Travis County Commissioners Court
July 21, 2009,
Item 20
>> colleagues, we have a work session, very important one, scheduled for Thursday at 1:30, where we do a follow-up discussion of our visioning session.
let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
i'm happy to say that this morning we got through most of our open session items except for two.
two very important ones I may add.
let's call up item no.
20.
a require the use of location codes within individual employee records in hte.
20 b appoint a permanent parking committee with the charge to include revision of the current parking policy chapter 11, drop and administer grievance parking process and implement the recommendations made in the parking committee report.
>> good afternoon.
>> [indiscernible] t.n.r.
co-chair of the parking committee.
>> lisa rush, the other co-chair.
>> we wanted to -- to go ahead and -- and bring back these two items for action today.
the first two from our report.
we've had a couple of comments, I wanted to clarify a couple of things.
first in regard to the location codes, we certainly wanted to clarify the reasoning for this request.
also the limitations that are placed on the parking committee such that we would not be asking for access to the payroll system as some people were concerned about.
in fact, what we would be doing is asking that the department's payroll
>> [indiscernible] input this location code in their payroll system.
the reason for that is because in talking to i.t.s.
the only place we can record personal information that follows a person through our system is within that payroll system.
so the -- so the field that
>> [indiscernible] identified that could be used for the location codes is that check location field and she couldn't find anything else that was appropriate for that use.
that's why we are asking that it be put in the payroll system.
but the parking committee would at no time have access to that system.
in fact all of our requests for any personnel information is directed through hrmd so it has a checks and balances before being given to the parking committee on an as need basis.
because there were a couple of questions as to why we might want to have location codes.
the committee did identify several good business reasons why we would do that.
that was discussed during the work session.
to talk about building loads for equipments and systems, space planning.
they would have better information to help with that because they would know the number of people in the buildings and of course emergency services as you saw in the backup have -- have need for evacuation purposes and allowing better planning for rescue workers, lay rescue workers within our county facilities if given that information.
so besides the benefit of allowing employees for us to keep up more accurately with movement of employees for parking so they can park closer to the work site, which is the primary reason the parking committee looked at the issue.
there are several other good business reasons for the location codes.
just quickly on the committee itself.
the policy draft that was included in the backup is -- is simply there for reference.
as you know the policy has not been brought back to the Commissioners court.
so in putting this in there, we just wanted you to know the direction that the committee was looking or suggesting as far as a make up for a potential parking can he, but in no way are we suggesting that the court accept that today and use those as a basis for the -- for the upcoming parking committee.
in fact you could choose to do seven members, 15 members, that's obviously flexible.
the charge could be completely different.
we did suggest the charge in here and would hope that today as the court -- if the court approved this item, that they would at least give us a charge and the approximate number of people.
the subcommittee would then suggest or solicit volunteers to do parking at co dot travis.tx.us.
we have been receiving employee comments at that currently.
then we would bring back to the court a list of the actual members of the court or of the committee sorry.
>> so was item a the hte employee records information one of the recommendations.
>> yes, it was .
if we reflect on easy but important ones, would this be one of those.
>> yes.
>> we could accommodate in that payroll, if you want to do that.
>> if that will help, that doesn't bother me.
the only effort, significant effort is obviously mary laredo would have to set up location codes because they currently don't exist, she would need to create a table for people to pull from that, then time for the payroll liaisons to enter that information for each of their employees.
>> now when we go to the waiting list do we try to -- do we primarily look for an available parking slot or do we look for an available parking slot in a certain building?
i know if you are downtown we want you to park down here, not on airport.
>> right.
>> but if you are downtown, do we care whether you park, say, in this building or one of the other buildings or outside as long as it's an available parking slot.
>> we may not care, but certainly our employees care.
what we do track is which parking facility is closest to their work site and then when the employees' name comes to the top of the wait list we offer them the next available space.
they have the option of taking that space and then waiting for a transfer of a space that becomes available in that closer facility or sometimes people since they have other
>> [indiscernible] already they will defer until a space is available within that particular site.
>> that's current policy?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
anything else on a?
okay.
now, b did cause me a little concern.
i thought that I remembered this Commissioners court on June 2nd basically approving a motion by unanimous vote to put two members of the court on a sort of a -- a subcommittee.
>> yes.
>> we didn't say whether that subcommittee was supposed to work two month his or two years.
so does b clash with this motion that our county judge made that was approved by the court?
>> certainly not.
>> I feel much better now.
>> your Commissioners on that subcommittee might be happy to see this would be a permanent committee eventually replacing that subcommittee.
but we did in the original report recommend that there be a continual focus on this parking issue.
in order to implement the recommendations in the report.
in order to do that, we would need those bodies, the parking committee to continue with those recommendations and to flesh out the policy and those types of items.
so the subcommittee did chart actions that we would bring before the court.
we set dates as to when those would hopefully be brought before the court and identified additional items that needed to be addressed and researched before those could be brought to the court.
and our hope would be once this committee is formed that it may take -- take the bulk of that work from the subcommittee.
>> so Commissioners Huber and Eckhardt will be able to work with the subcommittee and on the subcommittee until some point in the future.
>> uh-huh.
>> just taking care of my colleagues.
>> as the court wishes, certainly.
>> okay.
>> all right?
>>
>> [indiscernible] we have a number of employees from the auditor's office here who are very concerned of parking.
they are not going to speak today.
i will be speaking on their behalf.
if I have left something out they want to say, of course they have the right to say that.
one of the things that I want to make sure is that we do not develop a parking policy where now everyone is unhappy.
and the two issues that I think are most important in here that would be a problem from our viewpoint would be open parking spaces after 3:00 p.m.
and going to zoned parking.
and let me tell you why I feel that way and employees do.
first of all, I think the two issues that are mostly of concern to employees and certainly to me as a manager is that there's fairness in the parking and that there is some sort of stability or certainty in terms of when you get to work, where are you going to park your car.
do you have a place to park or do you not?
if we are not fair, employees are unhappy.
if there is no certainty, we have productivity issues because people are cruising around looking for places to park, they thought they had one, they don't.
numerous years ago, when the Commissioners court gave every department and office 6% money to kind of fashion a plan to solve whatever problems they had, our office apparently was the only office in -- it was -- you allowed us to do this, we brought it to the court.
where we decided that we thought that parking was a benefit and that for those people that did not have parking, they did feel it was unfair and so what we did is we took some of that money and instead of paying it in increases so our people whatever that amount was did not get that in their salaries, we decided that we would give a parking stipend to every employee that does not have parking.
then we developed internal policies as to when you get it, when you don't, when you are offered a spot you give that up.
but we don't obviously if they want to car pool with someone or get a bus pass or pay for parking they can do that.
that has worked reasonably well for us.
first of all they think it's fair, it's a benefit to everyone.
if they don't have a spot there's money for them to get a place.
the other thing is that it gives them certainty inasmuch as when you drive into work, you know that you have got a parking place.
for those employees that did not mind or get a stipend but decided not to buy parking in -- that's their issue.
it doesn't matter to me.
but the parking assignments in the 20 years that I have been here has been a seniority system.
you get it based on seniority with two assigned for every office.
i think that there is a perception that it is not fair, that seniority has been surpassed.
i think that's easy to clear up.
you post a list with the dates of the starting date, get it on the internet, everyone ought to know that.
i don't know that it is unfair, I think that there's a perception of that.
it needs to be fair.
it's a seniority system.
when you have come up, your time is getting in place.
people who have waited for five to six years for that place value it.
they want that space, they think they have earned it.
the seniority system led them to expect that.
and that's the spot that -- that they want.
and that's where their car is.
if they are out for vacation, they can tell someone else to park in it.
if they want to car pool with someone, they can do that.
any of those things.
but it is something that employees feel they have earned and gotten.
i think it would be a huge mistake to take that away from employees.
so that they have got their spot and now they don't.
now they have a license to hunt.
that is very different than having your own spot.
i see a significant amount of problems with that.
and I also think, just as an aside, even where I would spend money this year if I were sitting in your seat.
we have a seniority system.
we can make it work.
a lot of the suggestion that's the committee made I thought were really good ones.
we can integrate that without setting everyone else on their head.
the after 3:00 is problematic as well because people go out to lunch, they have meetings.
i have auditors that go around the county and audit and come back.
you may have a medical appointment, you may have had to go for whatever reason to pick up your child at daycare and come back and now your parking space is gone.
there is no certainty again.
then the question is when they come back, what do they do?
do they drive around, tell them to go home for the day?
what do they do?
so I have a significant problem with both of those issues.
because I think the seniority system has worked.
i think there are ways to make it equitable.
we have tried to do that.
and I think that the main thing that we need to be thinking of in terms of certainty is, you know, I want people to be here at work on time focusing on the county's business.
and I don't want to be dealing with I came back at 3:00 or 3:30, now I have no place to park.
you know, three or four people will discuss that for the rest of the day.
that's just how it goes.
so I feel very strongly that the seniority system has worked well.
when I first started at the county, everyone paid for parking.
that worked, too, there were no shortages.
of course the county was a lot smaller then.
when we started giving it free, people -- there was an immediate shortage.
i wouldn't object to that as long as every person in the county who parks in the county pays wherever they are located I think again that is a fairness issue.
but I urge you to look at those two issues very, very carefully.
because I think that -- that it is going to create angst with our employees that will be difficult to fix.
so that's just -- uh-huh.
>> suzanne, I hear -- susan, I hear what you are saying.
i guess there are probably similar departments that may of course echo maybe not the same concern but maybe have a variation of concern that's just as legitimate as what you have illustrated to us today.
i guess what I would like to see if possible in this committee, that being formed and has been formed and looking at revisiting and trying to come up with a bona fide policy that they can help us in some of these disparity type of situations that -- that you described as I want to make sure that all of the departments made aware of -- of their concerns as far as parking is concerned.
issues with parking and who they need to go to.
to echo what you have just laid out, eloquently, other departments may be in the same situation as you are.
that you have illustrated.
i really don't know if this committee that's being formed and whether they actually hear what departments are saying as far as trying to come up with some kind of -- some kind of policy, especially if -- if the participation level is to the point where everyone has had a chance to say what they have to say as we try to come up with the type of policy.
as far as park being is -- parking is concerned.
>> anyone have anything they want to add?
they are the quiet type in general.
>> well, I want to make sure of that --
>> we don't want to take a lot of your time but these are very important issues for employees.
the truth is, you know, someone said just before we came down, why don't they do a survey.
someone said they did, why didn't you answer.
people are busy, they don't always see these things.
this is a huge thing for employees.
you all have done a good job of trying to be fair.
i think a lot of these recommendations are really good, we can implement with.
those are the two that I have a serious problem with.
we have a member on the committee.
we will help in any way we can.
if you want this i.d.
number we will accommodate that in payroll.
but anyway for what it's worth, that's our input on that.
>> but what you are saying I guess is very legitimate.
i guess my point is that have they heard, have the committee -- have they actually heard these particular concerns that you are echoing here today?
>> I think they have.
>> we certainly have.
>> hello.
>> during the presentation that we had a lot of employee comments from the survey.
but what we also said was that the time when the policy is being fleshed out even further, we will bring the departments in to comment on those and make sure when we bring this policy back to the court that it is -- has a -- has been well vetted by all of the stakeholders.
>> that's the answer that I'm looking for is just what you just said.
okay.
susan is just one of probably many that need to have the necessary input before it come back to us.
okay, thank you.
>> no, thank you, susan.
>> ms.
perez?
>> yes, sir, alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations, I have a couple of comments on this item and let me go ahead and start off with saying that at this point in time we do not have a parking administrator.
the position for the last 15 years has really been handled by -- by liz harper.
in my office.
lynn came in at 6:30 every day, very, you know, reliable and steady.
and left at about 4:30, but she was there early enough to get all of the calls as people were driving into work and parking and their parking space was not available or there was construction going on, reassignment of spaces, people that were in -- in locations further out that worked in the courthouse or here at granger, switching those around so that as their seniority and their availability, the space availability came up, they got closer to their workplace.
anyway, she is no longer with us.
her last day was last week as a matter of fact.
and before she left we had started transferring some of the responsibilities from her over to the facilities management to -- and lynn was the grade of 15 I believe or 16.
and we started transferring the responsibilities over to -- to a -- to a clerical clerk and -- in facilities management at a grade 10.
he has been spending 25 to 30% of his time on parking issues.
we have compensated him a little bit for the added responsibility but under no circumstances would he be able to take the responsibility of a parking administrator.
i have funding to fund a part-time parking administrator from here until the end of sent.
but when we met with -- with the planning and budget office, they said for us to wait for the parking committee.
the item posted for today's agenda, there was nothing about a parking administrator.
so I wanted to bring that to the committee's attention and they acknowledged it wasn't on there.
also to the court's attention because a lot of the duties and responsibilities that are outlined in their charge relate to a parking administrator and since there is that position does not exist as a title, and there's no one in that position I wanted to bring that foremost to the court's attention.
ask that that be posted probably on its own merits.
like I said I have enough money to fund a part-time position between now and the end of the year, but will not have enough to fund a full-time position if that is required.
>> is that on the interim committee's short list or long list?
>> well, the subcommittee had talked about that particular item and we expected it to be covered in the budget hearings, but since there aren't budget hearings then we'll have to move that item up for before the actual markup period.
>> you are saying we need to do something in the interim.
>> yes.
>> then when the committee -- when the recommendation comes from the subcommittee we can make a permanent decision.
>> I think so, as long as it's before the -- the adoption of the budget.
uh-huh.
>> okay.
john may wonder if we are posted to discuss this.
but let's hear the second point anyway.
>> okay.
the other point and I met with the -- with the subcommittee, park being committee before this meeting so I think that they clarified it for me.
and that was that the charge that they had attached as backup was not what they intended for you to adopt.
but --
>> the policy.
>> yeah, the policy, but merely an example of the policy that they would address because -- because I did have issues with that particular policy having to do with evaluation of the parking administrator, complaints and then of course that there is no parking administrator and then one of the other things in here was that immediate staff to the executive manager who supervises the parking administrator would not be part of the committee.
and I pointed out to them that really parking, my perspective, belongs in a department as opposed to administered by a parking administrator -- I'm sorry as opposed to the duties of an executive manager.
that it should be within a department.
i had that de facto from general services from 1995 when that was reorganized and nobody else wanted it.
so it's kind of a de facto assignment to me.
>> it was de facto the first 30 days
>> [laughter] after that it was --
>> [laughter] --
>> the only other issue, they assured me that the parking administrator may not be part of the committee, but they would certainly be part of the meetings and the activities of -- and the discussions of the parking committee.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> that's the location codes within individual employee records in hte.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
on b, is the swepbgs for the inr the subcommittee, the court blessed subcommittee, to continue to work and that at some point we deem the subcommittee's work to be done, then turn to a permanent parking committee.
>> the intent is really to get a permanent parking committee established because the subcommittee will -- some of these need more than the subcommittee to work on those items.
so it would be helpful to have a subcommittee who actually has the charge of following through with the policy.
for example that's not something that will be difficult for the subcommittee to work on that alone, we need more resources, having a parking committee would allow us to do that.
but certainly the parking committee that we are suggesting doesn't have to look like the one that we have referenced in our draft of the policy.
and that the charge that we have stated that could be changed today with your action, but we did want to do something to get a group of people committed and
>> [indiscernible] besides the subcommittee.
>> how many people are on the subcommittee?
four.
>> we did the two Commissioners, the co-chairs, assuming that a true parking committee would be established.
but certainly we could also expand that.
>> oh, yeah.
>> okay, let's leave the subcommittee in place and try to find other county employees who want to serve on a permanent parking committee.
>> we already have volunteers through the parking e-mail as well as several of the members of the current parking committee who asked to be considered to continue service.
>> all right.
then what's a good number?
>> nothing more than 13.
>> and what's a good number?
>> 13.
>> okay.
and the reason I asked that question is I'm not sure that I know the members of the parking committee except the ones who have addressed the court from time to time.
so why don't y'all as fairly as you can put together that list and let's just assume that at some point you all will kick-off the two members of the Commissioners court and the rest of you continue to function as the permanent committee.
>> okay.
so our intent is on August 4th we would bring back this -- this possible parking committee for you with the blessing of the subcommittee.
>> next to the name we ought to have some indication of the department.
>> yeah.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> also alternative forms of transportation.
there are a number of categories that we would like to have people fill.
the subcommittee will flesh that out.
>> okay.
i do think we ought to spend a bit more time looking at the charge.
or the scope of work for the committee.
>> okay.
>> and so should we give ourselves two weeks for that?
look at the permanent committee as well as the charge.
>> okay.
>> two weeks from today.
and I guess if we need -- do we need an interim parking administrator?
in place?
there is an idea which is to bring somebody back on a part-time basis for a couple of months.
what that does is to suggest that the parking committee needs to land on that, the administrator, duties and responsibilities, if there's a question about the compensation classification have that, two months is a long time, though.
really we will get the preliminary budget in about two weeks.
maybe we can get p.b.o.
to pigeon hole compensation there.
>> we have -- the parking committee put together a draft job description that we can go ahead and forward to hrmd for classification on -- between now and the end of the fiscal year, we have enough salary savings in facilities management to fund a position.
>> there is good news and mr.
nellis just came to bring it.
>> I can tell you that the preliminary budget does not have any more ongoing money.
in fact we have about $4 million worth of programs that are funded with one-time money that have been going on for three to four years.
so I mean if in fact the court is willing to put, you know, a fraction of a cent on the tax rate, you can create?
ongoing money.
>> mr.
ellis does not have good -- mr.
nellis does not have good news for us
>> [laughter]
>> thank you, leroy.
>> if you want to fund with one-time money we can obviously find one-time money, but it is not an ongoing money.
>> thank you.
>> I do find one-time money then because it looks like we do need a person to -- to work with us on this.
this is -- this has kind of been languishing for a few years.
so I think we need to go ahead and address it.
>> sort of suggesting that one-time money may be the only source of funding for 2010.
it's not formal action, county suggestion.
>> instructions on the budget.
>> that's what it is.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
will that do?
a motion on b, we consider this to be direction.
try to get it done in two weeks.
we will formally address it.
those with comments regarding the charge, if you take a look at that, provide input, say within the next eight days or so.
>> yes, please.
>> okay.
>> so it's coming back with the particular suggestions that --
>> right.
>> if I understand correctly, in two weeks we will land on the charge and we will be able to present to you members for that permanent committee at that time.
>> right.
>> all right.
i guess a strategy to deal with the -- what we're calling the parking administrator for next week.
two weeks from today is the 28th, the next one is the 4th.
>> August 4th.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> anything else on this item today?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> last opportunity, employee?
employees with something to say?
be bold enough to tell the court what we ought to do.
>> [laughter] dusty?
>> [laughter] all right.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you all.
>> August 4th.
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 21, 2009 2:31 PM