Travis County Commssioners Court
August 5, 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 43
[One moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> with the item 42 of the taskforce, I just want to make sure that the court wanted us to continue on that before we move forward and ask people -- hire individuals and then we'd have to rif them because we weren't going to move forward with this next year.
>> can I ask you a couple of questions? You know we've been plagued with, I guess there's still a lot of substantial money that has not been recovered yet as far as fines and fees and a lot of other money that goes to Travis County. I'm trying now to determine how we're going to do that. I think it's very important and relevant because the more money we put on the table, and as you know, these are tough econoc times, like the city of Austin, they have people who have outstanding warrants and they send city marshals and everything else out to get the money as far as that's concerned. I don't know what leverage we have, but I know there's a significant amount of money that goes to Travis County. In a tight budget year, I'm trying to determine what and how we can do to start capturing a lot of this money that's been outstanding for many years. It's nothing new. And I hear what you're saying, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what we can do, what I can do to help, anybody else can do to recapture and recover a significant amount of money that's owed to Travis County. We're talking about a substantial amount. I hear what you're saying, I understand what you're saying, but the money is still owed Travis County. And if we can definitely bring this money on the table, that would help out the situation a lot as far as our shortfalls with the county.
>> I have no problem with that objective at all, sir. The program that we're doing is dealing with new cases. It's not dealing with the old cases. I do not know how much money is out there. I can tell you that there's 1.3 million that has been assessed by the court since we took over, and as of three weeks ago we've collected over 700,000 of those dollars. Most everybody at about 92% compliance that people are complying with paying or having their partial pay agreements with us. The only alternative if they don't is to have their probations we voakd and put them in jail and that can get very expensive for the court also. I'm hoping that the taskforce can address that.
>> I'm looking forward to working with whoever I need to work with. Because I think that there are significant dollars I think that we can -- these are for -- we need to put an arm around and maybe the auditors can even certify the revenue that we didn't expect to have. But it's very critical as we go through this budget process to get debt outstanding that's owed Travis County. And we're talking about millions of dollars.
>> that's what we're attempting to do.
>> and here you're talking about new cases, but I'm talking about old cases that go way back. So I'm looking to see how we can do that.
>> we have approved two people that you haven't hired yet or that we approved two plus.
>> you approved the plus two. I am asking if you're going to let this go over into next year that the original two would be moving into the next year, I can hire their vacancies. The two additional that you approved on June the 24th, we also can hire those at this time also. That was my request.
>> but if you hire them, they need space, and we're saying that when the tax assessor moves to airport property, you would rather these not go out there. They need to be more centrally located.
>> that is correct.
>> last week we asked the facility to take a look around and see if we had the space before and what did we find?
>> I think what we said last week is that -- [inaudible - no mic]. We have a meeting with judge wisser on Thursday afternoon. There may be a way where we can accommodate both the tax office and leave the concessionaire still in operation in that area.
>> because this is an area that is a hurdle for better, greater, more lucrative elections work by us -- collections work by us, I move that we support the four people being available. This is really two collectors and two support people. What that does is put on us a responsibility for finding space for them. We knew that we would need some space. I guess we didn't meet it head on. The space need is not as great because they're not there yet, but y'all are moving in September.
>> that is correct, sir.
>> so we've got 30 to 45 days to try to find a place to put the two people who will be joined by two others for a total of four.
>> second.
>> that's the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gomez. That is something that's real critical, isn't it, christian? Real critical regarding this.
>> only to ensure that you're aware the preliminary budget has a proposed eight f.t.e.'s, but that that will be discussed during the budget process.
>> yes, sir.
>> I wanted to make sure that predicate is laid.
>> right.
>> this is a little bit more critical because you plan to start posting.
>> we've posted. We would have hired, but the taskforce came up and we thought it would be prudent to stop. If you go ahead today, we will be calling people this evening because we want them to give their two weeks' notice so we can get them in here.
>> this is on the four, not on the others?
>> right, just the four.
>> yes, sir?
>> but we can definitively, and maybe the question, but we can definitively show that with the addition of these people that we increase collections. I mean, this is not predicated on records that we've gotten from somebody else that can't really substantiate that.
>> it is my understanding that the auditor has said -- has not shown that there will be an increase in revenue at this time with the data she has available.
>> repeat that. What did you say?
>> here is the problem.
>> wait a minute.
>> you're being asked to say it again. I will explain the problem.
>> repeat what you just said.
>> it's my understanding from what I heard here in Commissioners court that the auditor is not saying that there's going to be additional revenue. They don't have the background to say that there's additional revenue.
>> that's the reason I asked the question.
>> the auditor has taken the position which in my judgment is a reasonable position, that she can certify that which she sees and has a reasonable history on. We do not have a reasonable history on a centralized collection program that is aggressively implemented with an office whose mission it is to collect. We were faced in the planning and budget office with a little problem, which is historically when there is additional revenue certified, you can connect the expenses to it. The auditor said she's not prepared to certify the additional revenue, so what we said was we believe the revenue will be there because there is so much out there to be collected. So therefore what we should do is put the expense on the table included in the preliminary budget and not rely on the refuse certification -- revenue certification. And that is based on the experience of these other urban counties that have all had centralized collections that have been shown increased revenue. It's based on a recognition that over the last two years we do not have good benchmarks based on histories that you are very well aware of having to do with informed and reliable information about what that collection rate is.
>> what's the brief history of the little time in office that we've had. The city's collection has been real good, but they are collecting new stuff.
>> we're working only on new cases.
>> even on current stuff, though, that's a good percentage.
>> we have 80% of the people are compliant. And we have over -- I think it's like 60% is paid in full, so we'll never have to deal with that again. And 80% are in compliance with their partial payment. So we feel like we're doing well.
>> but that is a very confusing -- I don't care if it's new or old or whatever it is. If you are collecting more money, if you are showing by the brief history that this has taken place that that is something that you would predicate putting two people on, then -- I mean, isn't -- then say that, versus -- or I'm saying would you say that versus, you know, I can't -- maybe it's because of the system of maybe the auditor says this is what I can't do. And if that's what it is, then okay, then i'll willing to accept that. But at some point in time I think you do need as a Commissioners court, you need to sign off on something with some sort of an educated opinion about if we do this, is this going to be the result? For example, I wanted to ask a second ago, are you better off hiring people -- I mean, do you really need people sitting behind a window or a desk with people coming in wanting to pay something because we've gotten on the phone or we've called them or are you better off hiring two people with file end cases that go to people's house and say, do you know what, I'm here for this. This is what you owe me. I'm looking for a bang for the buck. So maybe you're telling me that, hey, Gerald, we are going to collect more money if we have these folks.
>> I feel like we're going to collect more money having these folks. Historically from what we've seen, y'all got to hear from jim layman and others, historically throughout the state of Texas, most cscd's are collecting about 60%. We feel like with the numbers we've seen from January that we're collecting about 80%. That is an improvement. There is no historical numbers for Travis County to compare. They weren't collecting 100% before and now I'm only collecting 80%. I'm doing worse. There are no numbers for compare to that I have been given. The only option we have is we're monitoring these people and all we do is if we don't pay, you choose not to pay, we turn this over to cscd, they work towards revoking probation. If that happens they put them in jail which costs them money on the other end. So we're working a balance here of yeah, I can have you thrown back -- which we have not had anybody thrown in jail to indict because most people aren't paying but that's the other thing, the probation is revoked and they go back to scrail and that costs you money a different way.
>> you obviously have a per person yield. Let's just -- let's call it like it is. I've got four people, I collect this much money, bingo. Here is how much money you can collect for this many people. Obviously there will be a point where you say we can't collect more and there's no use having more than five. I suppose we have the opportunity if we get in here and we okay these extra people and we show that we are not getting to where we think we are, do you know what, nobody likes to get laid off, but we're just not justifying your existence. We have the ability to do that.
>> we agree with that. The program doesn't work over time, then we shouldn't be doing it. I can't see snding money if it's not doing -- the tax office doesn't have a problem with it. It just that we need the get the program going, staffed the way it should be, come up with some numbers and see if it is working. I don't think we're -- I don't think we're there yet.
>> and it's all about growing the program. We didn't start with 10 people immediately. And neither did dallas county when they first got started on it. They started with two. We think there will be good things happening with four. It's a question of whether you go to eight or not, but I can see where susan would not have the history at all to certify in the same way that we were begging, but they're paying their tickets. You've got to have more of a history on things and that the money is coming in and it's helpful. It's only the new stuff because then it's current, you've got the good and what the judges are doing on a pilot basis are saying before you leave this building, go see the kind people in tax collector's office and they'll put out a payment. That is the way to do it is with personal interaction before they get a chance to not think about it.
>> it's kind of like a calculated risk is what I'm hearing. And I don't know. For experience, the calculated risks work pretty well.
>> susan, you've been quoted at length.
>> I know. Laugh lavment.
>> yes, we don't have a history, but we have gotten -- the departments usually pronounce an analysis of revenue they think they're going to generate and why. We have not seen anything like that that would make us think that more money is going to be generated or not. It could be that more money will be generated. It could be we're just collecting it faster. It is not a true statement that cscd has not collected any money. Some of these people would have paid at cscd if these people were not there. Some might not have. I don't know that. But we have not seen any analysis from the preliminary budget or from the pilot and the tax office that would make us comfortable that more money is going to be generated. We've not seen that. If we saw something that was convincing, we would certify it, but we've not seen that. So I don't want to say the revenue is going to double because we've not seen anything that would indicate that. The other thing is keep in mind with this pilot, this is new cases and it's not all cases. You know, when you talk about what cscd's collect, they're dealing with felons. That's different. Get someone who owns a sign and he sent-- he's sent to huntville for 20 years, he's never going to pay, never, ever. That's different than a person that comes in on a misdemeanor who is gainfully employed. So we can't really say -- you can't project the payment history overall kinds of cases. And dusty is absolutely right. The final hammer is you don't pay, you go to jail. And the mess --
>> and the message is given to the judges we don't want a whole mess of people in our jail that don't need to be there. So he's right. You know, if between now and when you decide whether you're going to do eight or four or whatever you're going to do, if we see an analysis that would indicate, you know, pretty reasonably that there would be more revenue, we could certify it. We have not seen that.
>> and the reason you haven't is because you've got to start. And that's -- that is the system. And so it is a calculated risk. That in essence you say you either believe that that is going to generate additional revenue or you don't because if you're going to rely on certify revenue, to start it you won't start it. So you've got to start it, then show it, then grow it. That's really the strategy and that was the confusion of the two-minute explanation which is related to our system where there is a line between show me the revenue and here's the expense in order to get the revenue.
>> and that's all the more reason why we shouldn't go in and try to alter buildings and alter work spaces and do all of this kind of stuff. If we're going to try something, let's try something. I mean, you know, with the lowest output of dollar involvement because it's not like somebody's not going to pay. If you're sitting too close to that person over there and I'm just not comfortable paying you. Get in there and find it. So I understand now. Thanks for that explanation.
>> great.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners -- it passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all. Do we have the space item on next week?
>> yes.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 6, 2003 4:52 PM