Travis County Commssioners Court
January 21, 2003
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 45
45 is to discuss and take appropriate action on an agreement with the city of Austin for the conduct of elections and a plan for county clerk reorganization. Afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge, commissioners. What you have before you is almost the final version of the contract that we're proposing betwe Travis County, the county clerk and the city of Austin in order to start combining our efforts for the conduct of elections. I'd like to thank john hilly with the county attorney's office for helping me get this toalg. He's been working with sandy zimmerman, city of Austin attorney. In -- what i'd like to do explain to you in plain english what we're doing and then I will leave you at your leisure to read through this contract. The contract deals with two substantive areas. The first area has to do with how much could you expect in terms of revenue from a partner who would be exchanging revenue to you in lieu of using our election equipment? So we're talking about equipment reimbursement, equipment lease cost. You may call it whatever you want, but there is an equipment charge that is just for the use of equipment itself. Purchasing and budget helped me figure out, you know, how do you decide what is a reasonable fee to charge somebody every time they use an election. The base for the calculation, and I can give you much more in-depth figures if you want them, but let's say they included principal and interest, maintenance agreement costs and an alotment for what it would cost you to lease a facility to put the equipment in. All of that was part of the dollar amount that was determined to be an appropriate charge per election for equipment usage. That magic number is, $172,000 per election. So that means if you have a runoff in addition to the first election, then you're talking about $172,000 twice. That's $344,000. That is what the contract establishes as an obligation by the city of Austin if the county and the county clerk were to take over plpking the election for the city for this may and its priewmz runoff that would happen in June. So you would be looking at '03 revenue of $344,000. That then continues year after year. It's -- the way the election calendar works, and I believe we have a copy of it in your package. And I owe you an apology, my people were supposed to number these pages and they didn't. I'm sorry. On the fourth page in, I believe, from the packet that you have, you can look at what odd numbered years look like and even numbered years look like. For a revenue stream for you, it will have virtually no consequence for several years because even if the city is not holding an election, aisd is holding an election or acc is holding an election. Then there's also the possibility of capital metro. There's barton springs, edward's aquifer district. There are a lot of entities out there that would be participating every year in some form of an election. And in addition to that we also have the primaries as well, so I think what you're looking at is pretty much continuous usage in a fairly stable revenue stream just for equipment usage. Okay. Now, the other part of this contract addresses the costs of actually conducting an election. The personnel that you pay, the facilities that you rent, the polling places that you select. And all of the decision making that goes into how do you pick those people and places and get them paid for? We have two large jurisdictions here, two bureaucracies, if you will, that needed to try to come together to make an election happen. We believe we've worked out all of the detail that either Travis County or the city of Austin is going to need to make that all come together. The presumption is that the county clerk is not available to do elections just whenever. There is a calendar associated with this document. And what it says is that we will only do elections in our general date for November. We will be conducting elections for the primaries, which are in February, March and April. And then for the city or any springtime election that uniform calendar date that is may and June. We are not available to conduct elections any other time. The contract does say if you want to ask if it's possible to do that, then we would be happy to take a look what the our other commitments are, how much equipment usage we've already pledged to the other entities that we serve, including ourselves. And if we can work it out, then we'll discuss it with you. So it leaves it open if we wanted to enter into an additional election, but it doesn't say that you're obligated to do that, that either of us is obligated to do that. It does say, however, that if a jurisdiction felt strongly that they needed to hold an election on another date than the ones provided in this contract that they could hold the election on their way and lease the equipment, but we would not be conducting the election for them. They would be doing it on their way. And there are limits set in here as to how much resources county government would contribute to another jurisdiction. If they wanted to simply lease our equipment and conduct the election themselves. And I honestly don't think that's going to happen, but there is a clause in there that allows them to do that if they want to. The election calendar, as you can see by that calendar package page in your packet, is already so tight that the -- could not September that we don't do anything except for once a year is not reality. We conduct elections virtually back to back year-round, and especially with this proposal to assume responsibility for the management of elections for the city of Austin, we will be in a constant state of planning and executing elections. Now, before I get too deep into this I do want to give you the opportunity to ask questions. This is the -- this is certainly we've been in negotiations and working on this for months and months, but I am not anticipating that the court is going to vote on this today. If you would like to, fine, but I did anticipate bringing it back again next week. I am also in conversation with the city council and I anticipate being on their agenda for January 30th for council, and we're in the process of getting that set up through their agenda-setting process. All right. Now, I also cannot take over a whole other set of elections with the existing resources that I have. There's no way we could do that. So what i've done is i've put together a reorganization plan. What would it cost county government to do this and then what profit would we see, how much extra revenue we see coming in over and above what we would need to do to be able to just manage this job? The bottom line is I can do this job if we take accountant position that had been helping me owe on owe the project person perp that had been helping me do invoicing and line items and budget for various elections, and if I upgrade that position for a project manager position, which would cost us about $11,000 a year to upgrade that one position and move it over, if I asked the court to create one new f.t.e. That is an election specialist, one of the basic people that does the job, the folks who do -- finding public places and finding people and training them, one new f.t.e. For that --
>> let me ask you this. I hear what you're saying, new f.t.e. Creation. What I'm trying to see, I guess, basically all these f.t.e.'s, looking at what we're dealing with here, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but how will they be paid for? Will there be an increased amount of money that will pay for the f.t.e. Contingent on the use of overseeing the other entity's election process? How is it it work?
>> I haven't gotten to that yet, but if you'll bear with me for a minute, I will be glad to tell you what the dollar amount is. So the $11,000 for upgrading a current position that I have that i'll then commit on this process. Getting one brand new f.t.e. That would be an election specialist. And then in order to promote some stability, we have temporary employees who work for me now who have a lot of experience and knowledge about not only elections, but our new equipment, and if we were to create a special category -- and i've already run this by hrmd and they understand what we're doing and this had been done before, but if we add benefit tho those people, then what happens is I'm more like to keep them even though we only pay them for the time they work. So they retain temporary status, we don't lose them to somebody else looking for a way to hire them away. So that entire reorganization program matched with the revenue that is going to be coming in starting in '03 -- remember, I quoted you for an twoer, the $344,000. In odd numbered years the profit to county government is a little over $201,000. That's over and above everything we paid for. In even numbered years, the profit over and above paying for all of this is 301 -- almost $302,000. Keep in mind that this is -- this 200,000 or 300,000, depending on the year you're talking about is revenue into the general fund over and above everything else we've committed to, and it is for you to do whatever you want to with it. It goes to the general fund. So it's like if you want to apply it all to equipment or all to leases or all to one department's bument, whatever you want to do, it's yours to do whatever you want to with. And I'm pleased that I can bring you a proposal that has that kind of incentive in it. I don't want you to have to feel like we're asking you for money. I found a way to pay for this whole thing plus some. And I think the other advantage is not only do you get a partner to help pay for the equipment, the city of Austin gets some help with the professional conduct of elections. And voters get a lot of stability and consistency. And I am willing to take on this extra work. Obviously I'm not getting anything out of it other than it's just the right thing to do. Now, when --
>> you're getting another feather in your cap. [ laughter ]
>> which would mean the world to me. Now, I will also be visiting with you individually. I started making my round with the commissioners and with the councilmembers. I'm part way through this process. If you have any questions that you would like for me to -- answers you would like for me bring to your offices within the next due few days, i'll be happy to do that or maybe eemp answer it right this minute. Okay, questions?
>> is the number of elections that we would conduct for --
>> very firm.
>> and they understand that there's a runoff, that would be treated as a separate election?
>> yes, sir. This is a good deal for everybody. The numbers have worked out well.
>> the city manager, whoever is in charge of it,, believes that the city council will approve it?
>> oh, yes. In fact, I have personally met with the mayor gus garcia, i've also met with councilmember will wynn, councilmember betty dunkerley has indicated that she's approving of the contract. And i've got meetings set up with the rest of them over the next week or so. So no, we've all been talking about this for a lopg time and the project has a lot -- enjoys a lot of support.
>> what can the commissioners court do to facilitate I guess the council's consideration, before the council considers it or wait until the council considers and approves it and then we basically approve whatever they approve assuming we go along?
>> yes and thank you for asking that because this is an approach I think we do need to talk about. If we can do -- if I could come back next week, which is January the 28th, and expect an adoption of this contract and this concept from commissioners court, then what I do is take that document to city council on the 30th so that they see that yes, you really are making the offer and these are the numbers. Then they've got something firm to bump up against. They could then adopt it at that time and then what I could do is bring it back for final ratification to put back in your records for February the fourth, which really brings me right up to where I need to be to get started planning for their election. So i'd like to come back to you on the 28th and the fourth with the idea that in the meantime i'll be going before council to get their approval as well.
>> my final question is, in order for us to realize the net profit set out on page 7 of the unnumbered pages for the 201,000 and 301,000, we need to authorize an operating accountant, which would cost $11,000.
>> correct.
>> and add one f.t.e., An election specialist. And your temperatures receiving benefits, what's the cost of that? Is there an approximation?
>> no. Hrnd had a firm number for us. Let me look it up real quick. They're already being paid -- they're already in my budget, so it's only the temporary portion. Let me make sure I have it right here. 3 temporaries.total per positios 37,000, so the amount for them is 448,747, but keep in mind that this is an election conduct cost that end up being paid for by somebody else when they're being used by somebody else. So once again, I don't mean to be confusing, but there's the equipment rentals and there's conduct costs, and you put them both together.
>> after those amounts have been taken out, coming to Travis County on odd numbered years will be $01,000?
>> yes, sir.
>> and even numbered years would be 301?
>> yes, sir, profit.
>> yes, sir?
>> dana, just so I completely understand, if you were to take like the special temporaries, you're saying right now that you already have 13 that basically make 28,000. Are those employees on owe are those people who just work during elections?
>> yes, sir.
>> so in other words, somebody would have a 28,000-dollar a year job and golf nine months out of the year and -- are these people --
>> if you look at the calendar they get one month off. Yeah. One month. And it's June or July.
>> so you you'll use them --
>> all the time, for our elections, for primary elections, for planning for the next time around. It's almost a continuous calendar.
>> so it is a 12-month -- it's not just whenever there's an election going on?
>> right. But there is some downtime in July of every year. So we give them time off then.
>> and right now you're saying that the difference between what they are right now, you're going to pick up the hospitalization, life insurance, all those things, and that's going to be the enticement that you're going to use to keep them to stay so that you've got experienced people and they're more likely to stay intact.
>> yes. Right now I have a group of people who have hung around for a while. And if I could keep them for two more years until we could get this thing under our belt, we would all be well served by doing that. And if the court decided that they wanted to do something differently in future, we could certainly do that, but what I'm trying to do is deal with some unknowns myself. You know, I'm in a brand new situation. We've got a brand new set of equipment. It worked well the first time we did it. I'm optimistic, but there are still things I don't know. There's a lot of training that needs to happen. What I would like to do is be able to bank on what i've got right now as I finish this sort of last leg of a road I haven't walked yet before I have to then say okay, now we're going to launch off and do something completely different. What I would like to do is have some stability right now for this next two-year period. And what I'm looking at is as we head into the city election, which is going to be our first time to use it both early voting and election day, and I'm going to be working for council, is which is also a new world for me. Then we'll turn right around in November and put the county's election in place with the same strategy of early voting and election day. And then we turn right around and get into, you know, another election cycle right after that. So there's a lot of -- i'd like to have some stability for at least a year. Two years would be even better.
>> okay. Let me ask you another question. What is the likelihood of anyone else coming along and having this equipment or -- is there anybody that really is in that -- is there a road show for this stuff?
>> you mean lierks to lease it from somebody else?
>> where somebody rolls in here and you say okay, we're going to do this thing predicated on this and all of a sudden we have lost our 172,000-dollar --
>> maybe else makes a better offer to the city?
>> didn't they run an election -- vent they run an election themselves and maybe that's the reason they don't want to do again? [ laughter ]
>> the way it has worked in the past is for 11 years Travis County and the city of Austin have been in an interlocal agreement that says, dear, city of Austin, you can use Travis County's equipment, and in lieu of that, dear Travis County, you may use the city of Austin's facilities. So it's been an in-kind trade. They always conducted their own elections, but they used our equipment and they gained expertise after we taught them how to use it, they gained expertise in being able to conduct their own elections. There have been times in the past that may be part of what the confusion is, where i've done joint elections and i've helped them with something or we've done a special project where I taught them like we did the bonus project where we taught them how to use the new system. We've had a lot of relationships in terms of elections with the city over the years. This will be the first time, though, we've had not an in-kind, but a cash revenue relationship and where not only are we looking at an agreement that has to do with the sharing of buying equipment or paying it back, purchasing equipment, but also for me to take over the management of the elections as well and have some of that cost part of it to be a part of our revenue picture as well.
>> when we charge the city for running an election, now, obviously we get this 172, but that's really sort of a schedule for the equipment that we have. Does the city pay dollar for dollar for everything that it takes to operate that election? I mean, hourly people, do we bill -- we don't lose any. We're not --
>> no.
>> everything that we are charged to --
>> to the contrary, you get helped by having those people that are here paid for because they're conducting an election. So you get some -- the reimbursement, if you will, from expenses that you've already laid in place to try to be ready for November. They're being used for conduct of elections and you get reimbursed for that work, then the city completely pays for its own costs, forms, supplies, personnel costs, training costs, anything, be it a rental of polling places, anything that would be a normal expense, that is their expense for their election. So that doesn't come out of our budget. But for temporary expenditures for employees and for some of these other considerations that we've talked about, yes, we do -- it's a better deal for us because we get some of that paid back. In addition to that, commissioner, we also get a 10% administrative fee on the portion of the election budget that is the conduct of the election. So it's an additional 10% just because we're in there doing that labor.
>> and you really do feel like that you need your program manager that the six direct reports wouldn't be able to really do it just reporting to the division manager?
>> I think so. I have -- you know, I have a knot in my stomach that I hope it's enough action but before I come back to you asking for more, I need to put together my very best guess of what we need to do to be successful.
>> thank you.
>> on page 5 of what's actually numbered on the interlocal having to do with polling places, it does say here that you would submit a list of suggested polling places to the city council. Is there anything we can do to especially courage them to consistently adopt the same polling places that we do all the time? Because that's probably the biggest gripe that I hear from folks is, if you have to turn out for anything it's probably going to be the governor's race or the city council's race. You get used to where you go. If there's any deviation on that, and especially during early voting, you kind of get used to this stuff and it really throws people off that instead of the downtown site being the courthouse, all of a sudden you have to go to Austin rec, which is ridiculous in terms of parking related to acc and just crazy. So I know that you've got specific language in here that says on page 6 if you do it in November you must be on the same site. Then I would change that to say instead of not inconsistent, just simply say consistent. So keep that in the positive and not the negative. But it would just -- to answer your question, here's exactly what the deal is.
>> it won't work for those folks that rather than having to renew relationships with the same folk, then all of a sudden you'ring having to create new issues that come up only spore rad likely in a relationship.
>> no, we all agree and that's one of the procedural things that we've talked about is a matter of philosophy with the city clerk and the folks who have been involved in it. Ultimately I want to be able to be in a position to carry out the policy of council. So we don't want to deprive that jurisdiction of its rightful authority to establish the election the way it wants to; however, they've already indicated that-- in fact are it's on page 1 in the preamble that their main reason for entering into this agreement is to promote consistency. I do anticipate that i'll be asked this question when I appear before council. They've already indicated that they want to adopt more our program for early voting rather than the rerecreation center that we've had for the past. Now,, you know, that, of course, is then pred eight kateed upon cooperation by the merchants and the vendors and can we make that happen. But their attitude is let's promote consistency, both early voting and election day. And the only thing that is really -- gets in wait of perhaps that philosophy is boundary lines or something like that. I'm anticipating that this will result in more consistency, and the more we use it, I think the more consistency we'll see.
>> and then again as I se on page 6, rather than saying --
>> not inconsistent, make it consistent. Did you get that, john? Thank you.
>> and then my final one is just a little bit of a concern related to how the payment for election services will occur. And basically, unless I'm reading this incorrectly, we don't get one dime until after an election, no later than 15 days after the election they'll make a 75% of what they think is the projected, and then there's a true-up within about 60 days. I'm a little concerned that we get zero until no earlier than 15 days after an election knowing that you do significant amount of work and there are things going, and that's coming out of your budget and can create issues. I guess I'm remembering all the e-mails going back and forth related to one of the constable's offices waiting for a reimbursement and it creates issues that are unnecessary. It also creates issues for you when the secretary of state took forever and a day to finally send payment for the primaries. To me is seems like rather than saying 75% of the anticipated after the election, there ought to be at least some up front money, 10%, some kind of something to acknowledge that we are spending monies to their behalf and we can if we look at history, it creates funding issues if it happens during the wrong time of the budget year.
>> yeah. I can actually answer that question because it has been discussed at length. A couple of things. First of all, the city of Austin is not a horriblely slow pay like the state of Texas. The reason why we wrote that 15-day 75% up front in there is because we do anticipate having much fewer problems actually getting paid than the most unfortunate situation we've all been put into with the secretary of state's office. And even that was an unusual year. What john hilly and I and sandy zimmerman at the city of Austin had to wade through, though, was county purchasing laws as well as municipal purchasing laws. So what this contract does is addresses the restrictions on cities for making payments for which they have not even received an invoice yet as opposed to -- you know, on the basis of an inadvocacy and we each wrote language in here on what kind of documentation they will be receiving so we can get payment. So in a nutshell, the city, eemp though we is have done it in the past, their attorneys and their purchasing agent are saying, you know, we really don't pay up front. We pay on the basis of actual expended. So there is -- there is a presumption that county government would float it until the 15th day after the election. That's the other reason why we put a definite schedule on the equipment purchase because you could borrow that for any expenditures that you want to during that time period that are happening that are going to get reimbursed later. You may want to use that fund as the float instead and then be paid back later and then have the whole thing. This was the best that we could come up with, both the attorneys on both sides, where we could be assured of payment as soon as possible and the city was not caught violating its own laws and policies for payment in advance.
>> I guess my concern is really probably more in even numbered years than odd numbered years, because if you look at the election calendar, that's when we're also floating on behalf of the state of Texas things related to the primary election.
>> I know it.
>> and then all of a sudden you have March, April, may and June before we start getting monies from the -- I'm just worried that we float and --
>> maybe you can do it between new and next week.
>> well, although -- okay. It's going to get an administrative fee, which is not stuff. Is it possible that that could be paid ahead of time?
>> I will ask, but that is a percentage based on the actual expenditures, so you wouldn't know what the actual expenditures are to calculate the 10%.
>> but if we could make it as a personal that would be based on people, not stuff.
>> well, section 271 of the election code says what it's based on. There isn't any leeway there.
>> we can do it between now and next week.
>> i'll try. This has been a big sticking point and I'm not sure I can do much more about it. But I'm 'happy to talk with you and let you hear an explanation from them Tuesday what it is.
>> so it's like we are allowed to say these are kind of like issues for us and we appreciate this being --
>> I know. I they know.
>> this cash flow stuff comes down to --
>> it depend on what the other vendors mean when they say we provide the service up front. Then you pay us later.
>> yeah. It's hard paying that way.
>> it is.
>> tim, did you want to add anything to that?
>> we've explored every possible option, escrow and everything. And -- [everyone talking at once]
>> if we are actually bill them as these things occur in the March, April time frame. I'm concerned that we're going to be doing stuff and then we'll get paid, but it's like they're not paying any interest, and yet we haven't done those expenditures on their behalf.
>> let's pursue every possibility before next Tuesday.
>> okay.
>> when it item will be back on the court's agenda.
>> and with that plan in mind I thank the court for their time.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM