Travis County Commssioners Court
October 29, 2002
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.
Item 2
2. Consider invoicing criteria for consultant services relating to the formation
of a regional mobility authority, and take appropriate action.
>> my name is carol joseph from t.n.r. You should have received
a copy of the -- of the draft interlocal agreement for amendment changes and
you should have gotten that -- that by e-mail from tom or county attorney's.
>> do we need to pull that microphone just a little closer
to you, I believe.
>> oh, sorry. [ laughter ]
>> either that or it's not on.
>> is that on?
>> I don't know.
>> there it is.
>> it's all of the backup for this -- the -- the amendment
to the interlocal?
>> yes, which I have distributed to you all yesterday.
>> okay.
>> if you don't, I have got some extras.
>> and was this discussed with the contractor in terms of
-- of everything that's been laid out in the deliverable, it's clear to that
person what it is that's in this contract?
>> the draft that was presented to you last time this was
on the agenda was sent to Williamson county. We heard back from him then,
they didn't have a whole lot of changes. I sent it to mike weaver. His only
change was he suggested that we add a task 3. As drafted we had -- excuse
me, task 1, which was basically all of the work up to creation of r.m.a.,
Issuance of the [inaudible] by texdot, the approval by the commissioners court.
Task 2 was sort of the start-up phase, appointing the r.m.a. Directors and
getting the initial meetings held. And mike suggested task 3, which was basically
support for the r.m.a. Board, particularly during the upcoming legislative
session when we know there's going to be a bill in the r.m.a.'s representative
krusee and senator barrientos said they are going to carry that bill next
session. I think everybody is anticipating a good bit of work.
>> yeah.
>> and the Travis County r.m.a. Subcommittee met yesterday
and discussed that issue.
>> uh-huh.
>> and I think the feeling of -- of judge Biscoe and commissioner
Davis was we can have that task 3, but make it contingent on a request for
Travis County to -- that those be -- those services be provided to Travis
County and/or the r.m.a. Board of directors. We don't actually know that's
what the board of directors is going to want to do or how they want to operate
until they are actually formed. So we can reside for it in this contract,
but there ought to be a trigger or a -- or something that -- that -- that
gives us the flexibility to say yes or no, we do or don't want those services.
>> so my read -- am I reading this to say that the r.m.a.
In and of itself would not have the authorization to trigger task 3, but they
could request Travis County to trigger task 3.
>> that's the idea.
>> it's basically been we can weigh that in terms of supplementing
whether we choose to do that to supplement our over efforts since we do have
a lobbying team over at the capitol as well.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay, thank you.
>> [inaudible] did we get a chance to share this information
with the auditor of these plafer documents? And has the auditor -- [inaudible]
these particular documents.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
>> my concern is what we pay off of it. My interpretation
of this, if I'm correct, is that in task 1 and 2, it is completion of that
work and that joe gieselman will sign-off on that. When it is totally completed
in its entirety, we will give them the amount of money set aside. The third
one is that's an hourly rate. Those hours will be set out for task 3. Again
gieselman will approve that. That your understanding?
>> is the chart not for everything within the contract, tom,
as opposed to just task 3?
>> the chart of the hourly rate?
>> yes.
>> yes, it's for all of the tasks.
>> so then what we are really going to see in all of them
is an hourly rate. Okay.
>> right.
>> and they can get that before completing a task. I mean,
they can do progress billings. Okay, what we will be doing, on all of these
we will be getting an hourly billing which joe is going to sign-off on.
>> progress billing an then this is the chart that applies
to task 1, task 2, task 3, but only three gets triggered.
>> exactly.
>> that's fine. I just want to make sure what we are paying
off of. What the deliverable is, when we cut a check.
>> in t.n.r., Are you pretty much satisfied with this particular
structure?
>> yes, we have defined deliverables and -- at a rate, a
pay rate they are not to exceed. So I think that -- that gives us a pretty
good definition.
>> we actually put caps in there based on our best estimate
of how much hours it would take, understand that that's double what the consultant
will be paid.
>> we will get to those -- we will come back to the court
and get them increased. Otherwise we don't exceed them. So I guess the next
thing that we have been doing here is making sure that this information is
provided to Williamson county. And see what their colleagues are concerned
-- [inaudible], is that correct?
>> yes.
>> tom, there -- I notice in one of your things here, they
are stating to us in the interlocal that they have -- that they have complied
with the -- with the purchasing act.
>> all procurement laws, yes.
>> so we are not going to have to worry about that.
>> right.
>> so theoretically, they could have this on their agenda
next Tuesday, once judge boerfler signs, we can start getting the back billing
process moved along.
>> I think this gives us a little bit more advanced notice,
specific services of the contract, kind of like the legislative effort.
>> sure.
>> if we have our Travis County legislative delegation over
there working for us and our legislative consultants, with the city of Austin
on board, there still may be other things that we need, mike, or [inaudible]
so we will know in advance whether they ought to do them for us. If they do
them for us, we ought to pay them for us.
>> that's a good addition.
>> from that point, judge, do we need the direction as far
as some kind of action or just go ahead and log on and get this particular
documents to the Williamson county officials?
>> no objection. I recommend to go ahead and approve this
--
>> I move that we approve item 2.
>> seconded by commissioner Moore. Any more discussion?
>> one other item, judge. Just to remember, we still need
to -- to -- to figure out how much Travis County needs to pay to catch up
with Williamson county. If you will remember, they feel like they have been
paying -- toting 100% of the bill. The idea is we will split it 50/50, but
they want us to carry 100% until we are even, so to speak. We still have to
sit down with mike and figure out what that number is. This will have to be
on the agenda -- [multiple voices]
>> the other issue that was raised that your time be calculated
--
>> exactly and that hasn't been done [multiple voices]
>> and used if the computation of what we owe or don't owe.
I think they are expecting us to do that.
>> which I have already done.
>> legal stuff.
>> totally related to legal [multiple voices]
>> my hours exceed bryan's so far. So the way the contract
approaches that, as soon as they are spending more time on it than I am, we
will help with that. But as long as I'm spending more time than he is, it's
a wash, so to speak, there's no reimbursement.
>> I think that's fair.
>> I think that's fair.
>> commissioner Moore, would that also include any other
staff participation in this, such as t.n.r. As we have gone through this process
--
>> no, no. That -- that got more complicated than we really
thought was -- was possible. I think -- you know, I think what we are doing
is saying to the t.n.r. Staff, you take a look at what they have done and
it's -- then you sign-off to us that's work that did benefit Travis County
and that we should pay for.
>> commissioners, did you want to include that within the
motion, once this is signed by judge doerfler that the two counties move as
quickly as possible to resolve past differences -- differences as in dollar
amounts, not philosophical --
>> I will accept that as a friendly.
>> that will be great.
>> to get it all resolved as fast as possible in terms of
getting the interlocal up to date as far as billing.
>> that's accepted as friendly. Any more discussion? All
in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> good work.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> put this on next week just in case they get back with
us.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM