Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item 19
Do we have members of the parking committee nearby?
>> are you ready for us now?
>> number 19 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.
>> good morning, sydney crossby, chair of the parking committee.
this morning I brought along other members of the committee, so you know I'm not alone.
first I want to recognize the members, if they would raise their hands.
not all members are here, of course, but we do have some that came down.
they do have to listen to a lot that has to do with parking and we certainly appreciate the work they're doing and the time they put into the parking committee.
I also have daniel bradford and he will introduce himself in a second.
he will be talking to you about the employee survey results.
we have those, along with the language for the policy change to hire date that we're recommending, and the more details on the pilot itself.
so go ahead, daniel.
>> hi, I'm daniel bradford, county attorney's office, but here as a member of the parking committee.
just very briefly, what we have is in the backup, but what we've realized with the survey is that Travis County employees largely folks that live outside of the urban center, they live largely in the suburbs more than -- the vast majority of people commute more than 11 miles one way each day.
that puts most of them outside of the service zone of capital metro.
70% of people in fact said that they didn't have access to any mass transit services.
so what that means is that -- and another important aspect of that is most of the employees surveyed, we had 1600 responses.
those employees largely work here in the central campus.
so that means that they are relying on their cars, which they drive in alone, and when you have that many vehicles you need to have parking spaces.
we have not maximized the use of that asset here in the county.
we have a growing number of people that have to buy parking for themselves or arrange alternative transportation, which is not an easy thing when you have people living so far outside of the urban core.
so we are proposing a pilot program and we have sent that program out to the -- to everybody's review and the results are that most people are in favor of seeing that pilot explored.
so that's what we're here to do is to tell you that you've got people on board and ready to try it out at 700 lavaca.
>> any questions about the survey?
>> judge, I had a couple of questions.
yes.
I wanted to make sure that the questions that we had gathered, that we felt needed to be infiltrated into the original questions that you sent out in the survey, those questions actually did make it into the survey, which is really good.
good news.
another question I did have basically was would there be any difference in the term of amspco, who is actually the parking management that look for the slots, would there be any change in the scope of services that would alter the contract amount of money that they actually receive at this point?
and from what I understand that there would be no change in contract itself.
the third I had posed was if it would come up under this type of pilot because I think, judge, we were looking for at least 100 parking available slots, and from what I understand, according to the backup, and if I'm incorrect on any of these comments I'm making, please correct me.
from what I understand, though, is that there are, according to the parking management team, they have found the actual availability of 100 parking slots.
and so what I need to get to, though, today is that on a volunteer basis I understand you're going to call the folks and figure out who would like to maybe participate in such a project, and do you just randomly go down until you find 100 people that are willing to participate in the pilot project?
how would that work?
I need to get some clarity on that.
>> okay.
so yes, the questions, the first question about the questions in the survey, yes, your office sent some questions and we did make sure they were included.
that's accurate.
as far as altering the agreement with amco-, as I understand it and speaking to the contract -- the facilities manager, that these are all routine duties that he does and so there would be no changes to the contract and no changes in the costs that we are incurring for that contract.
and as you noted in the backup, he does mention that there are 100 pace spaises that he believes are available.
ibles more and we decided to go more conservatively with 100.
so what we found was interesting as there are people who are -- who have assigned parking that have volunteered to be in the pilot, and so we didn't originally think that there would be any people who have assigned parking that would want to participate in the pilot.
so we will just have to probably alter how we select people just slightly.
we would ask if there are volunteers from the assigned, but certainly all of this would be voluntary and we would go down the wait list, depending on whether we select higher dates, if the court approves that, or by ledger day if they do not.
and look for volunteers starting at the top of the list until we get the 100 spaces filled.
>> so you actually will exhaust the list that's available to you to make sure that the 100 parking slots for the pilot program is actually something that is tangible, you have it in your hand.
and once that happens then, my question is how long will that take place from the day that you have the 100 volunteers that want to participate in the program to conclusion to let us take a peek, a snapshot view to see if this program is effective or not effective or whatever.
>> so we will have regular feedback loops.
we have in our planned two weeks that the court wants it to be longer, we can do it longer, but we will be checking back every couple of weeks with reports and with the garage marng mrng to make sure that all of the access cards that are issued are being used and that people aren't having any problems with that difference in parking for them, the zone parking.
we could end that at any point when the court decides or it could go for several months or it could go until we actually move into the building.
>> the funding of the particular excess cards, how will that be done.
>> that's the only thing we haven't identified, the $350 that we need.
>> [ laughter ]
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> I was getting to that, but I said wait a minute.
you've got 100 folks.
$3.50 per card, 350 bucks.
and of course, that hadn't been identified.
I was wondering how we're going to look at that and stuff like that.
and if persons lose the excess card.
>> so we'll need a few extra.
>> or if they lose them they have to pay for them, right?
>> yes, they do actually.
>> [ laughter ]
>> we need that policy now because when we move over there, there will be cards issued then too.
>> judge, those are the only questions.
I guess it's now a matter of funding that I didn't see and I was getting to that point.
>> and that cost will be incurred when we move over there.
so that may help us decide where the funding comes from because eventually we will be spending that money.
>> okay.
that was my only questions.
thank you.
thank y'all.
>> how long do we think it will take us to identify participants?
>> I would guess not long since we had such an overwhelming response to the survey.
depending on how the vote goes today, the lists are already ready, the wait list is ready.
we would want to allow time for people with assigned parking if they want to participate.
we've already gotten at least one, but other people have inquired as to whether they can participate if they have assigned parking.
so I would say within a week we could easily have identified participants.
>> so we think we can identify 100 available parking spaces without adversely impacting the parking rights of tenants at 700 lavaca.
>> correct.
>> our goal is to start off with a number and then based on daily or weekly utilization, figure out whether we can increase that to maximize the positive effects of the zoned parking strategy, right?
>> correct.
we looked at two weeks, so the garage manager would be doing oughts everyday and we would get reports from him every Monday and then in two week intervals we would then see if it's appropriate to add more people to that.
more volunteers to participate in the pilot.
>> okay.
why don't we check with facilities and see if facilities departments has $350 in its budget.
so you think we can do this before the end of September?
>> yes.
well, our target was October 1st for the pilot.
now, the only thing that we may want to be mindful of is employees who have existing agreements for parking, I don't know if they need to give notice to those organizations that they're already contracting with.
I would guess if they just don't pay for the next month that would be fine.
I did want to point out that we did see in the survey that they were concerned if they participated in the pilot that they would be adversely impacting their parking situation if the pilot was not successful.
and that would not be the case.
we obviously have toirt of parking spaces -- have the inventory of parking spaces, so we would want to make sure that those employees did get parking whether the pilot was successful or not successful.
>> from a layman's perspective, if we have more employees residing farther from the downtown campus than we thought, and they're driving greater distances than we ever imagined, I guess why can't we turn it into a good reason why two or three shouldn't ride together?
>> well, when you're talking about a radius of 11 miles and in fact a great number of people drive more than 20 miles, you're not talking about people that are concentrated near other employees.
so I mean, it would be nice to -- in fact, people are interested when it's an option to them to carpool, but that's a huge area and not an easily coordinated system.
>> okay.
two more related questions.
I guess why wouldn't we advertise?
if we have 100 spots available, why wouldn't we advertise that if you have more than one person riding, no matter where you are on the list, you move to the top.
and if you have three, you certainly move to the top.
if you have two, you'll be given priority, maybe we don't promise moving to the top.
I guess there should be maybe a bit more incentive than you may be one of the lucky 100.
of course we're dealing with 700, right?
>> the current policy does state that if you have a carpool you do get preference for parking, so you do move up to want to automatically with the current policy.
>> that standing alone looks sort of academic.
but if we have 100 spaces available, then all of a sudden -- and we plan to make this decision before the end of this month, so let us know, then the question really becomes how do we really enforce that?
or one, how do we confirm or validate that in fact it's still not one in the car claiming two or three, other than standing out and watching cars drive in?
I mean, I -- I mean, I guess I would -- putting that in the policy is one thing.
actually holding out the apple is another.
and we have 100 apples available.
which is historic.
so I guess I'm thinking this may be our one opportunity to really push carpooling.
and having -- and being able to incentivize it, which we have not been able to do.
>> so judge, you are saying that the policies that already exist, we get a little special preference for those that have two or more that come in the vehicle, you're saying you would like to bump that up higher than where it is now by tying it into -- in the front of the list if it's two or more in -- as far as getting preferential treatment as far as having a parking slot made available to them.
you're trying to link the -- you're linking the two together?
>> yeah.
what I'm saying is that I think we kind of -- we breathe air into that policy by saying we have 100 spots available.
and if you carpool, you move to the top of the list to get this 100.
we have already reduced the carpool number from three to two.
which I thought was generous.
but -- so if you are -- if we start at number 1, you know, assigning the 100 slots, if I'm number 400, there's a lot more motivation for me to try to find somebody to carpool with if I realize I can move down to the top 100.
in fact, be number 1 through 10 maybe.
I mean, so I think -- I really think we ought to advertise that and do it.
>> two or more.
>> well, we said two, though.
>> two or more.
>> but two or more.
in other words, the more you have, the higher you go up.
>> the other advantage is saving gasoline, having somebody to chat with, maybe attitude improves on the way here with present conversation.
>> I think for the pilot, though, because I think we're adding two things together.
because we have started down the road of establishing a policy of giving priority to assigned spaces to folks with that -- that qualify for car pooling.
if we do the -- if we tried to give an incentive to people who are carpooling and make them go to the pop of the la -- top of the lavaca list, then we have a policing issue because there is no real easy way to headache sure that those people are actually car pooling.
so it seems like we should keep them a separate program until --
>> but our policy is already we give you priority if you carpool.
I'm just saying we leave it at that and there really is no incentive.
the apple we have this time is we have 100 available slots.
and so we really -- we can walk our talk by assigning some of those slots to those who carpool.
but I agree you've got the enforcement issue whether you're talking about this 100 slots or a lot of others.
what we have said is that you carpool, we will pretty much find a space for you, haven't we?
>> yeah.
and I think what the committee would like to do is work out the logistics of how we would identify and police the carpooling.
and perhaps they would not be in the 700 lavaca garage, perhaps there's an avenue from the people who have assigned parking who volunteer to be in the pilot, there's ways that we might be able to find them a space without it being in 700 lavaca.
>> my vote is 700 lavaca.
>> okay.
we may never have this opportunity before.
or again.
>> have you raised this question with parking garage management?
I can't imagine as a nationwide firm that they haven't dealt with policing of car pooling in other garages.
>> not that specific, but the parking consultant that was working on the master plan did not recommend having car pools participate in the pilot.
>> really?
I wonder why.
>> because it's impossible to police.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> it is such a coveted parking situation, there's self-policing there, but in terms of near or limited resource or approaching near unlimited resource of parking, then we're giving a perverse incentive for people to lie or, you know, not so much lie, but think that they might have a carpool, which quickly ceases to be a carpool.
so I don't know --
>> so the honor system is in place.
>> well, I think that's a possibility that we could limit the number of, say, the 100 spots, maybe identify 10 and give those and find carpool folks and they are at the top of the list.
I don't know.
it just seems like there's a logistics problem with it.
>> I don't know that I think that droves of people will step forth and do it.
>> yeah.
I don't know how big of an issue it is, but we would certainly like to come back with how to do it.
>> I think we still look at that.
>> we have pushed car pooling forever.
somebody somewhere is doing it and happy with it.
now, two of you ride together, one of you may well be on vacation, at training, sick, you see what I'm saying, so I don't know what you're committing to carpool 100% of the time, but generally you're stating two of us, two or more of us will ride this one vehicle to work.
and if you fall short of saying everyday, I understand.
but however the other entities enforce that, and I think it's a matter of -- I just think we ought to try to do it.
if the committee comes back and says I know a way to happen, I can live with it, but we pass up a golden opportunity is what I'm thinking, so I'd make a few phone calls to whoever has car pooling and whoever has it in place and see.
if it's on the honor system, so be it.
we dishonor you if we find out that you have misrepresented the truth.
and the penalty, I guess, is that you lose your parking space, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> I mean -- anyway, committee, add this to your list of things to do.
we'll see you again next week or the week after?
>> uh...
let's see us the week after.
>> we probably ought to have more than three court members too.
>> okay.
so is there any discussion on the policy?
are you not ready to discuss that today?
>> okay.
>> the hire date issue?
no?
>> we ought to have four or five present, I think.
>> okay.
I'm okay with it.
>> but there aren't any questions related to that that we need to do any further research on?
>> no.
it will cut a few people the wrong way is what I'm --
>> just to let you know, you had requested that it be put on the internet and we've sent the list to the web team, so we expect that it will be put on the internet this week.
so employees should check the public announcement for when that's actually posted so they can see where they are on the list.
and if they have questions, they can e-mail the parking at co.travis.t x.us and we can also send them the list that way.
>> let's do that and see what kinds of responses we get.
but it makes sense to me.
I don't know that we have a whole lot of choice.
it seems the fair thing to do, but for the employees who will be adversely impacted by the policy change, I think we ought to give them an opportunity to respond to the committee or court members because we don't know exactly what they'll say.
>> right.
and there were -- of the employees that were on that list who would move more than 40 spaces, there was only eight percent or 46 employees.
and 36 of those employees would be moving up the list rather than down.
the impact is not that great for the number of people moving down the list.
>> they may buy into for the good of the cause argument.
that really is what we're saying.
a handful of you may be adversely impacted, but for the good of the cause, suffer through it.
>> well, we're saying if you truly believe it's a benefit based on seniority or tenure, then that's how it should be applied, based on hire date.
if you have no further questions, thank you.
>> makes sense to me.
what we may do next week is have it in the afternoon.
give us maybe like shortly after lunch, give y'all another opportunity to come visit with us.
and we'll know we'll have four or five members present, okay?
>> thank you very much.
>> appreciate your hard work, dedication, etcetera.
did we say -- did we say next week or two weeks?
>> two weeks.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> okay.
thanks.
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, September 14, 2010, 2010 7:56 PM
