Travis County Commissioners Court
June 2, 2009,
Item 21
Number 21, consider and take appropriate action -- consider and give direction regarding recommendations from the Travis County parking committee.
if we can spend 10 or 15 minutes on this today to give directions, then call up cdbg before lunch, we would have had a successful and productive morning.
now, the parking committee did give us its report at one of our recent work sessions and we have received a few pages of additional information from the parking committee.
should I stop and let us hear from the parking committee?
sidney crosby and we did put forth recommendations that were part of the presentation so today we thought we would hear what questions you may have about those recommendation and give further details and to support whatever action you would like to take as well as receive any other items you would like the parking committee to go back and do research on.
>> my recommendation is that we authorize two members of the court to meet with a subcommittee of the parking committee and come back to the full court, say in about a month, to let us know which recommendations we should implement immediately, which ones are a bit more long term.
and by the way, the parking committee has done some of this work.
which ones are more long term, and the third category is which ones will have a budgetary impact.
and I guess in terms of budgetary impact, one category would be significant budgetary impact, the other one would be insignificant -- not insignificant, but more modest.
and my thinking is that the modest budgetary impact items we may want to implement immediately if we think we ought to do them.
i put this on the agenda because I didn't want the report to -- to get filed away and not acted on.
when I sat and listened to the presentation, it was clear to me that some of the recommendations really should be acted on almost immediately, while other really required a bit more work.
i confess I'm fascinated by the open parking on a pilot basis to see how it would work.
and I think the committee should get with facilities.
and when I use committee now, I'm talking about part of the parking committee and a couple members of the court if the court files its recommendation, to see exactly how we would implement that.
it sounded much simpler when I heard it than it tried not to be when I considered what I thought would be reasonable implementation steps.
but I think facilities can probably let us know whether we can do that on a pilot basis here, say for 90 days, and exactly how we go about doing it.
and the other thing would be if after 90 days we decide that it wasn't such a good idea after all, how do we revert back to the old system, which is basically to eliminate the open parking and go back to assigned parking and what have you.
>> great idea.
>> I think it's a great idea.
i'm wondering about the suggestions under d, d 1 through 4.
those seem to be the ones that are no cost, you could implement quickly.
are those controversial at all?
should we try and move forward with the implementation of those?
>> judge acknowledge Commissioners, martin, t.n.r.
you have on page 4 a quick recommendations of things to do quickly.
you have a whole list of 2, 3, 4, 5, et cetera that you could just jump right on and do pretty quickly.
on your long-term about the zone parking, that was on the last page long-term planning to implement, number 13, implement a pilot zone parking.
so we kind of laid out what -- judge, what you were talking about of how to move forward on action.
>> I agree with you in that respect, but going back to that first page, that's a subset of those that you identify of those that can be done quickly, and I'm only identifying that subset because it seems to be the least controversial requiring the least amount of administrative to ramp up.
>> say again.
>> d 1 through 4 on the first page of the cover memo.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> as a subset of those, the committee has already identified as those could be implemented immediately, the d 1 through 4 of the cover memo is a subset of those that seem to be the least controversial of the quickly adopteddable.
>> uh-huh.
>> what I'm getting at is I like the judge's motion, I want to go with the judge's motion and I want to see if there's some stuff we could identify even today that we could just move on so that we would have a sense of momentum.
for instance, even it it was something as limited as moving today on opening all parking spaces to county employees after 3:00 p.m.
that's something that could be done simply with a saying that it's so.
>> okay, just to remind you --
>> that's a big deal.
>> again, that's because the committee found that most people have appointments in the afternoon and generally they do not return so employees who are using metered parking would then be able to use those empty spaces, vacant spaces in the garage instead of adding additional funds to meters at the end of their day.
so --
>> and in reality it's already happening.
>> we would hope, yes.
>> that's a big deal, though, I think.
when you look at it on its face, it's fine.
but I'm sitting there thinking most of the time I'm in my space after 3:00.
but if I'm not, I'm away at a meeting, I'm not going home.
and often I'm running back to the office at 4:00 either to a meeting or to get work done before 5:00 or 51:30.
and if you ask other employees, my guess is they will say roughly the same thing.
so if we do that, I think we should do it cautiously, and I mean if we do that, would that decision be on a permanent basis or a temporary?
>> as the court desires.
>> or pilot.
>> a pilot to see how it works.
>> see, my thing, I mean I think that on the ones that we decide to pilot, we ought to give more thought and try to figure out exactly how we pilot them and vote on it.
the other thing is whether we like it or not, it makes sense to let employees know the court is seriously thinking about implementing these recommendations, and if you want to voice an opinion on them, you will have an opportunity on this day at this time in the Commissioners courtroom.
so, you know, the easiest one is the internet, but what message do you put on it?
i have not had it -- this is good.
unfortunately I've not had a chance to really give it serious thought because of my schedule.
and the reason I suggested coming back in a month rather than next week is next week we'll have only three members of the court.
the week after that we may only have three also.
these decisions I think are weighty enough for us to try to have a full complement of court members if possible.
the other thing is that if you got two members of the court in agreement on certain acts actions, all you got to do is get one more to have three.
i really think we ought to have an employee public hearing on parking.
those without parking will -- all of these pilots we're talking about, they will come down and fully support them.
if you've got an assigned space, my guess is you are more likely not to be as supportive.
but the clear fact is that if you walk through the parking spaces on certain days, you do see 15 to 20% of them empty.
and so if you take a smaller percent and use that number to figure out how many cars are assigned to the lot, you really ought to be all right.
ought to be all right.
then the question is who continues to have assigned parking.
and if you talk with different people, you get different responses.
>> the other thing we need I think is for people to tell us, like what parts of the county do you live in and you are a county employee and you ride in to certain sites so that we can tie people who are looking for a ride, maybe tie them in for carpool.
that would be very helpful as well.
>> and I believe we have that information.
is that right?
>> yeah, and I know the zip code mixers to try to get people together.
>> can that be put on the internet as well?
>> well --
>> or on the web page to make those connections.
>> it could be put on the home page of the travis central because the parking page, which is where we hope these would eventually be housed has not been approved.
>> we do need to communicate with other employees who are interested in carpooling.
>> may I take a stab at this.
let me frame this as an amendment to the motion.
that the motion being that we have a portion of the parking committee meet with two members of the Commissioners court to recommend bringing items for pushing forward, whether they are near term or long term with their budgetary impact.
and as a mechanism for that subgroup to work through, if we could take those items that are listed on page 4 and bring item 1, break it out so we just discuss item 1 at a Commissioners court session, and then after we get over item 1, we come with item 2, 3, 4, 5 and go down the list as the subset of individuals deem most appropriate which ones need to be brought forward so that we can have the discussion at Commissioners court but broken out.
because there's a lot of good stuff here.
if we do one big bang meeting with -- with the employees of Travis County, we are likely to get muddled.
but if we take a chunk at a time, I think that we can work through this and get some really good new policies in place.
>> how many public hearings do you have in mind?
>> of course, there's always public comment when an item comes before the Commissioners court.
>> on Tuesday?
>> if it's -- let's just pick an item, direct staff to submit a budget proposal to create a full-people parking administrator.
>> a hearing for that?
>> we wouldn't need a hearing for that.
>> that we go ahead and do that because we really need a f.t.e.
to manage some of this.
>> so that's what I'm saying.
on the items that don't really need a public hearing, per se, but they do need deliberations at Commissioners court, let the subgroup of individuals decide how to move it forward, whether a public hearing needs to be slated for a specific suggestion, recommendation from the parking committee or whether it can just be brought as an agenda item for deliberations by the Commissioners court and what the appropriate time for that is.
for instance, some of these the appropriate time might be budget.
>> alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations.
i was here to support some of the committee's recommendation especially when it comes to the developing a budget proposal to create a full-time parking administrator position.
i was looking at reviewing some of my budgets yesterday and noticed that nowhere in my budgets was there a submission.
and we had kind of left it to the parking committee because we knew that they were going to submit.
but we are ready and willing to create that package because as the committee noted there is a need for a full-time parking administrator.
it has just grown not only with the use of the facilities now but also with lease spaces.
and this work, putting it on the internet, the audit committee, will require a lot more time.
for the last 14 years, lynn hearing impaired has been doing this -- harper has been doing this as just in addition to her duties.
so I think that is very sound recommendation that we're all in agreement with and I think that would go a long ways to try to implement some of these other issues which I think are very good.
having the parking list transparent on the internet is something we would support.
whether you use names or numbers is something I think that we're still to work out, but I think we're all in agreement that that needs to happen and then the issue for the court would be do you fund it now or wait until f.y.
10 to assign such a position.
>> as you consider these recommendations individually, I guarantee you they will each require quite a bit of discussion, planning, et cetera, to implement.
and which is why -- I mean if you got this sort of new committee looking at these recommendations and coming back to the court with the whys and wherevers, I would be a lot more comfortable and I think that would put news the best position to move on them.
>> the only suggestion that I would have, judge, is for the court to consider having someone from, you know, facilities or someone that has operational knowledge in the committee to make sure the committee doesn't bring something out that won't be able to be implemented.
or sometimes it's, you know, easier to imagine than when you really have someone that has done the work.
so did they work with the operating -- just one person from the operation -- the operating department.
because right now what we're doing is lynn is slowly transitioning all the parking work over to facilities management.
but it's a slow process.
lynn will retire within a month.
there will be no one, you know, all that responsibility would have to be put in facilities on an existing employee or it won't get done.
so we're having to rob from peter to pay paul on this one right now.
>> didn't I tell you each one would require a whole lot of discussion?
>> I'm seconding your motion.
>> judge dietz has a judge's perspective on this parking.
>> we're happy to work with the court at -- if you want to do this during a work session or a public hearing.
i just want to point out, and I brought over and I will distribute copies to the court, approximately 20 months ago the security committee out of concern about explosive devices in vehicles had recommended shutting off the northeast parking lot of the courthouse, and we had written a letter to alicia and roger concerning the elected officials within the courthouse, what our view of that is.
and I believe that there is a component, not the entire thing about security that has not been really addressed.
and there is a separate county security committee and we're just -- we want to make sure that we're talking to the right folks, but I believe that there is a -- one of those unintended consequences concerning security that at sometime we would like addressed whenever it's convenient to the court and however y'all want to do that whether in a work session or private meetings or however, but we would like to be able to give our pitch and on that.
>> the security related part of it?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
so what two members of the court are keenly interested in these parking issues?
>> [laughter]
>> wow.
_ la-la-la __
>> members of the court that have committee members?
three?
>> three members of the court that have committee members?
>> we think that the parking committee will be able to select a subcommittee.
>> yes, I don't think that will be a problem.
>> and what do you think the appropriate size of that subcommittee should be?
>> small?
probably five to seven.
>> sounds like you are trying to get enough to outvote the two court members.
>> [laughter]
>> you have the ultimate vote so I don't think that's possible.
>> I feel that every Monday night and 9:00 Tuesday morning, I feel just the opposite.
well, I tell you what.
Commissioner elkhart, you've always been so insightful.
>> I'll fall on my sword, sure, what the heck.
i'll take the black bean.
i love black beans.
>> down to you, Commissioner Huber.
>>
>> [inaudible] I'm not sure that I have a history to --
>> that might be very helpful.
>> fresh perspective.
>> so you agree or would you feel better with the judge doing it?
i have a lot more fun sort of throwing rocks at you all than I do putting the recommendations together.
>> there you go.
Commissioners elkhart and Huber will represent the Commissioners court on this.
and I do think on the recommendations that impact employees, it would be fair to have something akin to a public meeting.
at which they would be able to appear and voice feelings.
i think we ought to -- at some point we have to indicate how important it is so when we chat with planning and budget about it, the court would be able to indicate importance.
and the more important that is, the larger the amount involved.
if you are talking about an additional f.t.e., the question is space, furniture, equipment.
>> yes, sir.
and to the extent that you do all these things to remember that -- who is going to do them and make sure that the horse is before the cart and that you have someone that will be able to carry out all the duties and assignments and tasks that are adopted.
>> okay.
well, then, I will serve in the alternate, in the event one Commissioner is unavailable, I would be happy to stand in if that will help.
okay?
and -- I mean what -- how I would proceed really I thought about on the way to work this morning so the committee -- if there is a better way the committee should feel free to proceed in that manner.
how's that?
this committee is getting to be more and more powerful, isn't it?
what else do we need to discuss today regarding parking?
>> I think that will do it.
>> really appreciate y'all's work and putting together this most recent memo, which is like an executive summary of the full report that we got during the --
>> excellent.
>> I do appreciate all the work you have done.
>> look forward to working with on it.
>> my assistant has indicated she has worked hard, attended every meeting, been a leading voice.
almost every meeting.
she would have gone on and on.
>> she said she wasn't there because the judge had her doing something.
so -- first.
>> anything else?
we look forward to seeing you all in about a month.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> now -- that was seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion?
you've got a motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, June 2, 2009 2:00 PM