Travis County Commssioners Court
November 25, 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.
Items 26 & A1
26, that's the 1445 item?
>> yes. -- 1445.
>> yes. The city and the county and the stakeholders met
yesterday to go over the major issues with regard to the -- [ inaudible ]
under 1445. I don't think we had any consensus on resolution. We did agree
to meet again next Monday. (indiscernible) we're contracting back with a
recommendation to the Commissioners court and the city council and -- by
Wednesday of next week. And that's kind of our timetable on the single code.
I would like to report that we're doing an audit today as well.
>> before we get there, if that means that the city council
meeting of next week is out, if you're not even going to meet until Wednesday,
so they would only have one more shot for agreeing on that code. So if it
doesn't get done in the meeting of the 10th, that's it. There are no meetings
after that.
>> we understand that. And (indiscernible). We'd like the
extra week. All right. I'll let carol -- carol's been talking with the county
auditor and the city. I'd like for her to explain where we are in that process.
[overlapping speakers].
>>In conjunction with 26, let's call up a-1, consider and take appropriate action
on an exemption order for professional services for a management audit of the
single office and authorize the purchasing agent and executive manager for
transportation and natural resources to commence contract negotiations with
deloitte and touch, pursuant to county purchasing act, Texas local government
code section 262.024.
>> okay. What has just been passed out is a preliminary
draft proposal from the deloitte touch -- I was going to at a deloitte and
touch. And we met several times, and last week, Wednesday, we met with the
city as well as our staff and the county auditor's staff and we met with
deloitte and touch to go over what this draft proposal is here today. There
are several things, i'll just kind of walk you through the major activities.
There are four activities that they're proposing. One is the initiation is
basically to meet with us and find out what it is we want. In that initiation
they're also going to meet with the stakeholders because we suggested that
as one thing and then find out what everyone's goals are and what their wishes
are. And then to begin the audit is to start assessing the processes, identifying
where we are, what -- where we are today, where we should be tomorrow, and
then go on to that -- cover the cost of services to see what is the cost
of services as it relates to 1445 in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for
only the city of Austin and the county of travis and Travis County. Recognize
that the city has hays as well as the other one, Williamson county, that
they have extraterritorial jurisdiction with, and we have another 21 other
entities. So just this one portion, though, that they've been dealing with.
In activity 3 they look at the cost of services where there's duplication,
if there's any to tell us where they are, and where we could streamline our
changes, our processes. And what they're doing the activity for is how can
we optimize the processes? What can they tell us that we could do differently
that we'll be able to provide better services to our customers. We've discussed
this with the city last Wednesday. This same draft of was given to them.
I spoke with john stephens, who is the comptroller for the city of Austin,
and they had no more comments other than they're concerns with activity four
because of duplication. They have recently or are recently going through
a process, analysis themselves, and they're concerned with redoing what they've
already done. One of the things that the deloitte touch felt is that they
could look at what they've already done and review, audit and verify that
those things are the way they are. So we're -- we have not done anything
than what you've asked in this item and we ask you to approve the exemption
order and then give joe the authority to negotiate. The main thing that you
need to get to is before the last page, the page before -- page 7 is the
cost.
>> yeah. That is not correct.
>> right. What they're proposing is $180,000 with the related expenses. And we suggested that they use a planning and engineering firm to also assess the credibility of the cost of services and review the processes and the analysis there of. And that's an additional $25,000. As you know, in our budget all we have is $100,000.
>> it's $205,000 if you include the 25,000.
>> absolutely.
>> and we don't have the extra 105,000 and I think the city has made it extraordinarily clear they are not splitting the cost with us. So how do we deal with that?
>> well, I think when this was initially proposed, we think we correctly reported to the court that this is a 200,000-dollar study. Deloitte and touche said you're right. We also hoped to partner with the city on the cost of the thing. So with that said, we could down scale the study to get it underbudget. That's one option. You can seek funding from the city or at least offset some of the cost of the work by having the city pick up a portion of the work perhaps not a cash contribution, but actually do the work that otherwise would have been done by deloitte and touche. I have a sense that the amount would probably still exceed our budget if we did that.
>> there's another opportunity here, and that is since they are the ones who are pushing this the most, are there resources available from the real estate council, the Austin -- the city of commerce who have chipped in in ways to joint city private sector kinds of activities.
>> I haven't asked.
>> well, it's like -- you know, you ought to at least ask. And certainly they are the stakeholders pushing for it the most. And if the cost, as we've said, is about 200,000, and we said we're good for 100, and the city said no, thank you, perhaps we can ask the private sector, who has the most at stake here, to step up to the plate and see if they will help fund the independent audit, which is the thing that they have said repeatedly to all of us is the only thing they're going to believe. And I don't blame them, but I'm wondering if they can be asked to step up to the plate and be part of the solution.
>> well, before we ask anybody to step up to the plate,
when do we get done dealing with the city? I have dealt with the city on
1445/1204. I have dealt with the city on campo versus their road plan. I
have dealt with the city on the lowe's tract. Not one thing have I dealt
with them on that they've been willing to deal with us on other than being
the 8 100-pound gorilla and thro it back in our face. For us to go and spend
$200,000 -- first of all, I think the stakeholders should slap us because
it's the only logical idea that we could come up with. But mercy -- and even
if we do this, I figure what they're going to say is "so? I don't care what your plan shows".
I mean, that would go a long way with me if he ever could get anything from
them where we could resolve something versus just having to go through their
77 steps that you've got to go through to get anything done with them. So
I didn't think we could do it for 100,000. I wasn't willing to spend 100,000
for our side anyway, but mainly because I think we're just going to get it
thrown back in our face. But to spend $200,000, even if -- I think it's unwise
for us to spend our own 100,000.
>> I think we should proceed with it. I think it's a good idea.
>> all they can say is no.
>> the only option we have is to scale down the scope of this, which may not get us to where we're supposed to be in terms of -- all I know is I want the best possible effort made to do what we said we would do in the interlocal, knowing that we have some friends a couple of blocks away at the state capitol, and I'm not going to be the one scolded for not paying attention to 1445 and 1204.
>> in your testimony you stated earlier, did you indicate that the city of Austin basically said that as far as the scope of service or scope of work, something to the effect that they had already done and they would try to get the same -- has there been any aspects of any of this here of deloitte and touche, is there any word from the city of Austin that some of this has already been done on their part?
>> they have indicated that they have started process analysis and that they have documentation to show as much. Deloitte said to them, and we all said this, while they have done that, part of the audit would be to verify and under the assumption that that is true and that that is happening and that that process is going on.
>> and my next question is can that be equated into dollar amount that if it's verified to be quoted as dollar amounts whereby deloitte and touche will not have to revisit the same thing again?
>> they would still have to review and test those documents. And I think that by speaking with them, they were there when the city said as much, and this reflects their review thereof. They asked that the city would give them the documentation and present that to them. Now, we have not received anything because, of course, we haven't negotiated anything.
>> but they were requesting it?
>> yes. We were there together. We have some processes that we documented, but they would still have to audit it.
>> I don't know where the city is going with this. I don't know. But it appears to me that if there is areas whereby they can donate services or donate time to offset this cost, I think that's something that we can look at. I don't know how or what -- how this would impact the time lines on this. This is what I'm really beginning to be real nervous about right now is not having enough money to get a full scope of the impact of doing an audit and then doing it in a timely manner before January. January of 2004. So that's what I'm kind of concerned about. And I think all of us are. So I guess my question is what can we get for the amount of money that we, Travis County, number one, could put on the table? Number two, what would be the difference of what we're still looking for as far as makeup dollars that we could maybe get the city to do some in kind services and also in a timely manner before January of '04 because this is really getting close down to the crunching time, the crunching hour, and I'm getting real uncomfortable about it.
>> deloitte and touche think that they could actually get the work done by the end of the year. I think it's not realistic to think that the city and the county staffs would have to talk to to do this study if they're not available during the entire six-week period. People are out for holidays, both thanksgiving and christmas, which means that there's nobody to talk to. The staff will be on vacation. So perhaps January 31st is a more realistic deadline to get this work accomplished. So I think -- to me I think that's what we're thinking of the amount of time to get this study done. Now, we can go back and ask them to stop the work and that only $100,000 is available. We can say this is how much we've got. You identify for us the key pieces that you feel you can accomplish for the amount of fund available.
>> I think that the city and staff has mapped out their processes. Deloitte's auditing those processes and it's going to be a lot faster than their having to go out and find them. If the city is telling us the truth, there should be lesser hours involved. The next thing is deloitte has a lot of risk because they don't know what kind of cooperation you can get. And this is a very short time frame. We were pretty impressed with the scope of work. I think that's a fair thing. From y'all's viewpoint, I don't think deloitte ought to do anything until we decide we're going to contract with them. I don't want a contractor out there doing stuff thinking we might pay them and then not. So we really are in a pretty tight time frame. Our office does not do management audits, and I wouldn't want you to think -- we just don't. But if you could -- you're short 105,000, if you could get the stakeholders to kick in some -- I don't know if joe can kick in any more. I think we could kick in 25,000 from my budget. And I would have to tell you I would prefer doing that than for us to do the audit because I think an outside firm is better. I think you will be better served. I know the stakes are high for y'all. So if -- I don't know if that makes any difference in your decision at all. We still have some vacancies and I could use the money for that if that's what you would like.
>> couple of things. One is I think we ought to try to get deloitte to come to the city and find out what exactly the city has. Someone needs to make that assessment. Two, I do think we should go to the stakeholders and find out if they could make a contribution. And if we're talking increments of $25,000, ask for that. Second thing i'd ask them is do they have any ideas about service duplication and reduplication. That would help some.
>> that's the number one activity. The first thing they are going do was sit with the stakeholders and find out what their assessment of what is duplication, what they think it is.
>> I mean, they've been working on this fink for years, so I don't know why they wouldn't be able to pull it out and say here it is. We make sure we cover that. I guess the third thing would be if joe could help a little bit and I guess we could look a little bit, if we're talking about pulling money from a couple other sources and ourselves kicking in a little bit more, maybe we could achieve it. If we hold the city to its commitment to give a substantial in kind contribution, and that may well be not only its auditing staff, but also they need to -- (indiscernible). When deloitte asks questions, they need to know that somebody from the city will be available to answer those the same as the county. Otherwise this thing could take forever.
>> we have indication from the city that they're more than willing to meet and discuss. And while we did not collect any processes because we didn't feel that we should have them reviewing stuff before we contract with them, so we didn't collect any that they provided at the time, but if we're going to go ahead and negotiate, then yes, we will ask the city to provide those processes. So the auditors could say maybe the contract price will go down because the review time will be less in testing versus doing. [overlapping speakers].
>> here's the one thing that concerns me because the scope of service is absolutely important. And what I see under activity two, page 2, and then I think it comes up again on 2.7, it only uses the -- [overlapping speakers].
>> I notice on activity 2, page 2, and on page 4 under 2.7, the only word that is used, has become that red flag word, is duplication. And we had I think some very good discussions in our work session and even the stakeholders agreed that there is a difference between duplication and dual. It could be that dual review could be duplication, but those are not synonyms and therefore we only use the word duplication if we really need to identify and differentiate between dual and duplication. Because if we just had this mindset that if someone else is doing it a second time, that doesn't necessarily mean it's snriks duplication. So that has got to be in terms of the analysis differ ren shat between dual, meaning there's a reason two different people with a different viewpoint are looking at a particular issue versus duplication, which I see as two people looking at it with the same viewpoint. Because that really seems to be the big sticking point. Nobody wants duplication. But there may be reasons that we look at something because of a transportation drainage point of view and the city is looking at it or somebody from the single office city is look at it from a water quality or an environmental issue. You may have dual review, but even the stakeholders said, well, we don't think of that as being duplication because there is a legitimate reason that two sets of eyes are looking at it.
>> and the auditors did understand that because we -- cynthia and I both went with the inspectors --
>> but there needs to be a codification of the word dual. Somewhere the word --
>> in other words, keep a copy of the dictionary. [ laughter ]
>> we run the county's big ought, and you can make audits go more efficiently by finding out what the auditors are going to need and have that so when they walk in the door they're not wasting their time, well, we need this, well, i'll go get it. We come tell them up front what do you need? When they walk in the we have those things. We have made our big audit much more efficient by oresing what we think is needed. And the city ought to be able to do that and we ought to be able to do that. That really should save us money. And there are some things in here that you might not be able to do. We disagree with tnr on this, but if the city doesn't want to pay anything, I certainly wouldn't pay for consultants to go over and make a special presentation to the city council. I would let them come over and listen here. Things like that.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> .
>> ... If it looks like it's just a shell game, you call it quits and say let's not go any further, this is going nowhere.
>> I mean how much -- I think we ought to do our share who get who done and we can't control the city of Austin and we can't control ourselves. I think [indiscernible] in good faith do our part to get this done. And if the city will not play ball with us, then I think we clearly have an obligation to look at whether [indiscernible] and if we can identify it eliminate it. Now, obviously I think the need for as much outside assistance will be affected by whether the two of us have doing it together or whether it's just Travis County. We can't make the city do anything. So far they have said they are interested -- there is the law there, and if there's not clear, precise wording of the mandate, there at least is a strong implication to eliminate serious implication in fee dupely indication. I just think we ought to go ahead and do it. Can we have it on next week? We have two full workdays, tomorrow and Monday.
>> we ought to have a draft contract ready [inaudible].
>> barbara can do it.
>> this thing really needs to move if you decide you want to do that.
>> do we need somebody from the court to contact the stakeholders and say do you think it will do any good to make a sympathetic sort of begging, crying -- get my drift? Are you capable of doing that?
>> sure, I can do that.
>> we'll [indiscernible].
>> or something like i'll break your legs? Is that what you mean? [laughter]
>> we'll have it back on next week. I think we all are sort of together on trying to proceed in this direction and get it done, right?
>> we can approve the exemption or whatever. Today.
>> I move that we approve the exemption order, prepare a draft contract for execution if the pieces come together. Any more discussion? That was seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. All in favor? Shows Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner and your truly in favor. Against Commissioner Daugherty.
Last Modified: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:43 AM