Travis County Commissioners Court
January 12, 2010,
Item 20
No.
20 is to take action on the following items, a, authorization implementation of benefit plan, qtb, b, approve June 1, 2010 as the effective date of the qtb.
c, provide direction whether to participate in the express shult pilot program, and d, improve employee commuter survey to be funded by the county.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> judge, cindy, carington hrmd.
we were here two weeks ago briefing you on our intention to bring before you a qualified transportation benefit, and that's what we're here to talk about today.
the county has been faced with several issues: air quality, cost of gasoline, parking, and this is an attempt to move in the right direction with our employees and maybe changing some habits, making new habits.
the county is faced with their maybe not meeting air quality attainment, and I wanted john to speak to that real quick.
>> john, tnr.
with respect to air quality and specifically ozone, you're probably all aware that on the 6th ucepa announced they're going to be revising national air a.m.
bebt air quality standard for ground level ozone.
remember a couple years ago they set it at 75 parts per billion.
their new standard is not set yet but it's going to be somewhere between 60 and 70.
what that means for us --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> pardon?
>> so it's going down, it will be harder to meet.
>> harder to meet with a lower rating.
>> that is correct.
so they're open for public comment on that element -- well, on two elements of the new standard.
the first is the national ambient air quality standard, which will be somewhere between 60 and 70.
they're also proposing a secondary standard to provide additional protection against sort of cumulative impact of high levels of ozone during the course of the growing season, and I suspect that's probably going to be a big part of the discussion.
so what does that mean for us today?
it is that we're going to be faced with a new sort of planning regime here in terms of being able to accommodate -- well, being able to implement new measures to reduce emissions, especially associated with vehicles.
you recall that the biggest part of our background ozone has to do with stuff that gets transported in from outside, but within the local area, within this region, the emissions that account for the additional ozone precursors, about 70% of that comes from vehicles.
so that is going to be the place where we're going to have to be really focusing our attention.
so whatever we can do to reduce vehicle emissions, whether that be through additional inspection and maintenance, trip reduction measures, all those sorts of things, those are things that we're going to have to start thinking very seriously about because it's basically the way of the future.
>> the public really need to understand the seriousness of the matter, especially when it comes to not -- to non-attainment-type sexes.
situations.
if you're not able to acquire that.
you mentioned right now it's 75 parts per billion, the standard that's set forth now.
however in the future they're pronching as low as 60 parts per billion, and if you're not in compliance with that particular standard of epa, those folks -- if you do not come in compliance, what are the results/noncompliance?
just for an example, because we have had cities, and we know within the state of Texas we've had cities or regions that have not been in compliance, and they've had to pay the cost for not doing that.
could you give me a quick example of that so the public can understand the seriousness of this matter?
>> yes, Commissioner.
I think there were about three different elements you have to look at.
first and foremost the consequences of continuing to have high levels of ozone are adverse health effects, so that's one component.
>> one.
>> the second component is that we will be required to do a variety of new kinds of planning measures in conjunction with our transportation -- our regional transportation plan, so there are going to be a lot of things there that we're going to be required to do that have not necessarily happened in the past.
now, for regions that fail in their efforts to implement some of those measures, the ultimate penalty is the withholding of federal transportation dollars.
this has only happened, to my knowledge, in one region in the past, and that was the atlanta metropolitan region in which they simply failed to implement any kind of reasonable plan to reduce emissions.
they continued to have unbridled sprawl, and as a result the federal government came in and imposed a restriction on federal transportation aid and then also imposed the establishment of a regional transportation authority.
those are probably not things that you would like to have happen.
you want to be able to control your own destiny, so the advisable thing is to start taking measures now to start reducing the -- taking reasonable and effective measures now to start reducing those emissions.
>> there are areas -- and then I'll be quiet, but there are areas here in the state of Texas that have not been in compliance as far as not being in attainment so --
>> that is correct, but the difference in the scenarios, the atlanta versus, say, houston and dallas areas.
>> exactly.
>> is that houston and dallas have at least made an effort to implement plans to reduce emissions, and so they've been working through that for a long time.
now, how effective -- how effective it might be is up for debate, but at least they've been making the effort.
and atlanta region ultimately did see the -- see the light and turned around and implemented some real effective controls.
so they now have had their transportation funding restored.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> and the other issue that's facing the county and county employees and also citizens as they come downtown is parking.
it's become a bigger issue for our county employees since the city of Austin has installed the new pay station.
there's a seven-year wait for a county parking space for an employee, so we have a lot of employees that are parking at the meters or were using previously unmetered areas to park.
so it's just raised our awareness even more of the parking situation in the downtown campus.
we did a survey in July, hrmd did a survey in July, of hour our employees got to work, and what we found -- we had 813 employees respond, and they said that 83% of them did not use mass transit, and at that point the only mass transit available to them was capital metro because the light rail had not started running and has not yet started running.
25% were interested in possibly using the light rail when operational, and 50% were interested in more information on the tax savings available with a qualified transportation benefit.
that caused us to include a qualified transportation benefit in our rfp when we went out to bid on our fsa program.
it came back, we didn't choose to implement it at that time, but we had it waiting there for when the time was right, and we feel like now is a good time to recommend implementing the qualified transportation benefit.
and let me go through just very briefly and simply what that means, because the court has a couple of decisions that we're going to ask you to make.
the qualified transportation benefit allows for $230 pretax out of the employee's paycheck to be used to purchase mass transit vouchers, which would be capital metro or the light rail or a qualified van pool.
this is not a free service to the employees.
any of this is free.
they're using their money.
they're just using the federal tax advantage to reduce the impact on themselves.
there's also a $230 parking benefit.
it works the same way.
it's pretax out of the employee's paycheck to allow them to buy parking vouchers or set up a direct-pay situation with a parking vendor.
now, on the transportation benefit itself, there is another option where the employer can fund that $230 to the employee.
that is not the option we're recommending.
we're recommending the option where the employee be allowed to participate in a qtb.
we'll set it up for them and be able to realize the tax advantage.
the advantage to the employees is that if they -- let's say they spend that $230 a month, that lowers their taxable income at the end of the year.
therefore, they're paying less income tax.
they still have to pay for these services but they're using pretax dollars.
>> this works the same way as our fsa with regard to child care and not covered --
>> yes, it's very similar.
it's still -- you're still paying for the service but you're using pretax dollars to do it, therefore creating a little bit of a tax shelter.
now, the amounts were just increased in 2009 up to $230, which made it a little bit more of a viable benefit, which is one of the reasons that we're bringing it to you at this point.
so what we'd like to do is let you know that there is an administration fee for the qtb of $4.08 per participant per month.
people can jump off and on.
they don't have to sign up for the whole year.
they can decide what months they want to participate, and we only pay for them in the months that they participate.
payroll did kind of a down and dirty calculation, and they've found that if someone were withholding at least $50 in a month, that the fica savings would kind of cost neutral out the administration fee, if you know what I mean.
so if someone were to elect to spend about $50 on the qtb, then the fica savings to the county would more than take care of the administrative fee.
do you want to come up?
>> yeah.
>> good, I'd just as soon not speak for payroll.
>> on this, though, there has to be a budget in the line item, so when you're saying it can be paid from fica, that isn't an individual -- that is an individual office or department's something.
and fsa is paid out of --
>> it's a benefits line item just like the fsa is.
so we would pay the administrative fee, but just know that there's kind of a balance in place for that.
>> but you're going to have to put a budget in this, so you're not taking it from those offices or departments.
you're going to have to take it from someplace else to put it into the line item for the fsa.
>> yes, and it would be a benefit line item.
>> when we did a employee survey we tried to ascertain the level of interest.
>> we did.
>> the number of employees interested in participating, and we can determine what budget to establish based on that?
>> that's right.
>> right.
right.
>> okay.
>> all right, good.
and you can just stay right there if you want to.
>>
>> [inaudible] a meeting, so all I've got is what we got off-line.
>> actually I've been working with charles very closely on this since we started.
>> charles, get up here.
but charles has not been in the meetings.
>> no.
>> so he hasn't been able to put his input in --
>> except through me, yes.
we would like to recommend that the --
>> can we give a chair to charles?
>> sure.
>> that would be very nice.
>> all right.
here.
we would like to recommend that the qtb be approved by the court today.
the option that we spoke about, the -- allowing the employees to have the pretax deduction option.
we would like you to approve the 408 funding, and we would like to have you approve hrmd to go ahead and start rolling out the program to the employees and hold some information sessions and that sort of thing.
there is one other component to the qtb, and that's a bicycle component.
at this point we're not thinking that there's enough bicycle participants, probably, to make that viable.
it doesn't really cost us any less to roll that into it or to not roll it in.
we weren't recommending it now just because the level of activity probably wouldn't be such to make it a big item, but it can be there.
so we're open on the bicycle part of it as well.
>> what is the bicycle part of it?
>> the bicycle --
>> purely from --
>> the bicycle part of it says that you can get $20 per qualified bicycle commuting month for the maintenance and the upkeep for your bicycle, basically.
it says that exclusion for qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement includes any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of the calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during the calendar year, and that would be like for bicycle maintenance, but there's a definition of what a qualified bicycle commuting month is, and it's any month the employee regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel between the employee's residence and the place of employment and does not receive transportation in a commuter highway vehicle, any pass or parking benefit.
so basically anyone that's using their bike to commute to work and back, they can get up to a $20 benefit from the employer for the maintenance of that bicycle, basically.
>> is there any --
>> [inaudible] any radius?
>> no.
it doesn't say that, and this is not a pretax benefit.
>> it's not?
>> it's not a pretax benefit for the employee.
it's something that comes from the employer.
>> employer, okay.
>> okay?
>> when we talk about the 408, right now the contract -- it's my understanding, I'm not going to speak for barbara, but it's my understanding the 408 is not in the contract so there would have to be a contract mod that would have to go through --
>>
>> [inaudible] include
>> [inaudible] transportation benefits in the contract
>> [inaudible] is part of their
>> [inaudible] as opposed to just their qualified transportation
>> [inaudible].
so in order to get that covered we'd
>> [inaudible].
>> and we did negotiate the fee down a little bit too, barbara, so that part would have to be modified.
>> I
>> [inaudible] last week and I don't recall if I received the answer, I guess, as far as a success -- is there a successful model of this particular opportunity afforded to a large city in the state of Texas?
>> I've got that, I think.
in the backup to the backup --
>> what I handed out right before we sat down, Commissioner, is a whole list --
>> okay.
okay.
well, I didn't -- I didn't have had a chance to go through it yet.
>> it made the regular backup too big, but there's across the united states many major cities are --
>> in the state of Texas.
>> q --
>> in the state of Texas?
>> yeah, there are some in Texas doing the qtb.
>> I wanted to make sure we weren't the only ones out there venturing, which we are -- we take the lead on a lot of stuff.
>> this benefit has been available for quite a while but the amounts were low, and we didn't really have the impetus and the interest, it didn't seem, to go forward with it, but now that they've raised the amounts and the interest seems to be out there, we thought we would bring it forward at this time.
>> okay.
>> okay?
>> all right.
thanks.
>> if I can just say one thing just to follow up on a question you had last time.
there's a study in your backup that talks about the san francisco --
>> I'm sorry, can you talk up a little bit in the mic?
>> sure.
there is a study in your backup that's from the san francisco authority.
they did a study of the program there and actually calculated the reduction vmt, the return in economic dollars to the local community and a number of other metrics.
I know that was one of your questions last time, so just anticipating that, it's there and we can go over it with you off-line if you'd like.
>> all right.
>> and that speaker was robin rather.
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> the next issue is the effective date.
the effective -- cindy, before you go on that, there was one other thing when cindy said, an employee could change every month what they want to do.
whereas if there was just a couple, that's one thing, but if we had several on this, that's additional staff -- you know, workload for our staff to be doing to make the adjustments, charles.
>> until we have a survey and have a better idea as to how many people are going to participate, it's sort of hard for me to estimate what the workload impact is going to be.
I mean, if it's three people we don't really care.
if it's 300 changing every month, that becomes a substantial workload issue for us.
and you also need to understand -- there's two things that need to be discussed as far as this goes.
this is the only benefit that we have that will completely bypass hrmd.
all other benefit changes have to -- someone actually has to go into hrmd, sit down with someone in hrmd and make the change.
these changes are all done on-line.
there will be no hrmd interaction and it will come straight to payroll.
that -- that will result in some conversations with hr just as far as the logistics because we've never had a benefit that hr was completely excluded from the signing up and the -- I mean, signing up, stopping and starting it.
so we're going to have some logistic issues there.
the other thing is because it's starting and stopping and because of the timing of the file that we get from fbmc, this will be a once a month deduction.
other than cmcd that has once a month benefits, we have no other benefit that's deducted from an employee's check once a month.
so that's going to have to be an educational effort that's part of this if the court decides to approve it that we have to work through, because right now we don't have anything but cscd, because they're part of the state they have theirs once a month.
it's going to be an effort on the part of the county and hr and the group that's actually doing the presentation.
so there's going to be some substantial changes in the implementation of this, not all of which can I really be prepared to discuss with the court at this time because we don't know the number of participants, and a lot of it is just going to be determined by the number of participants.
like I said, if it's three, we don't care.
if it's 300, 350, 150, we start to care, because that becomes a very manual process for us.
so just heads up.
>> will bsit address this?
our new program for which we are spending lots of money to --
>> two or three years when it's implemented, yeah, but until that point we're looking the at a fairly manual process.
again, if we're looking at 300 people it will probably be worth getting automatic programming to make these automatic upload, but these are all downstream discussions that we can't really logically have right now until we have a better idea as to whether it's -- what's going to be involved in this.
>> the number of participants --
>> right.
>> for the planning that needs to go forward.
we may have to put something out to our employees just to gauge the level of interest in this particular product, and that's something that we can do.
>> and --
>> will this actually -- and I'm hearing all of this, but I want to go back a little bit.
will -- since we do have a plan as far as trying to chief a goal of reducing and making sure the emissions that are harmful to the air is actually reduced, and even though we may not be reaching the new standard, 75 parts per billion, will this particular program add value to the existing programs that we already have, and if the standard is lowered to 60 parts per billion, will this goal -- let folks know we're really trying to do something about that, because I'm really concerned about that with this added value.
I think it will.
>> I think it will, Commissioner.
this is an added value in the benefit program for the employees.
this is something that's available to all employers in the -- all employers.
it's a federal program.
so I think that we -- although we may be one of the first governmental entities in the central Texas area to implement this, we would be leading the way and probably create a little bit of impetus for this to impact other employers as well.
I think it's baby steps.
you know, get the benefit in there.
then start educating our employees on how it works, what it means to them, what it means to the community, what it means to the air quality, and just see where it goes from there.
>> okay.
thanks.
>> uh-huh.
>> one other thing I would like to add on.
if you're not -- although we really need to move on -- we need to keep this item moving, and I don't want to get hampered in things that might come up that we need to overcome.
I want to hear them, but I don't want to make this -- this discussion entirely about things that might come up that we would need to overcome.
>> and probably if we had been at some of the meetings, we probably would have felt that part.
>> you know, what, we did include -- I hear you say that, and I've heard you say it several times here today, but my understanding is that information was elicited from the auditor's office.
and so we can take that up later.
why don't we do that.
>> but I think we've voiced in these issues, too, cindy, so I guess we want to make sure it's heard.
I guess the other thing is if you're not voting, to say the employee could change every single month, if we're not voting on that today, that's fine.
we can discuss and see what the impact is.
if you're voting on that that's a workload increase.
>> that's part of the benefit, though.
that is part of the federal benefit.
but --
>> but we can -- why don't we cross that bridge -- that is not --
>> right.
>> well, let's go on to the effective date.
there is a lead time involved in implementing the qtb.
we can have this fully operational by June.
we wouldn't like to have to have it operational any sooner than June because of some of the issues that you have heard here today.
there is some programming that needs to be done.
there is employee education that needs to be done and some getting out there in the departments and talking to the departments and educating the employees on why they would want to do this or why they wouldn't.
you know, it wouldn't be appropriate for them.
it also -- we're going to recommend the two-month lead time model, because there was a couple of different models, but this allows an employee to go on-line and order the vouchers and arrange for the deductions from their paycheck.
what that means is they go on-line and order the vouchers.
the company -- we leave it open either two to four weeks.
the company then sends a report to payroll.
payroll takes the payroll deductions at the -- at that time.
then the vouchers are mailed out to the employees and they can use them the next month.
so it's not like you go on today, order your vouchers and you can use it tomorrow.
there is some lead time, some thought by the employees about what months they're going to want to participate in this.
but this is the model that protects the county the most from perhaps having to prefund these or being left holding the bag if somebody orders something and then leaves the county, leaves employment at the county.
so this is the model that we thought would be the most appropriate.
>> it's also the model that
>> [indiscernible] was recommending both in your rmp and your presentation that you heard a few weeks ago.
>> right.
and so staff is recommending June 1 as the effective date that we would like to see for the qtb program.
now, the next issue, I'm going to -- there's another issue that's going to come up behind this, is the pilot program for the van pool, and if the court decides to go with the pilot program, we would try as hard as we could to work with them.
I was speaking with robin this morning and they're actually okay with a June 1 date, if that's what we feel like staff can reasonably do, they're okay with the June 1 date.
when we wrote this we were trying to move it up for them, but in talks with the payroll, it would really kind of push them to the wall, and we've got several elections coming up which already does that for payroll, so just being sensitive to what we can realistically do, June 1 is what we would like to see.
>> so --
>> yes?
>> yes or no, what's the recommendation?
>> so b 1 would be -- b 2 is the one that we would like to see, is June 1.
>> okay.
I'm looking at the agenda.
>> okay.
agenda --
>> I'm looking at c.
>> we haven't gotten to that part yet.
it's coming next.
talking about the -- the agenda is in a little bit different order than our backup.
>>
>> [inaudible] June 1 as the effective date is okay.
>> yes.
>> that's what I'm hearing, right?
>> yes, June 1 is -- yes.
and in the backup, item c is a survey that fbmc suggested that they could provide for us.
they actually send the link to us and we send it out to our employees, that will provide more quantified data for the county to use in their efforts going forward as far as co 2 emissions, actual concrete tax savings for the employees and the employer, as far as the fica savings, gallons of gas that would not need to be purchased, that sort of thing.
>> will the court get a chance to see the survey before it goes out?
>> yes, sir.
yes, sir.
and if we need to bring this particular issue back we can.
we've asked for a sample of the survey from fbmc.
they sent one to me just yesterday, but we want to look at it a little bit more before we brought it to court.
so if we need to roll this particular part of the item, we can.
>> I would ask that we do that, that we --
>> okay.
we haven't identified a funding source yet.
tnr was looking to see if they had any grant money or something that could be used to pay for this.
fbmc is cutting us a deal on it.
it normally costs $10,000.
they're saying they would work with us since they do other products with us at 7500, but we don't really have a funding source yet, so we probably need to work that out before we ask you to approve it.
okay.
and now the last item is the van pool.
the pilot program.
we've been asked by the clean air force and the collective strength to participate in a 90-day pilot program to help reduce single occupancy vehicle use while commuting to and from work.
they have also asked the city of Austin, Austin energy and several major private sector employers to participate in this.
robin, you were telling me you want -- you want to talk about that?
>> yes.
one of the things that's happened since the last time we were in is amd has agreed to be part of the pilot, which we're really pleased about.
one of our goals was to make this a public/private partnership sort of innovation, and we're very, very happy that they've agreed to be in.
none of the others have said no.
most of them are in the same process you're in of looking at the analytics and beginning to make up their minds.
>> right.
this program would use a commercial van shuttle service to pick employees up, and it would be a mixture of employees from whoever is participating in the pilot program at predetermined pickup points.
they would then shuttle them in to the downtown work area to their work sites and then take them back again in the afternoon.
these would be commercial vans that were equipped a little more than a regular van that you would see.
they would have wifi capabilities and other amenities.
they would have a professional driver.
it would not be a coworker, county employee driving the van.
so it would be a commercial service that does this for other entities in the area as well.
>> when do you need an answer on
>> [inaudible]?
>> today would be great.
>> if not today, when?
>> as soon as you could.
in all honesty, judge, I don't mean to be flip about it.
we've been working on this a while.
I think it is a very are straightforward proposition.
I understand it's new to this area.
it's proven thref out in itself out in many other places so if you're willing we'd like to get started on it.
>> judge, I'd like to explain, we weren't clear, I think, last time we talked, and when we left the court I think there was some misconception by the public and maybe by the employees as well.
there is a cost to the employee for this service.
this is not a free service.
ballpark figures are between 7 and $12 a day to ride the van pool.
so it is not a free service.
however, that's what they would use that $230, the qtb benefit, they would purchase vouchers and they would pay for the van pool using those vouchers.
so it's not something that the county is giving the employee.
it's not something that anyone is giving the employee.
it's something that they would pay for, but they would be able to pay for it using pretax dollars using the qtb benefit.
>> so our participation as a county is just to make our employees available, or make this private amenity available to our employees, that we are --
>> correct.
>> -- simply inviting employees' participation.
>> I would like to just point out, the same benefit, if -- I believe not that many of your employees take cap metro, but it's not an insignificant number.
any public transit, any transportation system that meets the federal qualifications, you'd be allowing more than just the shuttle service.
you're also enabling people who use cap metro or other means, so --
>> cap metro, light rail or qualified van service.
>> absolutely.
so it's wider than just a shuttle service, and I think it -- as more and more options come in to central Texas, which we all hope they will, it just opens up the availability to use the already existing tax benefit across the board.
>> ms. Noel, do you see any down side in the inclusion of this pilot program among the things that Travis County employees could put these vouchers toward?
>> no, I do not, and also, as a representative of the parking committee, we discussed this yesterday, and the parking committee voted to support this pilot program.
it could assist employees in reducing the level of stress in trying to find a parking spot, or even paying for parking, and also alleviating stress in their daily commute to work.
>> ms. Wilson, did you have -- comments to make?
>> I'm not certain but --
>> hold on.
I may help you.
I will need a week on c.
it's a lot different than I thought it was, and we're talking about two programs here, really.
>> right.
>> so I'll need a one-week courtesy on c.
my goal is to try to figure out a way to get it done but I think I need to understand it.
>> okay.
>> and Commissioner Eckhardt has already recommended we take another week, I guess, on d?
a and b are ready for action now.
>> yes.
>> move approval?
>> second.
>> discussion?
>>
>> [inaudible] public comment on this?
I'd like to make a comment.
>> now is your opportunity.
>> all right.
>> there was a motion to approve a and b and a second.
mr. Priest?
>> yes, judge, Commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I believe this program costs too much and does too little.
we have other issues in this county such as people not being on bus lines.
I think this is in competition with cap metro and other agencies that are already doing the same type services with van pools, cars, other things that we have in the works, and I think that this is a -- we have hard testimony -- we have heard testimony about how the -- this has affected -- non-attainment is affected by outside transportation not so much now here as far as our traffic goes, and I think that before we fund such a program, that we would check with -- I would ask this court to check with campo and cap metro before approving this, as well as looking at the cost, because there's been some miscommunication on the cost of this program already.
we actually would make more money and get more federal dollars if we didn't reach non-attainment.
the governor has even suggested that he would hope that we wouldn't get attainment because, just like houston getting more federal dollars to bring themselves up to be able to get into attainment.
so I think that this program just costs too much, does too little and we need to look at those other issues.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> well, my understanding of a, though, is the biggest cost is to the employee.
>> yes.
>> so it's at the employee's option.
the employee wants to participate, the employee does.
if the employee does not, the employee does not.
the survey will help us understand that.
there is probably another cost with c, which is what I need to understand, right?
thank you, mr. Priest.
>> we have the figures on how much the county has spent on this already with staff and everything.
>> let's give him the backup, and mr. Priest, if you have any additional questions, just let us know.
>> judge, if I could just clarify one thing with respect to cap metro.
we have been coordinating with cap metro from the very beginning.
they were the very first people that we spoke to about this.
they have acted in sort of an advisory capacity to the project as it's evolved, and I don't believe this program is in competition with our transit agency.
I think it complements for many people in the central Texas area I actually believe this complements what they are doing.
>> and in addition to that, just one little fact.
the impact of the outside traffic on this community will be addressed by the commuter train that everyone is crossing their fingers will happen soon, and -- but I think that that impact of that outside traffic on the city of Austin will be addressed by that.
and it is commuter train versus light rail.
>> sorry.
>> the motion
>> [inaudible] discussion.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
I think that what the court needs to see on c is really kind of a written description of exactly what it is.
we've heard different comments today.
if the parking committee has input, ms. Noel, specific to c, it would help the court to get it and if we could get that by 5:00 on Thursday, we'll put it in the court's backup for next week and revisit.
c.
we want d next week also, the survey.
but before that survey is sent to employees, the court would like an opportunity to look at the survey questions, modify that document as we see fit, I take it?
>> actually, there is some customization allowed, but there are core things that need to be asked in order to get the data that they need for that, but we can look at it and see what we can do with it because we like to customize everything.
>> we typically don't spend $7,500 for a survey --
>> that you can't customize.
>> I'd like to thank robin and the clear --
>>
>> [inaudible] is the quiet one who spoke eloquently.
>> [laughter]
>> so let's take all of them because this is -- this is a monumental major league step that we've taken this morning.
and I'm looking forward to --
>> thank you.
>> -- see it go down, emissions for my vehicle.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all very much.
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, January 12, 2010 6:37 PM
