Travis County Commissioners Court
August 2, 2005
Item 10
10. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed alternative dispute resolution fee increases for the dispute resolution center.
>> good afternoon, mike trimble.
>> I apologize for not recognizing exactly why you were here today. I wondered a couple of times.
>> you wondered I was staying after around the jail presentation. With me I have chris donally the executive director of the dispute resolution center. Travis County currently contracts with the dispute resolution center to provide mediation services, they are basically the county's alternative dispute resolution provider. There was a change made in the statute this past legislative session with regards to the alternative dispute resolution fee that is charged by the dispute resolution center. I will let chris talk a little bit more about that. We want to present that for your consideration this afternoon.
>> okay. The fee was originally set, I think in '86 or '87. 18 plus years old, it was $10 per civil litigant, adr fee that was collected. These moneys of course were contracted over to non-profit drc's in those communities that had one. The law that passed allowed at least removed any kind of statutory barrier to a Commissioners court's decision to raise that up to $5. Meaning $15 per civil litigant or -- and or you could add up to $5 from $3 in the j.p. Courts. It used to that was bracketed to those -- well, houston was the only one that was actually eligible to do that. They actually took that bracket out. So now any Commissioners court can determine if that's appropriate for their community as well. Basically what this does is allowed the drc's to try to -- to function and carry out their missions on, you know, with 2005 expenses on something other than 1987 fee structures. That's what it allows us to do. It's that simple.
>> based on my discussion with chris is that several jurisdictions that do have the drc's are looking at increasing their fees to meet this new amount that's been set in the new statute. That goes into effect September 1st, we would be looking at doing an increase effective September 1st, 2005.
>> ppo has an alternative recommendation.
>> we certainly recommend approval of the fee increase. That's -- I think that's something that they have worked very hard for to get through the legislature. And as with all special revenue funds, whenever there's a possibility of a fee increase, we looked at the state of the overall fund and in this fund there's a general fund transfer to -- that adds to the amount generated by the fee of 83,330. That was established in years past and it's been adjusted upwards based on the -- on the fluctuating revenue of the fee fund in the past. I submitted it to you all's offices on July 22nd, giving a history of the different amounts of the fund. What we wanted to put for the court's consideration is this fee is estimated by the auditor's office, it is the first time that they have dealt with this revenue increase. A little bit of a -- a little bit of uncertainty to it. But the majority of it is -- is fairly predictable. Of the 96 -- of the $92,000 increase in revenue, above what would be -- what is currently certified for -- for the transfer to the dispute resolution center, which is currently estimated at 310,000, that raise his it almost $100,000, but that includes the full amount of an 83,330 cars transfer from the general revenue fund. What we have proposed from -- from Travis County is that since the fee had been raised in the past to help out in revenue situations, that it could be safely reduced. Those funds reallocated to other needs, I’m sure that you will be seeing in the budget hearings very soon. If we -- if we do -- what we were recommending is that the transfer be reduced in half to 41,665, in which case the total amount certified for the d.r.c. Would be 361,553, which would still be the largest amount ever transferred from Travis County to the drc.
>> ms. Donally, how much of this 41665 or the double that amount do you really need to conduct business this year or next year?
>> our annual operating budget is 520,000. So -- so the amount we are getting right now from the county you know obviously doesn't cover that. But what we end up doing, we used to do three or maybe two or three mediator trainings a year to supplement our income. Those are 40 hour, five day a week trainings. What we do that we have to shut down and can't do mediations during that time. At this time we are doing six of those, we are doing two additional family trains which are 30 hours a piece, if you you can't up all of those hours, we are talking about two months worth of time that basically shuts down mediations so that we can raise revenue to match our operational budget. So what can we do without, well, it depends on how many more mediations you want done over there. What it does is we have to cut back on revenue generating activity to do more mediation. If we meet budget without having to do so many trains, we can do more mediations. That's what I juggle every year. What else could we do? We could probably do a little bit more visibility work with the community, we could probably be over here with it more --
>> I was looking more for money than activities.
>> well, the money is tied directly to the activities.
>> all right. How much is your budget request for next year now?
>> well, if we transfer the total amount of the special revenue fund is what gets transferred, for fy '05 the amount that was transferred was 288741. What's currently budgeted before the fee increase for fy '06 is a transfer of 310,000 -- I have it written down, $310,710. With the additional revenue, if the general fund transfer remains the same, that amount would be 403,000, if it was the transfer was reduced in half, as we are recommending, it would be 361,000, 553. So in all of these scenarios that -- it would be higher than the fy '05 amount.
>> what he's recommending is that we keep the amount that I guess would be in the preliminary budget, but approve the -- the fee increase and give you half of it which would be an additional 41,665.
>> the conversations in our head about that, partial year coming up, 91,000 or 92,000 being certified because it doesn't start collecting until January. My request was because we are on the fiscal year budgetary cycle that there's still a lot of variability here. It would be nice if we could consider looking at a $20,000 reduction this year because of the partial collection of that additional increase and then next year, you know, we are in better shape to plan frankly to go to, depending on half of that, not requiring quite as much training activities from the center. That was kind of my counter proposal to allen.
>> I’m going to be articulating for what p.b.o.'s position is. The 92 reflects the January 1st start; is that correct, allen.
>> that's correct.
>> and if we cut it in half, they will still be earning a whole lot more money and what has also not been mentioned is that unlike many of our other social service funds who literally are on week to week handout in terms of waiting on their county check, chris, would you please tell us what y'all's reserve is for the drc if.
>> our reserve should be around 150,000. I think. Is that what we have got, about 150,000. I'll tell you that originally in the strategic plan our goal was to have six months operating expense to reduce dependency on the adr fund so that the center could stay open. We now, when we look at our monthly expenses because of the 75% in employed benefits, we are not on county payroll by the way. All of our employees have to be paid for by our funds that we raise. We are realizing that we have about three to four months now, capability, on that amount of reserve. So in terms of our strategy goals we are not quieght meeting those -- quite meeting those anymore. Our goal is to be at six months reserve capacity.
>> why don't we give you half of it. Then you come back and see us this time next year, nothing dramatic will happen between now and then.
>> that's exactly right. [multiple voices]
>> we are excited about the bill being passed frankly.
>> > we can monitor and quite frankly we think much more is going to be generated, we love blane but he's on the conservative side. He should be. We really think a whole lot more is going to happen. It is appropriate. I know it sounds like $41,000 of us pulling back, there are plenty of other folks that could use that $41,000 that literally are -- working on very, very tight budget. We have to remember what the point of that transfer was. And that is to bridge a gap. That gap doesn't exist and there is $150,000 sitting in y'all's accounts and it just seems inappropriate that we would not reduce the transfer because we are getting something that would generate a whole lot more money and we are not even saying we'll take away the transfer completely. No, it's like meet you halfway on that one. We can revisit this another year, but I think it's appropriate that we get halfway there.
>> we will stand behind you if there are unexpected consequences.
>> can I ask one question before we close?
>> sure.
>> the other social agencies, are those employees also independently employed or are they on county payroll.
>> they are not on county payroll.
>> they are not?
>> then i'll absolutely accept your point. That's where our expenses are going.
>> most of them don't even have health insurance.
>> we didn't either for the first six years.
>> now?
>> we do now. Barely, I don't know if we will next year. Those prices are skyrocketing.
>> move approval of the allen miller recommendation that we split the 83,000 plus, which would be an additional 41665 to the disspiews resolution -- dispute resolution center, same amount to the Travis County general fund and that we approve the fee increase up to the -- it would be from $10 to 15 and from $3 to five in the j.p. Courts, right?
>> the establishment of the j.p. Cases at a $5 level.
>> it hasn't been -- the law has been in place, but --
>> into effect, September 1.
>> only the county could charge -- [multiple voices]
>> only harris county could have the fee in j.p. Court.
>> September 1 of --
>> the bracket has been removed.
>> September 1, 2005 effective date.
>> we understand from my discussion with carolyn that this is one of the fee increases, while it's authorized to start September 1, I doesn't actually go into effect until January 1st. The fee can be raised from what I understand any time after September, but there's a separate wall that says that all of the fee increases, unless otherwise stated, start in January 1. But I will let blaine speak to that.
>> let me take a look at that, judge, get back with you on that.
>> do we want to say we want it effective at the earliest legal effective date?
>> certainly. September one would be --
>> and to communicate to the legislature that we don't think that harris should be given favorable legislation in the future. [laughter]
>> good luck with that one.
>> coming from Commissioner Daugherty.
>> the reality is what we get that clarity, blaine will tell us that, it will be reflective in a third, fourth and fifth revenue estimate.
>> [inaudible - no mic] we checked with the comptroller's office. Unless 51607 or whatever it is, the government code, unless it stheaz doesn't apply, these fees take effect January 1st. So if someone is to decide September is fine, but the state thinks that it's January 1st.
>> let's say January 1st. If the law is otherwise, we will put it back on the agenda and do otherwise.
>> okay. Just for the minutes. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, August 2, 2005 10:01 AM