Travis County Commissioners Court
April 12, 2005
Item 33
[One moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i guess I知 here first and foremost to thank you for this opportunity. It's been trying, fun, I think we've had positive results from it. To give you the update on where we are, I remember leaving here in September with the understanding that we're going to ask for limited funds because we didn't know what this project could do. We don't know what it was capable of. We don't know how well we could work within the confines of what we had in terms of computers in our office. I remember leaving with the thought well wouldn't it be a nice problem if we had to come back and ask for more money because all of the money that we were talking about for this program was an add-on fee, it was listed as an expenditure I think to provide this court with some oversight to what I知 doing out there. So the limited funds were there for a very good reason and we're at that -- we're at that problem. A very good problem of msb project has worked so well that I have to come in and ask for more money to continue to fund it. If that is this court's desire. I have given some backup information on the number of cases that we were able to send and the resolution of those cases. Initially, the contract allows for a lot more than what we did send, but we tried to send a limited amount just to get the ball rolling. We sent just over 4,000 cases over there. I also heard the directive of let's get going on this as soon as possible and I know that I was supposed to start on this on October 1. We did, but due to imiewrt issues that -- computer issue that's we had within our court we weren't able to really send any cases until mid November. So really while we agreed to start the project in October, we didn't actually get it going until November. Since then, and backup that I have given you, is backup through March. They have resolved 30% of the cases sent. And they have brought in state and county revenue of $88,000.000. What that means is when they bring in that amount that add-on commission is fast approaching the $30,000 which is their percentage of the commission. So we are running out of funds to continue this agreement if that is the will of this body. That is certainly something that I would like to continue to explore.
>> part of that 88 is county money -- what of that 88.
>> yes. Of the $88,000, a little bit over that, $66,422 is county money. The other 22 is state. One of the neat things about this, one of the things that I was trying to combat was the question of time served on class c misdemeanors. I think it's something that's necessary, I think that's warrants and -- having the ability to serve a case out in the facilities is -- is necessary, but I didn't appreciate how much that was happening in my court and one of the things that I think that is the neatest about this is that of these cases, now, please bear with me, I hand counted these myself, I could be off by a few, as far as i've counted only 22 have asked for time served. 22 cases, I thought that was an extraordinary number considering what is it, 456, almost 6 -- almost 500 cases have been resolved. I liked that number a lot. Because I liked the thought of not burdening the county facilities any more than is absolutely needed.
>> are these also papers that don't have to be sent to the constables?
>> these --
>> when they are resolved.
>> of them are both. Some of them are cases that were already at warrant. Some of them are not. There's a big number of them that were not. We have -- since the new constables arrived, we've had some discussions about how we want to work this in the future. He's working very diligently, he would like to have the opportunity to work those cases first, we have agreed to do that. I guess that's the other reason that I知 asking for this to continue because I have sent about 2,000 cases since the first of this years to warrant, I would like to see what happens with those ones that are still unresolved after 120 days to now send them to msb and see how that works. It's something different I would like to try that, too.
>> Commissioner? [indiscernible]
>> go ahead.
>> okay. Can you tell me I guess as far as the money that we -- that we has been collected in this particular 88,000, a little more than $88,000 here, the 66 some thousand -- 122 that goes to the county, a little more than $22,000 that end up going to the state, how did the state receive theirs, how does that work as far as them getting their -- [indiscernible]
>> under the terms of the contract, they send us the money, somebody here who knows money better than I do, they send us, when everything is final at the end of every month, actually at the 15th of every month so we have enough time to get our contract done. They send us the checks, along with their list of the cases that they believe that they have cleared and what they believe their commission should be. So they send us essentially two checks, one the state and county amount that they have collected, then also their 30% add-on for the cases that they believe that they have cleared with final convictions. After we verify that, we immediately deposit those checks and after we verify that, just like every other distribution we make at month's end, the money is sent to the treasurer with the rest of the court costs, fines and fees. We also distribute that periodically under the rules set out by the auditor.
>> okay. So -- so all of this is ran past the auditor's office.
>> oh, yes, sir, absolutely.
>> and my next question then is does the money that Travis County has $66,000, $66,122, does that go to -- where does that money reside?
>> just like everything else. Those cases that were resolved with a payment that needs to be to the traffic, it goes there, to the road and bridge, to the general. It goes just like any other case. Once we receive it, it's treated like any other case --
>> distributed.
>> it's distributed in all -- right, under the system under the accounting staff and then under the purview of the auditor's.
>> [indiscernible]
>> I知 sorry.
>> the $66,000 does go to ending fund balance because that amount was not certified revenue [multiple voices] of the fiscal career during the budget process. That's for this year.
>> huh?
>> that's for this year, what we have experienced next year it will be possible for the auditor to make a judgment about whether to certify it. So it would not necessarily have to go to ending fund balance [indiscernible]
>> okay. So -- I guess my whole point, not my whole point, but one of my points is that it appears that what they're doing pays for itself. As far as the collection, [indiscernible] revenue that we were not able to get -- it's very [indiscernible] revenue, it appears what they are doing in the request of -- the investment, the initial investment appears to -- to be much exceeding the -- the revenue that we generate. My whole question is, is there any type of objection with the next -- if the court decides to go ahead and continue to do this, funding, is there any projection with that funding of what revenue we could maybe see with the amount of money that we are investing for next time around on this request? Is there any way that you can project --
>> well, the only way --
>> what you are going after.
>> official projections from the county auditor's office, they are the ones that do the revenue projections, they are the ones that make the official counts on what revenue is going to be coming in. What the -- what the judge is asking for here is an additional $50,000, which is her -- her best guess at how much more work, more cases will be cleared by msb, am I correct?
>> that's correct. I mean, these are the -- these are the revenue commission analysis that we provided to you is basically from our office. And yes I think from these numbers we could extrapolate what we could do in any other future projects. And I think that it would -- that I would really like to see what happens from here on out when we send our cases to work first, get the constable his first bite, do all of that, up front work that he is -- he is itching to do and then after that point with whatever is left, send those there and see what happens. I think that that's the whole point of what we were trying to do is see how these things work, getting an idea if the system works or if it doesn't.
>> we need to make sure we understand I mean there -- Commissioner Davis, there is no investment. In this thing. I mean we have zero cost.
>> right.
>> in this. I mean this is -- this is just -- maybe it not all added money. I mean maybe if richard had the ability to have gone into work some of these things, which is what we are going to see.
>> right.
>> what I think that richard -- or constable mccain is going to do a good job. But this stuff is just added money.
>> yeah.
>> this is what a -- what the private sector can do because they are set up to do it. It is exactly the kind of thing, at least under the fines and fees --
>> we don't have the infrastructure.
>> it's gotten [multiple voices]
>> that's what I知 saying. You are exactly right. I wanted to make sure that the court understand. Understanding the purchasing act, it only really applies is it 30 now or 25? It's still 25. It's only when we spend out of the general fund $25,000. In this case as the Commissioner said is that the fees that outside firm is doing is collecting, that's on top of what we get, so the county is not paying that business to collect. They are getting an add-on, under state statute they are getting an add-on. Under the purchasing act it really doesn't apply. I remember when we put this contract together to be safe, because of the sensitivities involved, I think the court had said let's almost assume like we were spending the -- the amount of money that that firm is getting, that 30,000 that we are talking about we are approaching, we are spend being, the firm is making it, let's use that in talking to purchasing, everyone he will, let's use that as kind of a guideline of how long this pilot project should go. Now the j.p. Is here to tell you, we are approaching that limb, asking you to extend it. I think the original intent as that you had -- when you get to this point you have some talk about well, should we now start preparing for a possible competition in the future. Not to stop what she's doing, because it would be silly to stop while we do all of that work. I think when we got to this point we talked about being talking about, at least preparing some kind of a process. Whether you decide to go through that. The reason you mentioned the other issue, it has come up, what I have been told is the whole reason it came up now was because of this contract and they didn't get to bid on this contract. And that's why this has come up. That's not true.
>> that's right.
>> because they were told about this. I know for a fact that they were. So it's -- it's a red herring. But the fact is that allegation has been made. So -- so the reason that I知 sitting here speaking to you is that you might want to remember, in case that comes back to us, is that this court kind of, there was a kind of a feeling that when we got to this point we would also not just talk aboutstening it, but also start the process maybe of just at least talking about what are we going to do in the future, is this looking like we might start preparing for a competitive process.
>> I know that msb clearly understood that. We said you know what we want a pilot project. We want to see. We stepped out there and they are very aware. As told them, I think you've always got a little bit of a leg up given that you have history about what you have done. But then it's a matter of who can collect more money. But we're clearly moving in the right direction with this thing. I mean, I think that the constables will always be able to take and capture, collect the low hanging fruit so to speak. But what an entity like this, I mean, the benefit that we have here is this is just added refuse new to our bottom line. So I mean it's --, I mean, I知 so pleased that we have been able to do this.
>> what would -- how would the $50,000 be used?
>> being on. What happens, every month when they send us the check for what they have raised -- what they have collected on the state fines and court costs on the county money, they also send us their commission. The expenditure line item was created so that we had a means for paying them their commission back, that's it. So basically they send us -- let's say it's a thousand, they send us a thousand dollars, we verify that they have cleared enough cases and the right cases that justify their claim to that thousand dollars, and once that is verified by our court and the auditor, then the check, their commission check is returned essentially.
>> but they earn $50,000, above and beyond fines an fees that are collected.
>> that's correct.
>> right.
>> we will simply advance from an authorized force the $50,000, but we would deposit 50,000 in the county treasury that would next be reflected in the year ending balance?
>> all honesty, the 30,000 that you originally allocated is still there. Because every time they give us a check, it goes on top of the 30,000, then we send it back. But this body wanted oversight and rightly so. And so this is the means to say here's the update, this is what we want. I want to several fiez, I -- emphasize, as far as I look at this, this is not an extension of this agreement. The agreement was for one year pilot project. That the reason I知 here is because it was more successful than we predicted. That's it.
>> we did talk about 30,000 as a checkpoint. We stop 'n go all right. Should we go beyond 30,000 or not. We got to this point my intent always that we at least start the process of telling cyd to start being ready. I don't see that the court needs to say, let's go out for -- discussion had is that when she may come back to you later, we have sufficient data, this looks good, the court may be in -- we may want to start taking this pilot, moving it beyond, at that point we need to talk about competition.
>> I think it's still in a pilot phase. I do appreciate the new constables cooperation and working together on this, I think that will be great because I would really like to give you guys full opportunity to work these things that first 120 days. Then to see how a new effort and energy in that area coupled with the post 120, but I would like to see how that goes. I will still consider us to be in a -- in a test mode. I want to just make sure that they have already collected their commission, it is only becauser in a pilot and had no certification that blane could give us before we even got started that we have no mechanism, other than through the reserve to get that physically back to the company, but they are collecting their commission at the same time that they are collecting the state moneys and the county money. So when we are talking about this $88,000, in reality, on the last page of her exhibit, they have actually collected 116,000. It includes the commission, but the only way that we can get it back in terms of a rebate, until we get to a point at whatever point that we have certification, then we wouldn't be dealing with all of this because it would be certified and it would just automatically flow.
>> constable mccain? Do you have anything on this? Are you all in agreement as the judge indicated additional comments? Please come forward.
>> thank you for having me here today. I came to this project here that I inherited. There's -- there's issues with -- with the way this was implemented to me. Now it's -- because first of all, with these -- it was brought up here today that the current -- the warrants were given to msb for -- for current or 2003 or newer warrants which are normally should have been going to the way this project was set up, supposed to be they got the high hanging fruits, we got the low hanging fruits, we got done with the low hanging fruits, we pass them on to msb. What happens here is it looks like msb has gotten the low hanging fruits which shows a lot to myself and looked at my staff, this shows that msb has shown [indiscernible] success rate because of the low hanging, local closer to issue date or when the citation were written. So it actually forces them to -- allows them to have an easier success rate. Also at the same time, we have been collecting with msb. I am working for msb now. That's what I feel like I should be getting a salary from msb, but I work for the people of Travis County. Another issue that I have with -- with this msb is when you give the local, our constituent warrants straight off or citations straight off to msb, what you are doing is you are -- excuse me, pennal losing -- penalizing your citizens a 30% fee before the constable is allowed to eliminate these -- because we have a lot of them that I have looked over at msb, these people live right next to the j.p. Court and the constable's office. I could easily have drove down there myself, walked over there and asked for the money. Instead these people, they were never offered the opportunity to pay up before it went off to msb. They were offered before with the court but not with the constable's office, my job is for Travis County to collect revenues. As I look at it, the project to me is I look at it, my office with the facts that we show that -- that the success of this project is not really accurate. Also, we show with msb revenue, with their own information that they have already received fees -- they have already collected revenues enough for their own fees of $47,000 currently. So -- so we are looking at that they have already exceeded the $30,000 mark. Because of the constables office. If the program was implemented like originally, I have talked to the Commissioner Daugherty about this, it was supposed to be issued to the constable's office, the constables's office will work it, issue them off to msb. Well, it wasn't done that way. I know that I wasn't here the whole time this was originally taking over as the constable left after November 2nd. We took over, just the short time that I have generated far, far exceeding with the -- with the 2003 and older warrants, my revenues are higher than what they have ever been with this stonsable's office, I probably could brag and say in the history. My revenues are high. That's with me doing what msd was supposed to be doing, gathering, going after the high hanging fruits. My -- in my opinion here is that if I could -- I already have a shot, we have at the high hanging older than 2003. If I had access to the ones that msb had, I would double, I would collect a lot faster. I guarantee you I would probably double the time and revenue faster than what msb is collecting.
>> let's be real clear about dates. When we got started on this venture, you weren't in office yet. You can -- didn't come on until January. Things happened prior to you gept getting there, correct? I appreciate the fact that you are there now. But when -- from what I understand from the judge, from this point forward in terms of getting permission from the court for the additional funding, you say in here judge goodwin, I want to refer additional cases which are already eligible under the contract to msb. These cases would be referred only after they have been at warrant status for 120 days or longer with the constable for precinct 3 and yet remain unresolved. So it sounds like it will in this next period, from this point forward, absolutely, that is the understanding that your office will get the chance to work these for 120 days and these then after that they will get handed off. So to basically get around exactly what you may have just described there of a situation prior to you getting into office, that perhaps that's not the way it worked in term of the 120 days by the constable before it got handed off.
>> well, program was initiated according to the contract, we see when the Commissioners court went back and looked over the tapes, it was supposed to be even from the very beginning given to the constable's office, then passioned to have msb. These are fresh, warrants, approximately close to 4,000, which if I would have had, I would have doubled the amount of msb's collection.
>> to be real honest, those cases that were sent were made up of cases that were already at warrant status and were already not -- were not yet at warrant status. It was both. Because some of the issues that we had working things out was how to get that information to the constable's office when the msb fee was added on. We experienced great difficulty with that in the beginning. That's one of those kinks that we have been ironing out. That's something that we are going to have to continue to iron out if this body chooses to continue this agreement. So --
>> how will you be able to ensure that cases are not transferred to the private consultant until after 120 days?
>> that's why I want to try this in the ones that we sent over in January an February. There's a whole bunch of brand new cases --
>> how do we make that happen?
>> after they have been unresolved for 120 days I知 hoping that I can pull up a report that says these have been at warrant status for 120 days. When I get that list of cases, those would be the cases that if -- if there's no work, we have even talked about they don't have to be finally collected on. If they have a lead, contact, something like that, don't send them, that's a waste of time, there's a waste of resources, it's a waste of effort.
>> is there a date somewhere that triggers it for you? You see what I知 saying?
>> I would like to look 120 days at the end of January and then again at February and then again at March. I nope this to be a monthly type of a situation.
>> okay. 120 day period starts running with what?
>> when --
>> 120 stays from when.
>> from when the warrant issued.
>> so if you do a judgment on a certain day.
>> uh-huh.
>> john doe has a fine and fee to pay.
>> uh-huh.
>> that is communicated to john doe.
>> right.
>> and if john doe hasn't paid that in a timely manner by a certain date a warrant issues.
>> that's correct.
>> so 120 days starts running from there.
>> yes, sir.
>> so we know when 120 days period -- 120 days has expired because?
>> well, I知 hoping that we can run a report from cjs, that's --
>> hoping is not enough. Seems to me that --
>> otherwise what we can do is go back and physically pull -- because what we do is we keep receipt. Every time my clerk sends them, he keeps which ones we send.
>> we can do it?
>> pull those, ship those out after 120 days.
>> that's what it boils down to. Let's look at it monthly see what goes over and why?
>> we are not at 120 days yet, but yes, from January.
>> that's what it turns on. So if the agreement is 120 days after warrant issues and we stick with that, is that a good agreement.
>> yeah, no problem with it.
>> you have 120 days to work basically. If after 120 days you have not collected the -- the fine and fee, then it becomes eligible for transfer to -- msb.
>> right. I also want to be real frank. Most of these cases that are being referred are people who have failed to appear completely. Because we didn't even issue the warrant after 30 days. We give them an extra few days to show up. Then we put them in the omni data base, that letterings out, we give them another month or two. The number of cases that we are talking about that he's referring to are extremely limited. From less than one year period from July 18th 2003 to July 18th 2004. Because of the date that we use understand calculating when the cases could be sent because they had to be over 90 days past due. So that's the other thing.
>> is the person that has the -- that owes the fine or fee, is there any -- is there every a time when that person knows that if you don't take care of this, within 120 days, that this will be sent to a collection agency and that collection agency will put 30% on it? For those that appear in court, yes. For those that could be a capeeus, yes, they would know from the day that we implemented the project forward because we tell people that. But those before they have never appeared. No.
>> plus if you are working you can tell them.
>> we have a letter designed so when we start getting these warrants that haven't already been sent to msb, part of our deal is we have a warrant for your arrest to renewal of your driver's license has been denied. You are subject to arrest, contact us to make arrangements, payment, if we don't hear from you soon, your account may or may not be referred to a collection agency and an extra 30% added to your total amount due. Can we list that amount, what it would be. So also, too, with our tracking system, we can track by [indiscernible] point issue date, point entry date. A little bit of lag by the time the warrant is issued to a warrant entry date, but it's you recallly a week or less. Unless something is going on. We can track it and currently right now, I have identified 90 warrants to send them, once we get the infrastructure set up to deal with that.
>> okay.
>> it's my understanding that you all are sending other cases, I don't know when they were transmitted over, but there were other cases that had completely preceded this talk anyway that were ready, they were out of state, they were hard to collect, thing like that. They said you know what, these definitely need to go, they can go any time. It's my understanding that you all have sent those back. [multiple voices]
>> move that we authorize up to $50,000 to continue this program through the end of this fiscal year, conditioned upon the constable's office be given 120 days after issuance of the warrant to work the cases.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. I appreciate that.
>> and that the constable and j.p. Be encouraged to continue to keep working to perfect this pilot project.
>> thanks. Can I say any other thing before -- oh, no, it was not related to the project, so go ahead.
>> well, I just was going to remind the court if you do want to go through a competitive process so that we have a contract, I need to know by July to have a new contract in place by October 1.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> thank you, cyd.
>> the only other thing that I was going to add is that's completed unrepresented, not on the agenda, but thank you for the new facility, the public is very happy with it. They are -- we have a lot more room, we have a lot more space, we are not all rubbing elbows and it's going very nicely, the facilities has done a nice job. Thank you.
>> no [indiscernible]
>> I知 sorry.
>> no [indiscernible]
>> thanks for taking this project on. I mean, I知 really pleased where it is and constable mccain, I知 really looking forward to watching you work these things in 120 days. I know what your energy level is. And your staff, I am really looking forward to you guys taking this thing on. I知 very encouraged by, you know, your energy level on this deal. I think, you know, what this is going to be a great deal all the way around. I think you're going to have, I mean, unfortunately we have more work than you can deal with in the 120 days, that's the real problem that we have. Thank you.
>> absolutely.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> also I would like to say with all of those warrants that were issued out to msb, that I never got to see, I would also like to see, could we put 120 days on them to have them issued back to the constable's office, a lot of them I have some e-mails that they've continually called on these people live right next to the constable's office, I would like for them to be able to -- there's no limit on what they hold on to, msb holds on to it. If they are successful. Especially if i've never had an attempt to it. I would like them to come back to the constable's office.
>> now 120 days you could put msb out of business with the county.
>> he's saying the ones that msb cannot work.
>> they've had a shot at them, one up here --
>> let's look to the future.
>> all right.
>> at the broad horizon. Lies ahead. Don't get me started. [laughter]
>> I know I don't want to.
>> thank you all very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:09 AM