Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 24, 2010,
Item 5
Next is the item number 5 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommended pilot initiative to implement zoned parking for county employees at 700 lavaca garage, including a, revisions to current policy, b, implementation plan for pilot, and c, report regarding employee survey. My memory serves me correct, i saw an e-mail yesterday indicating that the survey to employees was the deadline for responses is when?
>> august 30th.
>> so item c we will have back on the court's agenda the first opportunity before august 30th.
>> correct. And i can give you just briefly we sent it out yesterday afternoon. There were a thousand responses as of this morning. I expect it will be a very popular survey.
>> and when is the first tuesday after august 30th? Is the 31st tuesday or wednesday?
>> the 31st is tuesday.
>> we could do it the 31st.
>> can you get those results tabulated overnight?
>> [ laughter ]
>> in a meaningful way?
>> this will give chawns to get this item behind you.
>> i know. I would like that.
>> is the first tuesday in september more realistic?
>> yes.
>> how is that, commissioner davis?
>> it's fine with me. I just want to make sure that everyone has a chance to participate in this response, and especially with the additional questions that have come in and apparently has been added to the particular survey. And of course we're looking to see what kind of answers. I'm kind of excited to see what kind of answers come back with that and if it takes that length of time to conduct the survey accurately as possible, i'm looking forward to it, that date.
>> anything else on c today?
>> well, i just wanted to let you know that we did hear the court when they said that the survey data we're using was dated. So that's why we wanted to relaunch the survey that we did in 2007 and add the zoned parking questions. It was also important since we expect to come back in the fall with a full policy revision recommendations that we get an update on employee feedback. And that also includes transportation issues that were uncovered in our report that we did not have when we did the original survey. So we thought it was important to launch a full survey and take the time to do that.
>> could you like a conversation with the committee chair between august 30th and september 7th.
>> it fine with me. They can come and visit with staff.
>> i will call and set up an appointment.
>> we can go through it and anybody else that want to participate in that meeting. It doesn't bother me that one bit. There are some other items i think that i guess you're going to get --
>> i thought this item would take 30 seconds is why i called item first.
>> that's fine with me, with the committee person, but if there are others that want to attend that particular meeting, they can always --
>> i'll provide coffee for that meeting if you let me know in advance. A is revisions to current policy. Are you the lone member of the committee left?
>> i'm the face of the committee, yeah. On a, we just wanted to reiterate that the policy revisions that you have you will see general services referred in this policy. We did not want to do a full policy revisions, we just wanted to bring back that hire date subsection because in order to do a good pilot to provide a wait list that is most accurate, we thought that the hire date was something that needed to be changed before any implementation of a pilot. If the court truly believes that parking should be treated as a benefit based on seniority, then hire date is the most fair method. So what you have is insert in there the language that would direct us to change that to a wait list order based on hire date rather than when you requested parking. You have also included in the backup are the effects of that change. There were 38 employees or 60% of the people on the wait list that would move more than 40 spaces up the first list that you have. Most of those would be moving up. Only eight of those would be moving down. And that's because their hire date is actually later than or after their ledger date. So it could be that there was a typo on the list or that the person left and came back, but for whatever reasons they actually have a date as a requested to be on the parking list that is before their hire date.
>> okay. In the old days if you left and came back, would you retain your wait list seniority upon return?
>> apparently you would still be on the list. So there are a number of reasons. We're not going to speculate why that happened. This is the list we have to work with.
>> okay.
>> do you have any questions on those policy changes?
>> okay. So who put this list together?
>> we got -- this list is from the parking list that is maintained by our parking administrator roger harner. We got the hireites daits from hrmd.
>> and the committee date looked at that list.
>> so we put it in order for you to submit to the backup.
>> okay.
>> you still recognizing two or three situations as far as car pooling?
>> yes.
>> in orders, there are knows -- in other words, there are those that are reducing it to two other than three as it used to be, is that correct?
>> the current policy has it at three.
>> three. And we say look, e'll accept two as far as legitimatemizing the carpool itself.
>> as long as they're two county employees, correct.
>> county employees.
>> that's the recommendation. The court hadn't act odd that yet.
>> no.
>> but i move approval of those two.
>> hold on.
>> [ laughter ]
>> 30 seconds.
>> so have -- do employees know this list is available?
>> this parking wait list?
>> right.
>> i would say they know that they can call roger at any point and see where they are on the list. Our intent is to put it on the internet. What we were trying to do is get to a point where it was a clean list and have it posted on the parking internet site, which i can tell employees where that is.
>> it seems to me before we approve that list we ought to put it on the county's website. Make sure employees know it's available so if we get one or two who want their status reviewed, we give them that opportunity before the court finally approves t.
>> the only problem with the review is unless they have some kind of written documentation, there's no way for us to make changes to that list.
>> and also --
>> as a young lawyer i learned not to prejudge complaints. But you have a point there. Commissioner eckhardt?
>> my concern is that this is a policy. I am mindful that of course employees need to know their personal status with regard to the list, but i would be -- i would be loathe to change the policy based on ad hoc individual circumstances. If the policy is fair, the policy is fair. And then if we need to review individual circumstances because they feel that there should be -- that their individual circumstances weren't an exemption to what is an overall fair policy, i think that we can certainly entertain that at that time. But i think it is fair for folks to go on the list based on their hire date rather than the date by which they requested to be on there. And as we've seen with this list nrks some cases people went on before their hire date, which indicates something was wrong in the administration of the list from the git-go. So i would prefer to go ahead and bless the policy and then as individuals have complaints about how that policy affects them personally, then we can entertain exemptions to it.
>> we normally wouldn't do that, though. We normally wouldn't put putt a policy in place and then say come and make your case for an exemption.
>> but we've been discussing this policy for months.
>> but this list is new. We just got it a few days ago. Employees probably have not seen it. This list and the policy have been in place decades. And i don't know that we ought to just overnight change it without employee input. However, i think that you're right in that an employee would be hard put to make the case for deviating from this policy; however, you know, fairness says to me give the employee that chance before you put the policy in place. This is a big deal, especially if you don't have parking, then this may be your opportunity to get some, especially if we implement the pilot. If you have parking, though, then -- and we do the zone deal, then you could be adversely affected.
>> that's incorrect. This is just the wait list. This is not the entire parking list. So if you have assigned parking --
>> the reason i'm correct is if the pilot initiative works out, we would expand it. So i'm incorrect today, but i'm not incorrect as to long-term impact of these policy changes that we're looking at.
>> well, the recommendation of the committee is that those people who already have parking would be grandfathered in, so it would not adversely impact anyone if this were implemented. So there is a choice that yes, you could completely retroactive8 it or only make it applicable to the people on the wait list going forward.
>> for the pilot, though.
>> i mean in general.
>> but if we implement zone parking for the granger building, how do we do that when we have 100% of the spaces assigned?
>> so what the committee is looking at is if you change the policy to hire date and you looked at the entire list, anyone who would normally not have parking because their ledger date and hire date are in conflict, we would still give them parking and not recognize that as an available space because we would want them to remain unharmed by that policy change.
>> okay. Post-pilot initiative, if be go to zoned parking in the granger, say we have 100% of the spaces assigned today, we would shoot for a higher percentage of employees to provide parking to.
>> correct.
>> because we would bank on 10 to 20% being absent any given day.
>> correct.
>> so instead of assigned parking, you would have a zone in which to park.
>> correct.
>> so those employees -- in the e-mails i've gotten so far have been on employees with assigned parking who don't like the idea of zone parking because they've gotten used to coming back to their space any time throughout the day and the space being available. With zoned parking that space may be available, it may not. They view that as an adverse impact. I'm saying that's a major change. In our parking policy. Not that we would implement it immediately, but we would certainly implement if pilot is successful.
>> correct.
>> otherwise we're going through a whole lot of changes for naught.
>> right. But on hire date, in order to fill the overage, the 10 to 20% overage, you would go to the weight list. You would already have those people in parking spaces. What you're using to give additional parking spaces is the weight list and that's what change would be impacted by the hire date.
>> sure.
>> judge, are you suggesting that this particular portion of the agenda allow the employees of travis county to look at this and comment before a policy is embrace bid this court?
>> yes. It seems to me the sooner we do it, the better, and hopefully employees can start partnering up and we can see employees arrive at work with two in a vehicle instead of one. And we have given up on three. The committee is saying that won't happen. And there's nothing in my history to indicate that it would at travis county. So if we want to give two a shot tion, then that would make sense to me. On this list, though, then i would post the list on our web and i would have hard copies available to those who want to see it. And we will get some phone calls from employees saying i don't have a computer or access to one, can i get a copy of that list to see where i am. I think we ought to make it readily available by fax or send it to them or get them a hard copy however we can.
>> and to employees listening, this is the wait list, not the entire parking assignment list.
>> rievment i have tried to make those -- i have not gotten a single e-mail from anybody on the weight list.
>> i have gotten e-mails from people who say i have waited seven years for my parking and i think it's unfair for you to take t and when i try to explain the zone parking concept, so far they've been unimpressed. I don't know if they would be any more impress fire department i put my name on the bottom, but i've been giving the committee the credit it's due. Commissioner eckhardt, i may have mentioned your name a time or two, the committee coordinator.
>> throw me under the bus. I want to reiterate, there are 653 of our fellow employees who are on the waiting list.
>> this is actually zoned by the taxpayers, not the employees. And i again will say i think that it is most efficient and most equitable for us to distribute that resource, so the maximum number of employees have a reliable place to park during the day. And our current policy guarantees a space to an individual, ir respective of whether that individual is using the space. That is not a good distribution of a resource, not only for the taxpayer, but also for our fellow employees.
>> i agree with that 100%. We may disagree on when we ought to pit that policy in place, though.
>> i know. I'm the roadrunner. Let's do it now, let's do it now!
>> judge, i have some other concerns. I'm looking at -- i think the focus area is 700 lavaca parking. The way things are structured there now, and of course we do have it managed parking at 700 lavaca. And right now i really do not know exactly how many available parking slots are there right now. In fact, we're leasing those slots right now, and i think from sources that's been able to generate a little more than 50 some-odd thousand dollars just from the leasing of those slots. That's what has come in-house according to sources. Now, are we going to throw that out or throw that under the bus, commissioner, as you stated? Or are we going to integrate these -- this process? Right now there hasn't been an assessment to see what is available. Are we going to kick those particular persons that have leases of some of these parking slots out or what's the deal?
>> no. That's been in the backup repeatedly.
>> but the point is, though, the availability of the parking slots, have there been an assessment done of what's actually available? We can't accommodate -- someone said look at this as far as 100 parking slots for an example. Are there actually 100 parking slots available right now? Has the assessment by the amco manager, who actually, as i stated earlier, does the assessment of what's going on in that building, have they reported to say yes, travis county commissioners court, you have exactly this many parking slots to deal with whatever you're doing here as far as your pilot is concerned. Have they been able to certify that the number of available parking slots for that location?
>> miss committee chair?
>> one of the main changes to our implementation plan is that the -- we met again with the amco garage manager and he is doing a two week stall count starting yesterday the 23rd going until the 3rd of september. He estimated the 100 and that's why it's in the backup. We're using his expertise because he knows the garage best and knows his business. But we are also having him do the stall counts. On monday there were 138 empty stalls, but as i said, he will be doing a two week count. We will not choose a number without him telling us that that is certified and available, truly available. One thing that we do need to note is i know there is some confusion with the number of spaces in the garage and the lease commitment, but we need to also remember as they manage the garage they are doing a certain number of oversell for their other tenants. So that's -- might be some of the disconnect there with the numbers.
>> what's the confusion?
>> well, if you look purely at the number of slots and you use our mentality for parking, one person for a slot, then you may think there are not enough spaces in there, but as the garage manager explained to me, there's a certain amount of oversell they would have in that garage anyway that would people to the people not participating in our pilot.
>> also can you speak for a minute about the agreement with amco regarding a reimbursement during this pilot? And this was brought up by the audit irrelevant's office and i want to make this plain because this is also in the backup. That as amco estimates the number of slots available.
>> that we do the pilot initially at 105%, review it and then if it looks like we have additional capacity, then we go up incrementally. If amco goes up to an increment at which people actually don't have a space, that amco will eat the cost of providing them a parking space on the open market, whether it at a meter or at another spot. So that any error is eaten by amco by having oversold it so we don't get into a situation like the airlines where you can't get on the plane, just like at the airlines, they have to pay you for having screwed up on their percentage.
>> that's what we're recommending. Our legal advisor was on vacation, so by the time we come back we will have that legal review as part of our documentation.
>> let me ask this question --
>> we are that confident that this works, but we are -- go ahead.
>> yeah. I have not even explored or had the opportunity or been asked by court to explore an amendment to the amco contract that would obligate them to participate in that type of reimbursement procedure or process. I believe that was proposed by the county auditor's office, but we have received no more information than that and have not approached amco about that.
>> but the smoke will have cleared by september 7th. We'll have in writing the amco estimate of the number of spaces available. We will have ironed out whatever agreement we can get from the commercial garage operator, manager, by this time. I can hardly wait until september 7th myself.
>> before we go off this item, can we at least move the ball on a-2, change the implementation of a car from three to two employees?
>> is that a motion?
>> that's a motion.
>> there's a second. Discussion? Best to go from car pooling to -- car pooling requirement from three to two. County employees, it's impossible to go below two, right?
>> [ laughter ]
>> and i will say this for the motion. Although the environmental part of me would like to see it at three, the manager in me says if i can better distribute the resource and get more folks in reliable parking by going down to two, i'm willing to do that from a resource distribution perspective. It's certainly greener to leave it at three, but we're just not getting the utilization. That's the intent behind the motion for higher utilization.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Tell the committee we're making progress, although very slowly.
>> judge, before we conclude, i want to know since money is being involved, probably in the purchasing agent in also, especially with some of the contracts. Somewhere along the line it appears that they're going to have to be involved in this, because it is money aspect and it is dealing with a contract. Even legally was amended, even if you amend the contract. It's going to have to come from some source on amendment to capture, even reimbursement. That's money, that's money. We're talking about money. So that means to me that those money people ought to be involved. And so i think as we go through this process, bring the county auditor in and also the purchasing agent awd to be involved in this.
>> our old policy refers to departments that in the old days had other names. Can we update that?
>> yes.
>> tidd instead of tnr.
>> cindy had briefly explained that the excerpt that you received basically is just one little section of the proposed new parking policy that will be brought back to you in the fall. And in fact, it wouldn't have the same subsection name or letter because of how we -- the committee reorganized the parking policy. And at the very beginning of the parking policy there are definitions, including carpool, which is defined as two persons riding in the same vehicle. And so all of those outdated references are -- would not be part of the new policy. It's just that she wanted to simplify it and just include the language of the assignment procedures and the carpool.
>> okay. Should we expect in two weeks clear, clean, updated language? The answer to that is yes.
>> yes, yes. We can bring you back the entire proposed new parking policy and then you will see that all of those old references are no longer in there.
>> i eagerly anticipate further discussion. Let's try to get more committee backup at the next meeting, all right?
>> i do want to -- before i step down, i do want to make sure that employees know if they do have particular input you can use that parking e-mail address that the survey was sent from. It's parking at co.travis.tv.us. There's also a parking internet site. So if you go to travis central, go to resources and transportation, you can also get to the survey from that aspect. And we can make pdf versions available if people do not have internet connections. Thank you.
>> if i were john doe employee and i wondered where i stood on the list here, this number in yellow, is that the employee number?
>> are you looking at the changes list or just the entire wait list?
>> the wait list by hire date.
>> okay. So that would be their order -- no.
>> how would i find --
>> it would be the -- actually, the current number is that ledger number. So not the one in yellow.
>> okay.
>> but they can also contact roger harner and he could give the specifics.
>> the judge is asking about the fourth column over is eid, employee id number. That's on every pay stub that you receive. Everybody knows their employee number and can find who they are and where they are.
>> that answers my question. An employee would look at the pay stub and get his employee id number, do to this list, find that number.
>> and make sure they pick the appropriate column, one is current date, ledger date and date of hire.
>> thank you have much. Appreciate it.
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, August 24, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
