the road as possible on that day.
car pooling is possible and busing should be not controversial as well.
riding the bus.
those should be the improvements we can make.
and I'm willing to go there.
>> and I think in terms of, tom, you're absolutely right.
we are in this all together.
if we continue to concentrate -- I agree that we must be mindful about the productivity effects of the policies that we are considering here.
we certainly have to be mindful of that in regard to the taxpayers and the charge that the taxpayers have given us.
at the same time, one of those charges is the quality of our environment.
and as your backup very, very well lays out, the consequences of doing nothing include shortness of breetsding, coughing, headaches, nausea, throat and lung irritation, increased asthma attacks, higher -- more frequent utilization of emergency rooms.
the burden of these sorts of health effects of high ozone days falls most heavily on children and the elderly.
it also falls very heavily on those of us who are physically active outside, so you can be at peak health and you are negatively impact bid ozone action days daws because you're breathing more rapidly as you ride your bike or you run or you walk.
these are real health effects.
and instead of -- I'm challenging us to do something that scares us.
step outside of our comfort level and find ways to be productive and contribute less ozone causing gases.
we have got to do it.
it is not something that we can wait and do later.
we are fiddling while rome burns.
>> that may be a little strong --
>> [ laughter ]
>> I don't believe it is.
we are the highest producer of ozone producing gases in the nation.
if we were our own nation, we would be the highest producer in -- the seventh highest producer in the world.
>> let's stop fiddling.
all in favor of the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> in agreement with you, Commissioner Davis, and ms.
Eckhardt that one -- one suggestion is a realization is that a lot of people who work in Travis County don't live in Travis County.
and that includes Williamson county people.
and if we could use your offices to somehow extend the knowledge that y'all have been throwing around here today to -- because the air flows from there to here and vice versa.
they've got long commutes and it would really be even more in favor if they were car pooling and stuff like that.
>> on page 19, if your copy is in black and white, the green and yellow are not there.
so if y'all could just send us -- everybody got the same problem?
if y'all could just send us a photocopy of page 19, it would help.
now, since we have other items that we should take this morning, I recommend that we take b next week.
how's that?
will y'all have enough work to do if we just turn you loose on a?
>> sounds great.
>> and b will be back on the court's agenda next week.
that will give us an additional week to consider what we do in conjunction with the other governmental entities and Travis County residents.
and that the clean air coalition tomorrow I will advice the other elected officials in the renal of what Travis County is considering in proposals 1 through 5.
>> is that okay with the court?
>> that would be fine, judge.
thank y'all very much for bringing to us such a stimulating topic.
>> thank y'all.
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, February 17, 2009 2:10 PM