Travis County Commssioners Court
November 4, 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 12
Let's quickly go to 12, which is to approve modification number one, sl030126lc, bearingpoint, inc., For Texas online service level agreement with epay attachment for Travis County. It was requested on that but I forgot the [indiscernible] of the e government committee.
>> we were hoping that -- that we will have our egov being next week, judge. There is some discussion that needs to take place, I think from a policy standpoint as to -- you know the fee, the tans action fee -- transaction fee, the 50 cents transaction fee and how it's going to be aloe indicated -- allocated, where it's going to go, I think that I would like to have time to bring that back to the court, unless you all feel like you know exactly where that's going.
>> my question was really more of this is the first add-on, so it's basically the questions that get raised now, if they get resolved it would just be a standard in terms of how we handle everyone else. My question was really because of the -- this is for consequence stabl -- it's constable 3, correct?
>> yes.
>> because they are in a temporary location and there will be a permanent location I hope sooner rather than later, I just had a question in terms of is that something easily transferrible, is it just a program that goes on in their computer so that we don't set something up in a place that's not going to be the permit residency for that program and the part two of that is as we have now discovered, j.p.'s and constables work very closely together in terms of how these fees and things happen. I was just raising a question of shouldn't it be both the j.p. And the constable asking for that same kind of service? Because I can just imagine somebody coming to the office when they are all back together, it's like, well, you have to pay it on the j.p. Side and one accepts something and the other person doesn't. Seems like there ought to be some consistency when somebody goes to a government office whether they do accept credit cards or not. Because I can just see people being upset if they had anticipation of using one level of service and just because they didn't ask the question, well, that's the constable side, no, that's the j.p. Side. We have an upset customer. So it's just consistency.
>> I think those are good points, Commissioners. Would we be more comfortable bringing this back after we have our e-gov meeting next week, to bring it -- I mean, i've had like bringing it back on the 25th --
>> yeah. Judy pitsford i.t.s. The previous history is we came to court in March, we had the $5, 5% fee as well as a 50 cents convenience fee. There is a house bill, I think it's 201 that was amended and I don't think we at that point discussed what to do with the 50 cents. So now that we have a department that is ready and -- and we have been working with the auditor's office and I think we are at a point, maybe mike wants to speak to that, where the reconciliation of this fee is ready to go, it would be better, I think, if we could discuss it in e-gov and determine how to use this 50 cents for the county.
>> well, Commissioner Sonleitner had even a different issue that I do think that we need to bring forth as well I mean concerning the precinct 3 with constables office in connection with the jch's office. -- j.p.'s office. If you wouldn't mind, judge, if you will let us work on this, get those answers back to the court and bring it back on the 25th, I think that we will be -- we will be able to get the information before that date to everybody so you are a little more comfortable with what we are doing, policy-wise and the thing Commissioner Sonleitner that you are talking about.
>> let's keep in mind, though, the constables and j.p.'s are elected officials. I don't know that we have ever expected them to March together. We hope -- we always hoped they would.
>> we would hope they would. It just may be they haven't thought about it in that way. Programs we can prompt some cooperation --
>> we should encourage it, keep doing so. But at the same time I don't know that I would deny one because the other one hadn't3 requested it. [indiscernible] the one question that I do have, though, is why take three weeks on something that we can do in a week?
>> well, I --
>> one week or two weeks.
>> I think the only reason -- we are not going to meet until next week.
>> right. I think that it's two weeks away the next e-gov meeting, I think it's a scheduling issue with the two Commissioners offices. We will try to work that out -- [multiple voices]
>> you may as well give some thought to exactly how we would consider these requests. So people in the committee, they may as well know here are the steps you take before you get to the Commissioners court and they won't show up on the agenda until they are ready.
>> we did discuss it in committee. We had discussed it in committee, but then I think the issue about the [indiscernible] part came up.
>> this -- just present an outline for court approval that way --
>> any expense becomes perfunctory --
>> this is a consent item if ever there was a consent one. At the same time it's one of first impression, we may be able to spend a little bit of time working on this to put in place the procedures for dealing with them, communicate that to other managers so they will know.
>> should I just let you all put it back on when it's ready.
>> yes. We will get it back as quickly as we can.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 5, 2003 9:52 AM