Travis County Commissioners Court

March 20, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 25

View captioned video.

>> everybody here on 25? 25 is receive update on issues related to a proposed pilot program with parking mobility and take appropriate action.
and we note here that the item may be taken into executive session with consultation under the consultation with attorney exception to the the open meetings act, and I simply indicated that note because last time there were two or three legal issues that surfaced during our discussion.
and so they may well surface today.
I think it would help the court to -- roger, a brief discussion where we are today, then we will try to identify the issues.

>> roger jeffries, justice and public safety, here with ronnie mills who is a planner in our department.
we forwarded a memo last week with the status of where we are with parking mobility.
just a quick recap, back in December we forwarded a forward to y'all for parking mobility to provide us some training around use of their application.
it was a proposal around $16,000.
parkings mobility sometime in January forwarded a counter proposal to us for $167,000 for some technology development and for some staff salary.
it was to provide the application and do some programming around the application to make it fit for Travis County.
at that time -- we have a very informal stakeholder group that includes purchasing office, constable coe elfant's office.
it was discovered -- parking mobility is the county fund 100,000 in a six-month pilot.
it should probably be competitively bid.
that issue is currently outstanding.
should the program if we choose to go that route be competitively bid are there other vendors who could provide the technology to do the same type of thing.
the suspected is just a cost itself.
we had forwarded a proposal of 16,000.
it has come back now 167 for six months and I would imagine with anticipation of a contract following the pilot.
and then finally, in the proposal there is a development cost that would require our i.t.s.
department get involved.
I think our understanding initially was parking mobility app was a turn key kind of thing that you could just use.
it looks like there is probably going to have to be some programming and interface with our systems to make it work as far as if the route is chosen to do electronic submission of the parking citations.
so I knows those are very clinical and sort of county process related, but from our perspective that's where we are.

>> the program and interface requirement, whose opinion is that?

>> well, that is -- if you look at the contracts as proposed, there are some scope in there that involve our i.t.s., would have to involve our i.t.s.
department.

>> did we talk to our i.t.s.
personnel?

>> they've been forwarded proposal, yes.
they are new to this.

>> they really have not been involved that much to date?

>> right.
up until very recently.

>> okay.
court members, any questions of roger? Mr. Spradley.

>> I'm the lead person for parking mobility here in central Texas.
there are a couple of issues that kind of confused me a little bit about the summary that mr. Jeffries gave.
from the beginning, and this has been a months long process, the parking mobility has been engaged with the county, but from the beginning I believe it was expressed there would be interface with the county systems and that was one of the things we actually asked for i.t.
if there was a need for them to be there and they told us that that was kind of premature.
the other end of it is that we're -- parking mobility is not just technology that addresses our reports handicapped parking abuse.
what it is is a program to engage the community in education and that technology is a big part of that.
violation reporting is a key to it and the technology is important, but it is also that we have to engage the people.
we have to engage the volunteer program.
and -- and that's where we come in with this -- with our proposed contract.
the initial contract that was proposed to us for 16,000 was essentially just for the technology, just for the reporting.
that's not at all what we're proposing.
just reporting violations is not going to address the issue.
the issue is a denial of access, a civil rights issue for people with disabilities to be able to access their community and access their services.
it is a health and safety issue.
it's a civil rights issue.
and it's an issue that's important to the citizens of Travis County.
so that's our proposal.
that was our proposal from the very beginning.
that remains our proposal that we're providing a program that addresses the ability to end disabled parking abuse in Travis County.
we have proposed that across the state.
we have numerous jurisdictions that are looking at Travis County as taking the lead on this so that we can go statewide and ultimately nationwide with with this program.
we also feel that with with the r.f.p.
process, there is no one else out there that offers the technology that we offer.
there is no one else out that offers the full program that we offer, nor would they.
it's not -- it's not a good business model because what we do is we essentially put ourselves out of business over time.
by ending disabled parking abuse.
so under that sole source we fit firmly in that.
there have been exhaustive searches by the city of Austin and other entities looking at competitive-type technology and there's nothing out there.
not to mention the entire program aspect.
we also feel that as a professional service we would qualify for a waiver under the -- under the state -- or under the procurement regulations.
also under health and safety of citizens.
and this is a health and safety issue.
the perfect example of that yesterday, I spent 45 minutes in a parking lot waiting for someone to move their vehicle for me to be able to get into my vehicle.
had it been the middle of August, I would have been an issue.
so we feel it is under this court's jurisdiction and this court's ability to waive that r.f.p.
process and we request that you do so in order for us to move forward with this project.

>> I thought from the very beginning that we wanted to kind of look at a pilot to see how this would work.
how could we make it work in such a way that it would enhance what constable 5 was already doing.
and so then I think we got off into other issues that -- that kind of complicates it.
but is it possible to do a pilot to enhance constable 5 without complicating the whole thing? And then we would have a model to present to other cities, other counties in Texas and in other states.

>> right.
and I'll just start out by saying I have the utmost respect for all the stakeholders involved.
I'm very emotional on this issue.
I've been fighting for this cause for several years.
and sometimes I come across as pushy.
but I firmly believe that parking mobility is needed to end the abuse.
I know the technology can be replicated by, you know, any -- you know, programming house.
the technology is not parking mobility.
parking mobility is a -- is a nonprofit project that is educating and empowering.
educating the society to become aware of the issues and stop parking illegally, and then empowering people with disabilities to actually be a participant in that solution.
very powerful stuff.
when we met with senator kirk watson, he understood exactly what we are trying to do.
he agrees that raising these minimum fines continually beyond $500 is counter product active because courts will just dismiss.
it's already a very high fine.
parking mobility turns the fine upside down.
it leverages that fine.
to make a difference.
go beyond reactive and go to proactive.
so and when we approached Travis County and bruce elfant in August 1 of last year, we wanted to do it without any up front costs at all, but there were certain concerns within the county that requires us to change our program to fit Travis County.
and that's where the pilot escalated in cost.
most of the pilot cost is programming, customizing for Travis County.
so I want the avoid hammering out single issue prior to the pilot.
I think Travis County deserves a pilot.
you know, we can integrate with Travis County systems after we start the pilot.
we can do paper tickets for the first three months of the pilot and then sit down with i.t.s.
and say, you know, is -- do you want this scale of program and if so you are going to have to do automation.
beyond 30 volunteers, city of houston has 1,000 volunteers.
1,000 volunteers.
that's the approach that you need to take to end this problem.
and city of houston -- city of houston didn't want to be number 1.
we approached them last summer and they said we want to be number 2.
we want someone else to go first.
so we came to Austin, we came to Travis County and said this is what your citizens need.
and city of houston last month told us we're not waiting anymore, we're going to go ahead and do it.
and so city of houston is going to be the first program.
but Travis County, we worked so hard and I appreciate all the time we go

>> [indiscernible] everywhere the courts, but it's deserving.
like, Austin is so deserving.
I'm not one for government waste.
I hate government waste.
but what this is, 200 tickets collected pays for the pilot.
200 tickets.
constable elfant's program, 1200 tickets a year manual processed with 30 individuals.
it's -- I appreciate that you are safeguarding taxpayer money and citizen interests, but I can tell you it's a huge problem, it's a huge problem for a segment of the society that doesn't voice their concerns.
it's -- there are so many obstacles to a life of someone with a disability that they just take it on the chin.
they see a violation and they access it and they move on.
but it hurts every single time.
and, you know, $100,000 may seem like a lot of money, it's not.
you will get it back in the fines.
and you will get it back ten fold in improved accessibility for people who need access.
if I can say one more thing, the incident I incurred last Thursday where there were four spots and they were all violators and the hash marks in between them were violators.
I went to a a.p.d.
sergeant.
I asked him to report it.
his answer, there are more important things in life.
if law enforcement is not going to do their part, volunteers are needed to do do.
mobility beyond empowerment and education, it's more inclusive.
citizens with a wide variety of disabilities can participate.
they are empowered.
it's safer.
it's quicker.
if it takes 20 minutes to report a violation using a current method, they are

>> [indiscernible] to safety concerns.
parking mobility, three mince they are done.
I understand the needs or the desire to look at other technology or talk to other contractors about developing this technology.
I think that's going down the wrong path.
the right path is to recognize a disenfranchised segment of society that's taking their own time and their own money to develop a great program that solves their number one issue in life.
in accessing daily life.
and reward them by investing back in them.
I mean, this is a powerful moment that Travis County has to lead.
all we're asking is $100,000 to show you.
I will guarantee you you will get the ticket fines that pays for that in spaced.
spaced -- spades.
I'll guarantee it.
in fact, I'll writ it into the contract.
it's important to see parking mobility not as technology but as a program, as a community engagement program to solve this problem because otherwise the problem will just continue.
writing tickets, you have other technology to write tickets, this is nothing, it's reactive.
we need to be proactive and parking mobility is proactive.
thank you.

>> well, it seems to me, just kind ever listening to the issue now as I did before that, you know, gosh, what price is there for civil rights.
I don't think that's -- you know, as much as we've talked about civil rights all these years, did it take this kind of effort to put all those civil rights in place? I guess it did.
but it just seems to me like we ought to be able to do something in a -- find a way for us to be able to put a pilot in place to test it.
it's a testing thing that we need to do.
and see how it works.
and then we can figure out does it need to be absorbed by Travis County or not.
I mean, it seems to me like maybe it ought to be a stand-alone group that we would contract with if it's going to be, you know, that complicated.
it just doesn't seem -- I can't see why it needs to be so complicated.

>> may I say it's not complicated.

>> but we complicate it.

>> I don't know.
but on day one someone could use their app, their phone and we would provide constable elfant with a colorful gps ticket that resembles what they have now.
but it would be a paper ticket.
it wouldn't require any integration, but it would require someone in constable elfant's staff to then take that ticket, type that data into two separate systems and then -- so that's the log jam.
that's the only integration we're talking about where with our technology they hit a button and it enters the data into two separate systems safely and securely.
I have 30 years of i.t.
computer programming experience.
we'll work with your i.t.
staff.
I know we can get it done.

>> so is constable elfant in agreement?

>> I have not spoken to constable elfant in some time, but he was -- he understands that the scale of that program.

>> okay, the tickets that are issued inside the city of Austin.

>> yes.

>> would they go to municipal court or come to our j ps?

>> it depends --

>> [indiscernible].

>> but the ones that are issued within the city, they come to j.p.s?

>> it may.
depends on who your volunteers are.
if it's Austin -- if it's Austin volunteers, they will go to Austin's municipal court.
if they are Travis County volunteers, they will go to j.p.
court.

>> okay.
constable?

>> any tickets written through our program will go to j.p.
court.

>> you heard what mr. Spradling said would be expected of your office.
are you in agreement?

>> of what's expected of my office?

>> tickets have to be fund through precinct 5 constable.

>> right.

>> so we take the -- I guess the copy from technology, come up with a hard copy to file this the j.p.
court?

>> yes.
ideally it gets filed with the j.p.
court electronically.
that would be the real payoff for us on this program is that we don't have to have a printed ticket and it just -- it passes through all the way to the j.p.
court electronically so we don't have to do data entry, we don't have to deal with reading people's handwriting, we don't have to manually look up license plate numbers to see who the driver or the owner of the vehicle.
that would be the ultimate payoff for us.

>> but we have to have the j.p.'s cooperation to do it.

>> yes.

>> have they signed on?

>> yes, we met with judge evans and is he in complete agreement with the procedural process of the program.
he -- he believes

>> [indiscernible].

>> although he expressed concern about the pay structure of the program.

>> initially he had some concerns because we did have a per ticket cost structure in there.
we've totally removed that from the process now.

>> do we have -- my question was the counter proposal, the counter proposal is essentially to -- for the county to significantly subsidize the startup.

>> oh, no.
I put in $670,000.
this is not a startup subsidy.

>> but at least from the back it appears that the annual budget is 160 and -- and in the counter proposal Travis County would be asked to pick up 100,000 of the 160,000 annual budget.

>> yes.

>> that's just for the Travis County.

>> this is six months.

>> oh, for six months.
so the -- the budget for parking mobility for only six months is 160,000.

>> a lot of that consists of the programming that Travis County's parameters require.
this is customization to the parameters that Travis County has laid out.
you know, our program is to --

>> right, and my question actually was more toward our protocol.
I was wondering from criminal justice planning and planning and health and human services, the two most likely divisions, are there any other contracts in which we just take on a personal of the annual cost of the nonprofit? I know that we -- at least we have tried to contract for services and not actually paid the staffing, fringe benefit, infrastructure costs of nonprofit organization.

>> our contracts are structured as fee for service in criminal justice planning so that would be correct for us.

>> how would the $100,000 be glued if the county --

>> to pay person fell, to pay for contracting, to pay for development, to pay for hosting of the systems that will provide the services to Travis County.
I mean, it's -- that's not our annual budget in our proposal.
that is the costs which are directly tied to doing the project for Travis County.

>> I would like one clarification and not to be contrary, but I'm not aware we have laid out any parameters to be costed.
to my knowledge there's not a scope of work that we've developed that is reflected in the budget.
does that make sense? I don't know that -- like, for example, I don't know what it would take for our i.t.
department to do interface ultimately.
I don't know what it would take for our i.t.
department to work with you to program the app so that it spits out paper items in pdfs that resemble what the constable needs to process the citation.

>> we will do everything for you except for your i.t.s.
department has to open up an a.p.i.

>> is that something they can do in two, three weeks?

>> well --

>> and why don't we -- let's get the answer to that question, then let's get your comment.

>> joan robinson.
I'm curious, you talk about it being proactive and this is obviously an important thing to decrease people, violators, but it sounds like we're really just talking about increasing the ticketing of violators and because I'm not hearing the other side and I'm wondering if there is real evidence that having more tickets causes fewer people to do it.
are the same people repeating?

>> our program is that we charge $200 per ticket.
Travis County had an issue with that.
so in houston

>> [indiscernible].
in Austin

>> [indiscernible].
the pilot is just simply to prove the technology and that the technology is safer, quicker and easier, more effective for government.
at the end of the pilot, we would then evaluate whether Travis County wanted to do our community education component or just do the straight ticketing.
so parking mobility's core is community education.
if,.

>> but the pilot is ticketing.

>> yes.
and I will defer to law enforcement, but, you know, when someone gets a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, they wear a seat belt.
so when we get a thousand dollar ticket for parking they are not going to do it again.

>> can I ask mr. Elfant.

>> okay.

>> the fees have increased a lot.
have we seen any decrease from -- or do we make sure that they are not repeat offenders?

>> no, unfortunately we haven't seen much of a decrease and we started this in 93 and the tickets are -- we will this year we will have written more than 1200 tickets.
so, you know, all these years unfortunately increasing the fines ten fold haven't knocked it down the way we hoped.
we don't know what it would have been if the fines were $50.
it not what we had hoped over 20 years.

>> do you track repeat violators?

>> we see some, but not a lot.
I'll tell you for our viewing audience we see it around the capitol a lot during the legislative session.

>> I have a question.
I realize there is a huge on problem but I'm confused.
I'm hearing overlapping jurisdictions on enforcement my question centers on the city of Austin.
do they have a program that's separate?

>> yes.

>> has there been dialogue with them on how this program would dove-tail?

>> so for many years city of Austin has a separate program with totally separate volunteers.
and they do about 1,000 to 1200 tickets a year.
and Travis County has had -- Travis County was the first program in the state.
and so Travis County has their own volunteers that generate their own tickets.
so -- so we are dealing with the city.
we wanted to have a collaborative pilot process with the city and Travis County, that made sense, but Travis County -- city of Austin when someone does a pilot, they are precluded from actually being considered for the full program.
and so they said we're not going to do a pilot with you.
so -- so they -- they decided they are just going to implement parking mobility straight up on the city side.

>> they did express interest dove-tailing with Travis County if and when Travis County decided to go to a full program, that they would then collaborate on that full program, but they did not feel a collaboration and a pilot made sense.

>> do we know what the city of Austin program is.

>> as of this morning, from assistant city manager mcdonald's office, they said we could say this, they are going to competitively bid a program like this and they are going to have an r.f.p.
on the street in April.

>> so that -- I would ask to you contact jason alexander.
was he the person you spoke with?

>> yes.

>> he was.
I am confounded, just confounded that we fall under four points of the l.g.t.
for exemptions and competitive bid.
four points.
public health and safety, damage to public property, professional service, soul source.
service, -- sole source.
how can governments make it so hard for the disabled community to actually empower themselves and make a difference?

>> actually I think through competitive bid we might be able -- and perhaps the county could participate in a partnership with the city on a competitive bid so that we could develop software cheaper, collaboratively and empower more of the disabled community to provide this empowering volunteer service.

>> so what you are saying is several years of investment and activism, we bring you the idea, then you decide we can do it cheaper.

>> well, yours may be the best.

>> well, I mean ours is the best no matter what.
but I mean, it's not a --

>> and when I say yours, I mean your software.

>> right.
and again, I have -- I have respect for everyone here, but this is not -- this should not be a cost issue.
the fine is so high, the fine is not there for governments to collect money and fund the general fund.
the fine is there to end abuse.
and you can do that through technology, empowerment, community education, and that's what we do.
it's -- it -- I'm just confounded.

>> okay, let's get the answer to the i.t.
question.

>> hi, good morning, david from information and technology services.
when we went into the brazos project about a year ago for the brazos ticket writers, we poised ourself to be able to receive other information from other vendors.
at the time we created tables within our interagency database on the tiburon system.
those tables allow us to take information from other vendors and poise that information along with the brazos technology information to send to the j.p.
court project that we have ongoing right this minute.
so I don't believe to initially receive the information from this vendor we would have to work very hard at it.
again, we poised ourself for these kind of contingencies for other departments like d.p.s.
and some others.

>> would it take a week or two weeks?

>> I think to receive their information as long as they format it the way they need it within a couple weeks we should be able to receive it into those tables we have.
delivering it to the courts obviously waits to courts project.

>> any other i.t.
related question?

>> I don't believe so, sir.
I mean, I've talked to the current --

>> before the Commissioners court.

>> I'm sorry, sorry?

>> that was for court members.

>> I'm sorry.

>> any other questions, court members?

>> yes, judge, thank you.

>> i.t.
related?

>> no.

>> thank you very much.
Commissioner Davis.

>> you know, we've heard a lot of testimony and I think and I applaud you for bringing this -- this issue up before the Travis County Commissioners court.
and, of course, my concern is that we provide some type of immediate relief for those folks that are disabled and need parking and designated handicapped parking spots not only the city but in fact my opinion throughout the entire county.
how do we get there? What we're discussing here today.
of course, we've heard the city of Austin involvement.
we've heard Travis County involvement.
we've heard municipal court vomit.
vomit-involvement.
we've heard j.p.
involvement, 5 involvement in different levels and what we've heard from the different departments that are representing this concern.
again, I want to make sure that whatever we end upcoming up with will be a model whereby we will have to ensure that those persons that are violating the law as far as not allowing a person that's qualified to have a handicapped slot get that slot and are really adamant about with that.
and I'm really adamant about that.
again, I need to figure out how can we get there because, again, I would like to see it go through every municipality in Austin, not just Austin, but every municipality in Travis County ought to have some type of similar program.
in my opinion.
now, I know of persons that have received a $500 ticket for not parking in the right hand capped -- parking in handicapped slot.
even though I was going in the store for a few minutes and they got ticketed.
and they have told -- and I've heard this also, that they will never park in a slot again.
never.
now, I bet when you issue out citations again I bet you won't have repeat performance by this person that received a citation, so it is a deterrent.
it is a deterrent.
and I want to aggressively get there with you to provide the kind of relief that you are seeking.
seeking.
I'm in full support of that.
every municipality ought to have a similar to stop abusing handicapped parking.
of course, there's some twists and turns and things that I think we need to come up with, but I think we can get there.
and I want to thank you all for coming down here.
thank you.

>> I appreciate your comments.
I really do.
the good thing about what -- if the county engages in a project like this, the municipalities don't really have to.
because if you are a citizen of Travis County and you become a volunteer, you can write a ticket anywhere within Travis County.
that's the power that Travis County has geographically.
instead of having to go to every single municipality, it's done if you guys do it.
I'm sorry, if the court does it.
you know, just looking at the l.g.c.
on competitive bids, you know, I saw on the agenda today that the court will consent to giving sole source

>> [indiscernible].
I'm a lawyer.
I know there are other resources out there that does lexus nexis and yet you are giving sole source to them.
the example I sent the court about these cell phone providers, at&t wireless and verizon, the court gave an exemption to them.
if you read the l.g.t., it says that counties have a discretionary exemption power for an item necessary to preserve or protect the public health or safety of Travis County residents.
if you or someone you care for was in a wheelchair, abuse affects public safety and public health.
you know, in addition to reporting -- reporting mobility identifies a lot of -- allows the individual to notify when a sign has been defaced or missing.
that's public property.
that's another cause under the l.g.t.
a broad clause of professional service.
we met with yolanda miller, deputy purchasing manager in Austin.
we explained the program and she said you are a professional service.
I don't know why you are going out for bids.
please, is there a question?

>> yolanda miller does not recall the meeting the way you do.

>> I'm sorry if I have angered you somehow.
I'm sorry.

>> you didn't anger her.
she's like that all the time.

>> [laughter]

>> I apologize.
I appreciate the levity, but my impression was is that's what she said.

>> mr. Spradling, on whether or not we are required by law to compete this, we would rely on the opinion of the county attorney's office.

>> right.

>> so we have to take this item into executive session it seems to me sometime today.
now, I think there are a lot of pieces dangling here.
and I think what we need to see is an outline about how the pieces come together.
in my -- I don't see us taking any definite ultimate action today, but it does seem to me that after executive session we ought to do as best we can to give direction.
so you can figure out where you are headed.
if we're not going to do this, we ought to let you know.
if we're going to do it, I think we ought to indicate to you how we think it ought to be shaped.
I hear the court saying we want to do the right thing.
but there's a little disagreement on what the right thing is.
and when you mentioned houston, houston has parking mobility in place?

>> two weeks ago they said -- we have waited long enough.
we're going to do it.

>> but they haven't done it yet.

>> no.

>> okay.
so you know, there's the j.p.
piece, there's the constable piece and I hear constable elfant saying the same thing, if we can make this work, let's identity.
before when you talked about several hundred volunteers, the constable said he thought 30 more would be appropriate, right? So is that the number we're still working with, 30 plus 30 more?

>> I think we ought to start small.
it is a pilot.
we've got to see all these pieces work and the project could work and I wouldn't want to start huge and have it crash and burn.
I would rather start small and build on it.

>> the i.t.
presentation was favorable.
I asked whether it was going to take one week or a year.
but if we can get this up and going I think we ought to and I hear the court saying that.
I have no idea what time we will come out of executive session today, but my recommendation to the court would be for us to give specific direction so you would know what we want to see again.
and the other thing is that we ought to say report back to us at a time certain.
and that time certain ought to be four, five, six weeks from now whether than four, five, six months.
because it's been several months that we've been looking at this.
it may be that we need to start small and work our way up to something a little bit larger.

>> I have no problem starting small.
and I hate to interrupt you, but if I could just for a second, we could start today where Travis County received paper tickets.
it wouldn't require any j.p.
involvement, it wouldn't involve any i.t.s.
department involvement.
we can start easy and through the course of the pilot implement the technological advances that we could then

>> [inaudible] the program.
Austin is the high-tech capital of Texas.
you should -- you should embrace it this.

>> I don't see us making progress now.
seems to me the best we can do is go into executive session when it's time for that, get our questions answered, come back and try to give direction and let you know in writing what the court decided to do.
that's the way it looks to me right now.

>> and may I ask one question?

>> and your last question would be our last thing today, I think.

>> can I get the thoughts of the county attorney?

>> unfortunately counsel, being a lawyer, as you indicated in your presentation, needs to honor the confidentiality of the advice they give to their client.
and therefore we give it in closed session and we don't give it to other people.

>> okay.
that's --

>> that's an ethical issue.

>> that's why I asked.
I met with the county attorney previously and so I just wanted to see the way I could hear the thoughts today.

>> our goal will be to help as much as we can.
so we are together on that.
the question, though, is how do we best do that.
and so thank you all for coming down.
we will take this matter into executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.

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.