Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 31
And the parking item is number 31.
consider and take appropriate action regarding the replacement of chapter 11 of the Travis County code relating to parking policy and other related issues.
should we take this without mr. Bradford?
>> I'm sure he's on his way.
>> okay.
>> good afternoon, sidney cosby from the parking committee.
just a reminder what we discussed in the past couple of weeks, we're asking the court to consider replacing the policy -- the parking policy which is chapter 11.
and this policy does not assume that the courts made a decision as to zones and assigned parking which are some of the questions we this past week, but it does allow for us to use either of those systems. The county has been operating under the current parking policy since 1989, as I mentioned, there were a couple of problems that causes for us in implementing parking at this time.
and what we are asking the court to do is consider replacing that older policy with this one that we revised.
we've taken a look at parking practices throughout the country as well as locally.
we've also gotten feedback from employees in the surveys and so we used that information to come together as a committee and to make these recommendations for you before you today.
the changes primarily regard revising the captain, updating the -- chapter, updating the current name and office titles, updating the processes such as posting the policy and the wait list on the internet.
and the two bigger changes were making the parking committee a standing committee as well as streamlining the specified positions.
of all the excess that we got this past week, they were all related to the specified positions list and that's one of the areas the court was particularly interested in.
so in this week's backup we did include an appendix which lists all of the positions specified in the 1989 policy as well as how our recommendation impacted those positions.
what we also did was look at the employees' preference for reserve parking.
in the surveys the employees clearly stated that they preferred that priority parking not be used as a method for assigning parking but we also wanted to make sure we balance the needs of the county and the administration.
so our recommendation identifies three particular groups, elected appointed officials, county executives, and the courts.
we needed to make rules that could be applied uniformly among all the groups.
previously the committee was re5:00ing to policies that were not applied consistently and that caused problems as far as enforcement of the policy but also created ill will with the employees.
so the committee was clear we set guidelines based on the county work chart and created rules that could be applied uniformly and without question.
that's what you have before you today.
the elected appointed officials would be getting two spaces, county executives two spaces and the courts three spaces, one for the judge, one for the court reporter and one for the bailiff or courts operation officer.
we did get a couple calls from the courts about that particular structure and whereas they understood the civil has one additional position that staff attorney that they traditionally use.
we are again trying to create a uniform policy statement to apply to all the courts so you may get some comments in record to that.
we just wanted to have plea positions that could be applied whether it was criminal or civil.
we don't want to start making exceptions because that's where we run into problems and that's how the policy has been laid out to you.
we've asked the court to consider approving the policy as amended but, of course, you have options.
you could mix and match the way we've laid it out choosing to use assigned methods or the zoned or a combination.
you could choose to keep the existing specified positions until there is a public hearing and more comments from the county employees on those specified positions and the impacts, or you could choose not to designate any positions.
there are four groups that we wanted the court to provide specific instructions on because based on the rules I've just laid before you, domestic relations office, the pretrial services, adult probation and intergovernmental relations did not fit cleanly into those rules.
they are kind of ad hoc organizations and so we wanted the court to make specific recommendations towards that.
and then we did add language in 11.003 e to get technical that grandfathers in employees who are specific -- who have specified positions spaces now such that if their position is no longer included in that list, they keep that parking space until they are no longer at the county.
if that position is refilled, that new person would not get a specified -- a reserved parking space.
>> and I think that's the part that people misunderstood a little bit.
you know, so I think we need to be real clear on that and say it and perhaps it can be brought up at the public hearing as well.
because I think there's been some misunderstanding.
so people who have been here a long time and have -- have a specified spot would continue until they leave their position and a new person takes over.
so --
>> well, actually we would not take the parking space of the employee as long as they are employed here.
>> right.
right it.
>> even if they leave that position, they would still have that parking space.
but when the replacement is put in that position, that position would not have a guaranteed space.
>> they would just go into the general pool and it would be determined by tenure how they get parking.
>> because I think some of those employees work for the county and the taxpayers and have worked for a long time.
>> exactly.
>> and their job is such that they are required to go and come and go and they have to come in and take care of business quickly.
so I think that there is a lot of clarification for folks.
>> you also bring up the point because of tenure most of those people in specified positions would not be impacted because they would have parking, just they would not have a specific space.
>> right.
>> I think y'all did a great job, by the way.
I know it's taken a long time.
>> been a tough road.
>> but I just wanted to put a little slice of my perspective in here.
I know that we need to be balanced and equitable, but when you -- and fortunately, at least in the Commissioners court level, we've got members of the court who have all been here a good long time.
when you have a changeover in Commissioners court, that throws the Commissioner's staff at the bottom of the tenure list, and by nature of our jobs and the staff's jobs, they need to be going all the time, coming and going.
so I -- I don't know -- and our budget does not allow us to cover -- doesn't have enough money in the budget to cover paid parking for me to do that for my staff.
so it seems to me like we ought to consider either -- if they are going to be on the bottom of the tenure list and have to wait as it ends up still being four to six years, that's more than a term of office.
that we ought to either consider some way to adjust our -- our basic budget to cover a paid parking for the staff who don't qualify just because they need to be coming and going all day long.
so I don't know how the court would look to address that, but I don't think it's fair -- I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about any other changeover in Commissioners court staff in the future.
it's a problem.
>> I would agree with you.
I think that -- that, for instance, the members of the court have to be here every day regardless of whether you've been here on long time or you just got elected, but I think there ought to be a specified space for that and one person from the staff.
and I think it needs to happen not only here but I think it needs to happen at the -- at the 700 lavaca because we are required to come and go and need to be at a certain meeting at a specified time.
and I for one do not like to be rushing around and then having to go around looking for a space and then arrive at the meeting late.
I'd rather not do that.
and so I think -- I think it's -- it would be a good idea to have for the folks who carry out the business of the county to have those spaces.
>> I'm saying all staff, not just one.
>> I understand.
>> Commissioner Huber -- Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> there are two things statistically that I think we come up against that we've got to face.
which is that under our central business district planning assumptions, we go to pooled parking or we do not have capacity for our downtown workforce.
the assumptions in the central business district planning document make it very abundantly clear that we cannot sustain our current system of assigned parking, period.
it's unsustainable from a financial perspective and we can't buy enough land to build that kind of parking structure for all of our employees.
we just can't afford it.
and that's separate from the parking committee.
that was the consultant services that we brought in on looking at our needs to 2035.
there's just no way that we can -- that we can logistically or financially continue doing what we're doing.
I also want to bring up the statistics make it clear that for those of us who are in jobs that come and go a lot, it is most inefficient for us to have an assigned space because it means that our assigned space is grossly underutilized because we're coming and going.
actually it is more efficient for us to have an assigned pool than it is for us to have an assigned space.
because we come and go so much.
the positions that have the -- the greatest potential of maximizing a parking space are not us, it's actually folks who are in the clerical who are getting here at 7:30 in the morning and staying until 5:15 and not leaving for lunch.
those are the folks who are really maximizing the parking space, not us.
so it actually just from a pure utilization standpoint, it makes more sense to have assigned spaces to our clerical staff than it does to though of us who are constantly coming and going.
>> clerical people don't get too happy.
>> I also want to make it clear I know we're not voting on assigned or that part of the strategy and I'm not asking for specific assignment, but if we end up going that route, then I'm saying my staff really needs to have a resource that -- other than tenure to be able to have parking.
>> in a limited -- in a limited resource circumstance such as we have right now, and it's -- it's officially limited because we are assigning spaces rather than pooling, it's more limited than would it would be.
but I agree that tenure is a perfectly decent distribution for such a limited resource up to a point.
but I totally hear what you are saying.
we could greatly expand access to parking -- I think that although the employee committee who has looked at this for several years has done a tremendous job.
I think at some point we need to fish or cut bait, bring in management to take a look at our parking resources as a resource.
it is a resource that is paid for by the taxpayer and our priorities should be maximizing -- a distribution that maximizes the efficiency of government.
not a distribution that maximizes the convenience of those who have been here a long time.
I've been here for a long time.
I've been here for how many years now?
13 years?
which is not as long as some other people on the dais, but I do think that -- I think that we really need to kind of put on our belt and suspenders and really attack this as a efficiency of service provision question, not as a benefit question.
we can provide a greater degree of efficiency for both the services our employees deliver as well as the services that our client base seeks from us during the course of the day.
and then we also have to come to grips as we had an item earlier today with the fact that we have a tremendous amount of unused -- unused, not under utilized but unused parking after hours and we don't have any plan for that unutilized parking capacity after hours and it's becoming increasingly valuable as a capital resource.
>> but if you look at it, we also don't have any parking for the public who pays for that parking.
and so it makes it a little more difficult here in this building, but I know in 700 lavaca because it hasn't been filled yet, the second floor is at least available to the public and they can come and park.
I've always kind of felt badly that the public who pays for this facility and this service for us doesn't have anywhere to park.
>> and I believe the parking committee did a fairy comprehensive study of what other -- a fairly comprehensive study what other counties do regarding parking to the public and it was pretty remarkable to see that most of them don't provide free parking, they provide essentially subsidized parking.
there is some fee for it, but the fee varies greatly.
but I i do think that we need to look at this from a management perspective at this point.
no longer -- I believe we've gotten robust input both from our labor force at large as well as our tremendous committee of employees.
but I think at this point we really need to look at this from a management perspective and utilize the information we've gotten from the employees along with the information that we've gotten from our private consultants in the central business district planning effort.
it's abundantly clear this the documents we're getting from both directions that for every parking space we assign, we are going to cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of money and efficiency.
>> did the parking committee come cross about 500 employees that would like to come to work at 6:00 and work until 3:00 in the morning?
>> not yet, but I'm sure a flex schedule will be something a lot of them would be interested in.
>> as in law enforcement and in corrections most of them don't see that as a positive.
they see it as a pretty stiff requirement that comes with the job.
you know, they try to rotate the shifts.
no matter how you look at it, though, we are still 400 or 500 spaces short.
either we're going to move on this or we're not.
so if we put the zone parking versus assigned parking on the table, or on the shelf and try to deal with some of the other issues here, where are we?
can I raise one or two concerns?
>> certainly.
>> that I have?
one is that I don't -- I do think fairness is important and I got a staff of four and I have under the current policy three spaces, one for myself, two for the others.
and the recommendation is take one of those, which makes sense to me.
especially if you grandfather in those who already have assigned parking.
but there is a question of how do we enforce some of these policies.
it's kind of like visitor parking.
if there are ten spaces allocated, I mean how do we ensure that in fact visitors use them?
do we give some sort of -- I notice at u.t.
in you are a visitor at the president's office they give you like a vip thing to stick in your window.
and if you don't have that there, you really are likely to get towed.
do we plan to do something like that?
>> we could do that.
currently what we do for visitor spaces, it's much easier to tell who is parked in the visitor space that doesn't belong there.
our parking administrator also runs tags to see if they are a county employees so that's typically how we deal with enforcement at this time.
>> okay.
I also had a problem with the parking committee evaluating the performance of the -- sit parking administrator?
>> correct.
>> seems to me that a county staff person, a supervisor should do that.
>> well, to that issue what the committee talked about and why that's in there is because if you remember when you brought the committee together there was a different climate for parking and employees were not as trusting of the whole assignment process.
so we felt it was important to have some kind of audit and statement as to what the parking -- how well the parking administrator was adhering to the policy and that would not necessarily be binding.
certainly we're evaluated all of us are evaluated from customers, co-workers and this is mechanism to provide feedback to that management structure directed to the county executive in charge of parking and ccing that and they could do with it what they want.
>> can we make sure the language says that?
>> certainly.
>> seems to me the committee should help us evaluate the effectiveness of the policy changes.
so we need to tweak them over time, we'll get input to do that.
and I would have the parking administrator supervised by some manager and the evaluations written by that manager, but the parking committee providing appropriate input.
>> okay.
>> so the -- now, we really heard from the people with assigned parking more than anything else, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> and all of them were concerned about not losing their assigned parking.
so if they have it assigned right now, they are safe.
>> no.
>> they are not grandfathered?
>> who is grandfathered are when we talk about specified positions, those positions we were just discussing, the Commissioners, the court, the county executives, those positions specifically laid out in that chart are who would be grandfathered.
>> okay, what about all the other -- what about the employees who have been here ten, 12 years that have not --
>> every person who has assigned space is grandfathered.
the only impact that it makes is on the specified positions who as sydney described once that specified position person leaves office, the replacement person if brought in from outside would not have a specified position space.
but everybody who currently has an assigned space because of tenure or because of the way the parking assignments have been made in the past, for better or for worse, will retain their assigned space.
no one losing their space.
>> thank you for clarifying that.
>> we need to make sure the language says that.
>> it does.
it doesn't say specified position, it says every person with an assigned space which would include the rank and file, me, and it would include a specified position, your staff members.
>> the distinction here is that there are two issues that are related.
specified positions that have an assigned space and individuals who through tenure or some other mechanism under the old and, frankly, hinky system got a space.
right now under the policy we're only dealing with the specified positions.
>> well, the policy -- we're dealing with everything under the policy.
the mechanisms for how you would manage a zoned parking system or an assigned space system or whatever.
it has -- the whole shebang in there.
>> but what we leave to decide for another day --
>> is whether you are going to actually adopt a parking garage to be a zoned system.
>> correct.
so if we were to adopt what is the table today, it will not change the status of a person who currently has a numbered parking space that they park in.
>> correct.
>> that's correct.
>> just want to make that abundantly clear.
>> and the policy, again, doesn't advocate, there's no bias in the policy for zoned or nonzoned parking.
the committee -- parking facilities.
the committee was very split on this and we had many, many discussions and we know there's a big divergence among county employees about zoned -- a preference for zoned or nonzoned parking facilities.
the parking policy doesn't advocate zoned or nonzoned parking.
that's up to the court for future decisions to make -- to change the designation of a facility.
for example, to say we are making the granger garage a zoned facility, in which case everybody would lose their assigned numbered space.
>> but they would still have -- they would still have access to parking capacity, it just wouldn't be an assigned space.
but that decision is not on the table today.
>> correct.
>> that is not on the table today.
>> so if we take off the table today assigned parking versus zoned parking in the future, but make sure the language regarding grandfathering is as you say, now, a whole lot of people have read that language and come away with a different understanding.
so did we revise that from last week is this.
>> there was no language addressing grandfathering or the concept of grandfathering before.
11.003-e.
you can read that.
>> y'all go ahead and read it.
so everybody knows what we're doing.
>> it says 1.03, the proposed policy is any person who on the date that this policy is adopted has a parking space assigned to him or her in any county parking facility shall retain the privilege of using that space exclusively for the remainder of that person's employment unless the place for that person's office is located changes and that person decides to accept other parking at the new office location in which case the standards are determinative.
>> so for example if your office moves to 700 lavaca you have the option to retained your numbered space in this garage and walk down to the office at 700 lavaca or to move and to accept an assigned -- an assigned space in a zone in 700 lavaca in which case you will be subject to the zoning that is -- that governs that parking facility.
right now 700 lavaca is the only zoned garage the county has so it only affects employees moving into that.
>> and it is only zoned during a trial period and we will have a full discussion about whether that was an effective -- that is an effective management system for that garage.
at a future date.
>> well, this language, the privilege, I mean --
>> it is a privilege.
>> if we say shall retain the use or the right to use.
>> it's not a right.
that would be -- that would be setting up an unrealistic expectation.
>> sounds like two brother.
is too big brotherrish to me to tell 4500 employees -- we don't have that many parking spaces, but act like this is --
>> retain the use of that space.
>> that way it's simpler and maybe not as ambiguous as the other.
>> what if it was determined in the future that the zoned parking didn't work in 700 lavaca and all of those people who had given up their space then had moved to the zoned parking?
>> then they will --
>> get an assigned space.
>> -- be very happy because they will have a specifically assigned place in 700 lavaca.
unless, of course, they were in the trial period and they only had that as a -- as a temporary.
>> experiment.
>> we were discussing whether we delay that decision regarding zone parking until another time.
>> that's in October at the earliest.
>> my final question and I will be done for this part of it, but for the employees that ask how did you determine who would get one space versus two versus another number, what did we look at?
>> the committee looked at the organizational chart that's in the p.b.o.
budget book that's put out every year.
that was the basis as well as the intent of the original parking policy, and that's where that chart comes from and appendix e of this week's backup that shows what the original policy had in it, to come up with specific criteria to apply to this policy, looked at the organizational chart and used that structure to identify those three categories that we set before.
>> and did we give every visiting judge a parking space?
>> no.
there are five spaces for visiting judges.
>> judge aroho, there you go.
>> we did increase that number.
>> thank you, Commissioners and judge.
I just have actually one comment and the comment would be is is that -- and I'm not sure exactly where we are not having had an opportunity to sit through the whole discussion on this particular issue, was are we getting input from the departments before the affected department?
it sounds like everybody will be affected by this, before we adopt a -- before the Commissioners and this court adopt a policy.
that impacts every employee including the employees of the judges.
and so that was my -- our concern is are we opening it up to participation and input from the affected employees and departments.
>> the committee has records and it is from the civil and criminal courts on it.
>> my -- and we're asking I think we just left the district court judges and we realize this is on the agenda and realized we didn't know that -- that perhaps some of our positions are being affected by the parking policy, including our staff attorneys.
you know, they wouldn't have an assigned place.
I mean they have a place now, a place to park, but if they left, then we would -- but you're saying it's basically my understanding is they would loose that -- we would lose that spot because we only would have three assigned positions.
and so then in our staff attorneys would then go to the bottom of the list and start --
>> excuse me, sorry.
wherever they would be based on their hire date.
they might go to the middle of the policy.
>> I guess sense we said sob was on the committee we didn't recognize thatten a I was the only one available to come over here and discuss it with you and so I just -- my comment would be can we reserve adopting a policy without having input from the affected departments, more affected departments.
>> although the subcommittee has been in place for four years.
>> and I realize that.
we've gone dealing with zoning and all these other issues.
>> the committee was put together in attempt to have a cross-section.
there's been how many surveys of the employees done?
>> and I try to participate in your surveys.
>> so I mean we have had ample opportunity for participation, and I believe transparent to the point of almost overload of information as well -- not only from this group but also from the parking consultant who was a subcon under our central business district plan as well, who also did a presentation publicly to the Commissioners court.
>> and maybe perhaps and without seeing the policy, does the policy, if you have assigned only three positions, let's say to a court, I'm assuming that one is the judge, one is the court reporter and one is the bailiff or court operations officer is what we call them.
do you allow within that -- within the policy for the court to determine in fact which are the essential employees that require parking?
>> I think that --
>> is there some discretion in there?
>> it's
>> [inaudible] and we were careful to outline which positions because in that case if we left to it the departments, we run into the issue we have now where departments think they own the spaces as opposed to being part of the county's allocation of spaces.
>> this was from the people who work in the various courts who said -- and there was considerable debate and there was an issue whether we should just leave it to the judge's decision.
but after full debate in committee after a process of many months, it was determined the recommendation we would make to the court there would be three specified positions in addition to the judge's parking spot.
>> well, what I'm hearing is --
>> or two specified positions, sorry.
>> what I stated earlier, and I'm hearing different things from different folks, and I know we say the jury is still out and I think that was the last discussion I had, and, of course, I'm assuming that -- and I'm still supporting the portable -- if have you an assigned parking space, you ought not lose it, I don't care where you go in the county.
and I think people have -- have confusion on that.
you leave here, you go there, you lose it.
and, of course, that is not the intent I think of what I'm trying to look for as far as supporting it.
I think I laid it out pretty clear last time as far as me and my staff and there's other than my staff and I can hear what the judge is saying.
so you come up with a policy, per se, and if we take this assigned zoning stuff off the table, I think that's one thing.
but the portable, the portable assignment is very critically think in what we're trying to do here.
and there's no way in the world -- I'd like to hear from the public.
you know, and I hear from them that there's some resistance and some pushback from what's going on at the 700 lavaca building as far as zoning versus retaining a permanent assignment that you already have here.
example in this building, the granger building and the parking area behind this building.
so I'm -- it raises a ball of confusion for me and I think for others that feel that they need to retain their permanent parking places as if it's portable.
so I'm not -- you know, I hear what you are saying, I hear what you are saying, but I think the same concern is being echoed by a lot of folks.
>> but again the policy is as presented to us today for adoption is that if you have a parking space assigned to you today, you will have a parking space -- you can keep that parking space or if your office moves to another building have a parking space there if it's an assigned lot or parking capacity there if it's a pooled lot.
and there's only one lot that's pooled right now and that's 700 lavaca, and there's no guarantee it will remain pooled.
so again the recommendation today is that if you have an assigned spot, it is portable.
you will continue to have an assigned spot if you move to another building, or a pooled spot if that garage is pooled.
but there's only one that is pooled and only one under pilot.
>> I'm not understanding.
what I'm hearing talking about here today that if you lose this spot here, and under that 11.003-e, you lose that slot here in this granger building, in that parking garage right behind this building here, if you lose that and you move over to the other building, do you take that assignment with you to the other building, period?
>> you don't lose the space.
when your department head tells you that your office is moving to 700 lavaca, and only 700 lavaca, you have the option of retaining a numbered space in this garage, in the granger garage, which would be you have to walk a couple blocks to 700 lavaca, or you would give up that space and you would take a space in 700 lavaca parking garage.
because 700 lavaca parking garage is currently zoned, you would be assigned a zoned rather than a numbered space.
>> that's exactly what time talking about.
and I think you laid it out just as I said.
and, of course, we've had some pushback from persons -- and from employees that do not want to, you know, they want to carry that portability over to their building even though you said zoned, and that's part of the problem.
so it's no way in the world that these folks that have permanent parking here should be penalized for losing a slot over here or where they can't be portable to the next building.
they shouldn't be penalized and you are punishing folks for that and I'll never agree with it.
>> but they can elect to keep the space here.
>> correct.
>> right, but walk all the way down to -- walk all the way down to 700 lavaca.
>> but if we retain zoned parking they don't have a specific assigned space, they have a right to participate in zoned parking.
>> they will have a space for sure.
they look not be without parking space.
they will be -- they will just have a parking space assigned to them in a zone rather than a parking space that has a number.
>> Commissioner Huber and then Commissioner Eckhardt again.
>> I wanted to go back to what the judge was asking because we've had a long process here.
we've had a committee that -- and done surveys and gotten input, but my question to the parking committee is other than agenda backups, has this recommended assignment schedule been given to all the department heads?
>> yes, it has been given to all the department heads.
>> and all the judges and --
>> that was included in this week's backup.
and I did have some personal conversations with, for example, judge livingston in much case she brought up the staff attorney issue.
>> that's why I'm here.
>> I mean because in fairness it seems like that there should have been, you know, ample time for those people to at least review it and have comment on it.
and I -- has the time been amp.
>> let me say that the committee -- these are our recommendations, but we've separated out these specified positions as a kind of separate topic because we were relatively agnostic about it because we understand that folks like judge naranho might come in and so we put the burden on you all.
>> that's why I'm asking the question.
>> so if you want to change the numbers, the committee doesn't particularly have any real concern about that.
this is our best guess under the available evidence that we had to us.
>> I think -- Commissioner, I'm sorry, I know you were going to call on Commissioner Eckhardt.
and that's the point is that, you know, just getting -- getting the recommendation this week is -- and I know there's been a lot of hard work and there's been surveys, et cetera, but now we have a recommendation.
it's the recommendation that we're looking at and realizing this -- how does that impact each and every one of us.
and then taking out the discretion of -- from the court to be able to say I have -- I may right now only be given three -- three parking spaces, and I may elect to have my staff attorney, who probably comes in when I come in and I need their instead of perhaps the court operations officer.
you take out that discretion, it can cause a problem, I think.
especially if you are eliminating a parking space once you've got an attorney who -- we've got a turnover on attorneys, once they leave and we no longer have a parking space for that individual and now we're having four individuals vying for coveted parking spaces, and we all know they are coveted and we understand the dilemma that is county is in as relates to parking spaces.
so I -- and my comment would be just to get more input before you adopt a policy about now that we have a hard recommendation from the committee, now you have a recommendation that you can review and have some discussion and input from the affected departments and county employees.
>> judge.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> this hard recommendation has been reset three times.
so it has been out there in the world for some time now.
and also the circumstance that you describe is the same circumstance that all of our offices face in a limited resource circumstance.
I too have that issue.
I have two assigned spaces in my office.
one is assigned for my office administrator, but I have a policy director and an intergovernmental relations person as well.
so I provide them from my campaign account a stipend for their parking.
I understand that the auditor's office also does that for employees of hers that do not have the longevity to achieve parking spaces, and she feels that it may be a deal break insurance getting the kind of people she needs in those positions.
that's how I feel about my positions.
this is something all of us are coming up against with the limited resource distributed as it is which is assigned spot.
we would have less of an issue under a pooled circumstance, which is not up for decision today, but I would like leslie to inform us on the assumptions with regard to the central business district.
while leslie is coming up, the longevity on the court of staff is probably longer than six years.
is that true, judge naranjo?
>> especially with today's economy, I think people are staying with the county a lot longer than we used to.
we don't have the turnover like we used to.
>> for those folks they are likely to get an assigned space on the longevity distribution model.
but -- but I agree with you, the issue of a staff attorney, which I would imagine has a higher degree of turnover, that is going to be an issue if that is not the elected spot.
if that position isn't a designated position.
>> and that's why I kind of focus then on perhaps giving that department the discretion.
>> I know, but discretion is an issue.
how about the judges deciding that instead of the bailiff they are -- they want their staff attorney to be the assign position because bailiffs have a tendency to have considerable longevity and are likely to have a space under the longevity position.
>> I don't think we ought to care about that discretion.
if I'm on vacation a week, I tell my staff members -- my staff members have parking spaces, but if you want to park close to the third floor door, my space is available but I'll be back Monday morning.
there's so good in what I do.
>> [laughter]
>> you have a micro pool in your staff.
>> but all the employees do that.
if somebody is on vacation and you know they are on vacation whether they are in your department or not, use their space, don't let it go to waste.
>> exactly the concept --
>> the thing is that the judges' space, the visiting judge is usually there.
that's how we've been using our assigned position if we're on vacation or out of the office, our vj's that's the parking space they are supposed to use.
the same with the court reporter which we have to have a substitute court reporter if they are on vacation and they use their assigned spot because they are coming in for a limited time.
so that was my concern was to meet some discretion with the department head.
>> well, judge --
>> limited positions.
>> I think, judge, that this Commissioners court still has some discretion in this issue, and I believe in October -- and right now it is zoned, but in October I think we cannot -- you know she those, tt support zone, fine, those that don't, fine.
but to lift the zone out of this particular garage.
I think, in other words, the jury is still out.
I think I have said that over again so I don't think all is lost, but I do think that this court is going to have to come to addition whether to continue with the zone concept that is readily realized there, or when hearing enough input as far as what I'm hearing from folks saying they don't care for this zoning situation, I think the court still has an opportunity to vote to do away with that zoning type concept.
so it's not over.
and I want to make sure folks know that because I've been getting input from folks that are not pleased at all with their situation.
but then you have others that say hey, it's a great idea.
but again, as we stated before, and I think you and those folks that you think are critical as far as having those assigned spots, you know, when you need them, I think it's critical to a whole bunch of folks in Travis County.
so the jury is still out and we still have a chance to vote on zoning versus not being zoned.
>> the questions I have for leslie, just to set this in context, not that this is what is voting on today, the policy is agnostic with regard to zoned or assigned spaces, but to put it in context, leslie, in our 2035 plan, will we have enough parking capacity for all of our downtown employees?
>> the parking analysis was based on a few refinement factors.
if you may remember, there was an assumption concerning how many people would use alternative transportation and those sorts of things based on the parking consultant's expertise.
within that context the parking for the master plan was sized based on primarily zoned parking with the exception of the secure parking that's required for courts related and tcso, central booking related staff.
and I can't remember the increment, if it was the judge plus one or two.
I'd have to go back to the documents.
so the master plan includes a mixed system which separates along the line of where we have secured parking versus unsecured.
and for the unsecured parking, it's all zoned.
and so any movement away from the utilization rate that could be achieved with fully zoned parking, you would then run out of parking before 2035.
because remember, building out parking all the way to 2035 gives us a large excess capacity for considerable period of time which we have said we can use for public parking that might also generate some revenue to help off set the cost of building that parking.
so some day, however much parking you build, it will run out.
it's just a question of how you choose to use it while you have it.
so there I think are many points of time when you get put your foot on the gas or great lakes with what's going on with public transportation, carpool and those things moving forward.
the big water fall will be when we build the large garage across the street because we've decided in the master plan recommendations that a centralized parking facility is the most fundable and manageable for all of the functions in this section of the downtown up here near the heman sweat marion courthouse to be used by staff and public in the nonsee secured parking.
for the several family courthouse, the master plan is proposing 500-space parking capacity to meet the staff needs at 2035 which would provide for some public parking capacity in the earlier years.
>> and how much is the estimate, the rough estimate for the construction of the single parking space?
>> above ground is $15,000 per space.
that's for an above ground garage.
and I'm sorry, I didn't bring that number with he me, but it's --
>> considerably more.
>> considerably more.
closely double that to go subgrade.
future as we like to say on the master planning team, if you are going to dig a big hole, dig it once and it's there to use for a long time.
>> so if we are under youth liesing our parking capacity by 20% by not going to zoned, that's a considerably larger price tag if we stick with assigned parking and have to build 20 to 40% additional parking spaces.
>> or you don't have the parking and you get back into the situation of waiting list.
but the master plan assumes no waiting list.
at least up until 2035.
assuming that's split between secured assigned park and zoned parking I just have a couple of comments.
in using office accounts to pay for off site parking some of our contributors may or may not appreciate that use of funds.
secondly, I didn't know the auditor had an office holder account but that's what it sounded like.
>> sorry about that.
that was a mis-- a mischaracterization.
>> it really should be a consideration of what's more efficient in the delivery of county services.
>> I think with should have a motion to consider.
here's what I recommend.
that we pull out the zoned versus assigned parking issue.
>> that we change the language to make sure that the parking administrator answers to a county manager, but with input from the parking committee.
and we look at the enforceability issues over the next 90 days.
the parking deal.
barbara wilson does a good job of racing other issues that I think warrant consideration.
but I think we ought to put in place for 90 days what is left of the recommended policy.
and I think the judge is right when you have a specific policy that you are looking at that's a whole lot different than hearing that the parking committee is taking input from this, this and that.
and in 90 days, basically that will give you a opportunity to get a report regarding the zoned parking place at 700 lavaca, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> which we promise to do.
so if we plan to bye this bring thisback for final actionk we allow additional opportunity for public input, and we may want to have a public hearing.
but if we have a public hearing, then I think we ought to have that after the zoned parking where we can instead of talking about reports that address that issue, we'll be able to talk a little about our experience and then it will be experience over, what, an eight or nine-month period so we ought to have a pretty good feel for it.
that will give us a chance to get out the word that if you have assigned parking today, you really are grandfathered.
there are actions you can take to cost you that, but we will still provide parking capacity, just not signed parking at another location, but you will maintain the right to keep parking in whatever space you have based on the policy that we're looking at.
and if others have other ideas, better ideas to give us an opportunity to get them between now and December, but we give notice, hey, early December before the first of 2012, the court plans to take action on this issue.
>> second.
>> and that's three or four hopefully little things, but it ends up adopting on a pilot basis what the committee recommends.
and since I have a second I'm bold enough to put that in the form of a motion.
>> you are talking a 90-day pilot so the vote would end ought 90 days or be up for reup.
>> right.
>> does this schedule of assigned parking, is that included in your vote today?
>> and that schedule really gives assignments to different departments.
like the county judge will end up with two including himself instead of three including himself.
you know, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.
this is for 90 days.
and my people are tough enough where this for 90 days won't run them away.
>> we're talking about their parking places.
>> I was overlooking that.
>> this list doesn't change for your offices as well because those employees currently don't have assigned parking.
>> that's right.
I was more thinking about the --
>> [inaudible].
>> to give real urgent input, we kind of need to put in place what we're thinking about adopting permanently unless we leave it out altogether.
to that extent I would say let's adopt for 90 days a recommended assignment.
>> okay.
>> discussion?
on the motion?
>> yeah, judge, I stepped off the dais.
could you maybe go through your motion again?
because I would like to make sure -- because my concern -- my concern is what I had stated earlier and that is to make sure that we have a chance to -- right now the situation is -- over there is zone parking.
of course, sometime in the future we're going to have to look at this for what it is.
we've had pushback and there's some discomfort right now in the persons that have already been assigned over there dealing with the zone parking situation.
and somewhere along this process we'll have to I think make a determination or a vote to determine zone versus assigned or whichever, but right now the jury is still out, as I stated earlier on that.
now, I've heard different concerns from the judges and a lot of other folks that zone may pose a problem.
so what -- the motion that you are making is to do what at this point?
>> the motion that I made would delay a final decision on zoned versus assigned parking.
>> delay it?
>> until December.
>> all right, well, I can support that if that's what your motion is.
>> that's my motion.
>> all right.
>> now, the motion is intended to give us an opportunity to get a report back regarding the zoned parking that's been in place over there four or five months.
>> understood.
>> right?
but we would delay that.
but -- and we make a couple minor changes, but the important thing is as to what departments would get assigned spaces and how many, we would adopt the parking committee's recommendation on a 90-day pilot basis.
you hear what I'm saying?
but we would indicate our intention to address this whole matter again in early December and take final action by the first of the year.
>> okay.
>> and I think if we do it that way, everybody will approach it a bit more urgently than if we indicate we're thinking about it.
>> I can support that motion.
based on what you just said.
>> that will give the judges a chance if they want to make a case for more spaces for visiting judges, at least there will be that opportunity to do that.
>> thank you.
I think that would take care of it.
we would be able to give some input on the visiting judges and staff attorneys, et cetera.
>> and I guess it will be pretty uniform, I think, because there are others out there other than the judges that may have same, similar concerns.
so it just appears to me whatever we do here today, somewhere within this 90-daytime line that we're dealing with, there will be some conduit to provide all the necessary input that we possibly can so we can come up with a pretty informed final decision of what we're going to end up doing here.
and judge is one person here, but there are other judges, there are other persons in this community other than that department that really need to come to the table and bring their issues.
I really think that is a good suggestion that you are coming up as far as the 90-day delay, judge.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> do I understand that the civil district courts under the old policy that we would be replacing only have one assigned space and under the proposed policy they now have three?
>> well, what -- the original policy has one for the judge and then it also had a section for court administration.
a criminal court administration and civil court administration.
what the committee did was thought it would be more important to break that out and specify by court so us a add new courts it's clear how the spaces would be added for that court.
>> but in effect it creates more assigned spaces for the district court than they currently have under policy.
>> correct.
>> how many spaces does our precinct 2 Commissioner have?
>> actually the same as every other Commissioner.
>> any more discussion?
>> based on tenure.
>> no, I actually don't have tenure.
I have one assigned space and one pooled space -- one assigned space and two pooled pilot spaces.
>> she's a team player, y'all.
any more discussion?
>> I don't use the assigned space.
the person in my office is there most of the time.
>> you see that discretionary authority is this.
>> no, that was assigned space, it was assigned to executive assistant, not me.
>> on the third floor?
uh-huh.
I gave up mine, the executive assistant assigned position is -- is to the person who is in my office more hours than the others.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
see what you did for us?
>> [laughter]
>> thank you for the opportunity to be here.
I have to say you missed a wonderful opportunity.
I thought you were going to take his phone away from him.
which would have happened in my court, you know that.
>> I'm going to send ronnie reeferseed over to your court.
>> thank you all very much, committee.
>> thank you, judge.
>> appreciate your hard work.
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.
