Travis County Commssioners Court
December 23, 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 7
Number 7 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding a contract for professional services for a management audit of the single office for travis/austin subdivision review with deloitte and touche llp.
>> carol joseph with tnr. We met with the city and deloitte and touche last week and we came to consensus. I e-mailed you yesterday the latest draft and withheld the purchasing portion of it, and I have that copy here. What is in it is we have agreed that we should do activity one and two, which is basically where we have the auditors meet with the stakeholders as well as with the city and the county, assess the issues and then look at activity 2 where they look for duplication. They will do that in bot the city and the county. Item 3, 4 and 5, which deals with the cost of services, the optimization of that and what the city's projected fees could be based on those cost of services is going to be done only for the county. So that's where we are today. And the total cost has been reduced to 119,000 plus $10,000 for travel and expenses.
>> carol, could you specifically tell me what the county would be doing -- what are we looking for as opposed to what the city has done? If it's going to cost that much, what are we going to get out of it? Is it things we're having to do anyway? I知 sorry?
>> go ahead.
>> we're in a tough situation because as I stated last week, the week before and whatever this has been on, the last thing I do not want to see happen is for this to go to some type of arbitration whereby the city and also the county will have to pay x amount of dollars, taxpayers' dollars for something that maybe can be hashed out up front. And if I知 understanding tnr's position, if we have to have full participation this this thing with the county and also the city, without that type of participation, it appears that it would be one sided. And of course, then the cost and the amount of things would still be one sided. That's what I知 saying. If I知 incorrect in that aspect, then correct me, but this is what I知 worrying. And, of course, full participation I thought would be the remedy for us not having as many things going to arbitration which is going to happen apparently. And of course, with that dollars will be assessed and I really don't know how much money we'll be looking at in the future. So I知 really concerned about that as far as what we're giving and also the amount of money as far as what county should be giving and why should the county have to pay the full cost of this when we still have total agreement and we end up having to go to arbitration anyway. That's my point.
>> what we look for, in item 1 and two in agreement with the city, in that audit they will find where we have duplication of services or the city has no issues with that portion of it. In terms of the cost of service and the cost of work, they are concerned that they wanted to review the cost of their services because they have a process already. We felt that within tnr our cost of services, we have the auditors, an outside entity review our cost of services, review our processes as we have them, identify what those costs are. If they're duplicated cost of services or work, identify the cost of that for the county. Now, the idea is that eventually the city and the county will have to go back. Someone will have to make a decision between us whether or not we continue to do that if there are duplications, who does it and how much should it cost and if we continue to charge a fee accordingly. That would be a discussion after the audit. Assuming there are duplications that result in item 1 and two. Did I answer that?
>> yeah. If we're looking at this and we look at what's in the e.t.j. And we're dealing with the county and also the cities, we're looking at the transportation, looking at the drainage, looking at the environmental impact, and I guess again the responsibility for each one of those have to be fleshed out and the cost of those services, make sure you don't have the duplication of service.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> c which was signed. Of course it's supposed to be coming back to see what language as far as both particular items in 6 and 7, a, b and c as far as what position the city is going to take and also the county is going to take, but something that's been signed off prior to and now beginning to wonder what is going to be the binding effort as far as the interlocal agreement with some of the things we're looking at and if it will overlap.
>> I don't suspect it will overlap. I think we'll be able to identify from this audit exactly if there is any overlap where it is and what we should do about that. It will help us identify where they are with an outside eye versus with us individually going in and assuming one thing or the other.
>> okay. I知 just -- okay. See if my other colleagues have some questions. Thank you.
>> under the best possible world we would have been doing this as the city and the county jointly together one gigantic we are the world project and splitting the costs. We're not going there. We had always felt this was about a $200,000 joint audit. Well, guess what? It's about half that cost and most of the work is now being done strictly on behalf of Travis County. So that we can use this process to assess and draw our own conclusions about dual, duplicative, who should be doing this, is this adding to the process so we can do our piece of this and the city is going to do theirs. But without their cooperation, collaboration, we never couldn't have gotten there if they hadn't agreed to at least 1 and 2. So pleased to say they are in there. It's about half the cost of where we were, a little bit more, but we're going to be able to get the information we get and we're going to get the cooperation of the city of Austin. Is this the best of worlds? No. It still means the city is going to have to go through its process, and they are going to have to draw their own conclusions, but this still will get us where we thought we would be. We thought we would have to spend $100,000 to get an audit, spend $100,000, plus or minus, to get the information we need. Yeah, it would have been better if we were working together, but if you can't, can't we at least going get what we -- so this is largely going to be a Travis County project.
>> do we get $118,000 worth of value from this process proceeding in this manner? I didn't mean to put you. T thespot.
>> let me just say that I think we would have gotten more value out of it if we had the whole study done. We're probably getting [indiscernible]. It's certainly more work at the processes, the activities that the city and county are doing, but it will fall short when we start talking about a single free structure -- fee structure for review and inspection of subdivisions within e.t.j.s. And that was originally our goal. When we get to the same analysis with content, that's when we have the county side what it cost us to do business and what [indiscernible] are based on. We've just not been able to address that on the city side and that's where if you ask how much value are you getting for your money, that's probably where we fall short.
>> as executive manager of t.n.r. Is your recommendation to approve the proposed contract or not in?
>> that's a tough question, it really is.
>> think about that. Any thoughts? In the end, it really boils down to whether or not this is a good investment for Travis County. At some point I would think we need to information. And it is not the whole review as we hoped for, but it certainly is one way to get it done.
>> I think the whole thing is disappointing the way it's gone. First of all, we signed an interlocal, and in good faith both organizations agreed to this. It raises, I think, a lot of questions, and that is, you know, why sit that the city will not engage in this? Why would you not, particularly when they weren't earn paying for it, allow an honest, independent look at what it costs. It may be, I mean county governments cannot make money on services. So we can charge what it costs us, but we can't make money. I don't know if we're way under what it costs us or not, and this studly tell you that. But if in fact we are way under what it costs, how then do we even negotiate with the city? They won't let anyone look at their costs. Do we now give the development community theoretically streamlined services and now they pay more than they ever did before. I don't know how we can -- and I think the city's lack of participation just raises a whole lot of issues and how you deal with them in good faith. You know, if you need to know what our services cost, I think this is the best way to do that. When you get that, I guess the question is what will you do with it because you know now the city is not going to allow us to look at theirs. So I don't know what you do with that data. ,.
>> but that's the point I was making before, and what I知 trying my best to see not happen is arbitration as far as many things go. It's going to be one of them. And there's no doubt in my mind -- I don't know what the arbitrators are charging these days, but I know it costs a lot of money. Binding arbitration, that's going to be the new kid on the block. So what is it going to cost county and also the city of Austin by not doing what we need to do as far as full participation in this process up front. Is the county going to have to pay twice? Looking at a little more than $100,000 now and then arbitration have to -- on I don't know the amount of money we'll have to put up.
>> isn't there a certain amount of work we can do, though, to show that we are at least following the spirit of the legislation?
>> I think that's what joe's got in front of you.
>> and can we arrive at that at least to show that we're doing our part and, you know, we just can't -- we're at the point we've got to move on. We can't stay stuck somewhere because, you know, we're going to have to go it alone. I don't think there's a problem with going it alone up to a certain point. So that we meet the spirit of the law.
>> the issue is the duplication of two separate government entities and whether or not we're charging more than we both should be doing combined. I can tell you at the end of the study how much we're charging and whether or not [indiscernible] duplication what the city does. That's all we can do with this study. It gets you there with regard to the county's services. What it does not answer is whether or not the city is charging more than its costs for what it does. And that question will not be answered by this study.
>> well, I have a feeling that this is going to continue to play out in the legislature, and what I want to show is that county government is at least stepping up to the plate and saying we're meeting the spirit of the law, we are not pointing fingers at anybody else, but legislators, county government is doing what it needs to do. So follow the spirit of the law. I just think that's important for us to show. So susan, can we come up with something --
>> I think what you have, Commissioner, I think that's what this is. It's just -- I think joe is right. In the end, when that's done, what you have is what he described. You will not know whether there's duplication of costs, you will not know that. And the other thing I think is that if it comes down to who pays for what, were I sitting in your seat, I would be very uncomfortable paying the city of Austin anything because you have absolutely no idea -- are they making money off us? We can't do that. This is a government. You don't let someone look at your cost structure. I think you have gotten a very clear sign that when this is done, that's what you'll have, but it will show that we did our part and we complied with the legislation. It will do that. It's just if that is worth 119,000 to you all.
>> well, can we at least document what we have done and maybe take it up to the absolute latest thing that we can do -- latest date that we can act so that when questions come up later about what we did or didn't do, we can document that to thars?
>> let me use my finger pointing because I don't mind finger pointing.
>> which finger?
>> this is so obvious to me. I've got an executive manager that, you know, is basically telling us no, I mean, they are not comfortable. I've got the auditor that's telling me that this isn't right. We know that from the get go the city has not wanted to participate in the fee structure with -- I mean study. I mean, my gosh, I mean, it is obvious. I don't think we can get around arbitration. And if we can arbitrate the fees, then we have to -- then I think that's what we have to do. But falling short with the sing single fee is what we really are after. I mean I can't have joe geese even man tell me -- geiselman, here's the deal, we are falling short of having a single fee structure with this, period. That's coming from joe. The spirit of the law? My gosh, if we haven't dealt with this thing long enough to -- I mean what do we have to do, take the tapes over to the legislature when they come back in? Well, let's take them over there and say do you think we were trying to meet the spirit of the law? We have never vacilated in so far as we are willing to stand good, hard -- spend good, hard money to come up with a fee structure. We have a participant that's not willing to participate in that. Period. I mean let's not beat around the bush. The city has no interest in doing that. And I can't imagine that the legislature is going to be upset with the county. I mean, we have spent so many hours on this crazy thing now that it's ridiculous. So I don't think there's any choice. I mean before I知 willing to sign off spending $119,000 just to give us -- heck, I think I could go to joe geiselman and say, joe, tell us what it cost us and tell us what our free structure is and let's justify what our free structure is. I don't have to have somebody getting paid 119,000 -- I知 not dogging deloitte, they are in the business to do it, I don't have to have somebody paid $119,000. I think I can go to the department and say, joe, you tell us what our free structure is and I think we can take that to the legislature and say here's what our free structure is and here's why and we can justify every fee that we charge.
>> understand the bulk of what we're spending our money on is not the study but the processes. The 100 and some odd thousand dollars we're paying deloitte is really the analysis of the processes. If you ask me how much or the content of our fees, I believe you are right, I could do that, but what deloitte is doing beyond that is looking at both what we do and what the city does in terms of our processes. We will get to the issue of is there duplication in those processes. So that's what I guess if I looked at it and to answer the judge's question are we getting $100,000 worth of analysis, I would say on the fee end, I would say yes. What [indiscernible] a plan which the real heart of the matter and that's the cost of the fee. So I think I would enjoy deloitte's analysis of the city and county processes if for no other reason than to say we looked at them. You can [indiscernible] by doing this or you can [indiscernible] these areas of duplication. Some value for Travis County.
>> recommendation we do this or not?
>> I would have to say yes at this point and all things considered.
>> [indiscernible] outside help.
>> either we avoid arbitration after spending 119,000 plus expenses.
>> I知 not sure we do.
>> that's where mr. Savio comes in.
>> not really.
>> yes, it is.
>> I think at this point --
>> come forward, mr. Savio. [multiple voices]
>> here we are trying to do the right thing, you've heard the discussion, we're trying to figure out can we go ahead and make this investment. We believe we can describe the value that we get, and one question is basically whether it's worth it. Our folks seem to be leaning toward yes, I think. But in my view, we are doing this really to comply with the law. Spirit and implied language if it's not expressed. In the end, though, what we're trying to do is avoid arbitration and expenses associated with it. So any perspective from you for your group?
>> judge, thank you. I guess thank you for -- I think if tom were here he would say the key vision of the statute is requirement for certification and I think the court is going to have to certify that city and county have complied with the statute. First of all I salute you, it is very hard to recognize the intent of the legislature. Unfortunately, I don't expect the legislature to specifically act on Travis County or counties versus cities. Which brings us back to you are going to be required to certify that the city and the county are in compliance with the agreement. And so one of the per suspect I was you may want to use -- perspectives is whether that information assessed or assist knew reaching that certification. What I heard joe saying was that the information itself, assuming we do get arbitration, may help you win that arbitration. Unless the work is something that is probably going to have to be done anyway. And it was certainly the foundation of what the stakeholders recognized as -- we had a hard time coming around and understanding exactly where the staff was heading and I never [indiscernible] until I heard the discussion last week that became the fundamental of ensuring that the city and the county complied. I know that answer is somewhat convoluted, but I think those are the two things you are going to have to weigh. If you do go to arbitration, is this document something that's going to assist you in that arbitration or not.
>> okay. Any questions of mr. Savio? I know I cut joe off.
>> and I would think that the work, any documentation that we have would help us eventually. So it's not -- therefore, I don't believe that this would be money badly spent or we're throwing it down the drain because I think that we'll need this as we continue forward to comply. And to show that we followed the steps necessary to get us there to comply. With the spirit of the law. Because I think that's extremely important and especially the county governments, it is really important that we show that we can do that and not just the city.
>> and I think it's the independent analysis that I think is going to be helpful. We've heard that too often from the stakeholders, but I think that is also going to be compelling to the legislature. You can't really self-audit yourself and anybody is going to believe you are as fantastic as you say or you could have gone further. This independent analysis I think will be helpful because it is detached and it is somebody else who doesn't have a stake in this taking a look at the process. And I think -- I think harry is right, if we do wind up in binding arbitration, this is information that will help us. It's already pre-done. We will be able to tell somebody during binding arbitration exactly what our costs are because it's already done, and done by an independent group.
>> let me ask this question. In the binding arbitration arena, as a matter of fact, I recall, I believe the county attorney said that is a fair, equal expense on the two governmental entities, the county and also the city. And I believe -- is that a true statement? In other words, if -- in the arbitration after the arbitrator makes their binding ruling, the expense is shared equally with the county and the city? Is that something that that's true?
>> I know the selection of the arbitrator is a joint selection, and I知 sure we pay equally in the arbitration process. [indiscernible] so I can't say that by the time you have finished, I think each side is going to pay a cost. They may not be equal in nature. I think it's more like a trial where you bring your best information. How much it costs you to bring that information is your choice. And perhaps some of the attorneys can help me out here, but I think-i think it's more the case of as in trial proceedings, you can spend as much money as you want to spend getting ready for arbitration.
>> I think that in the existing state statute that we are being governed during the closure of this, I think, my recollection, current [indiscernible] but I don't know for sure.
>> I have not reviewed this particular statute in relation to arbitration. The usual situation is that the costs of arbitration that are shared equally are the travel costs for the arbitrator, the amount you pay as salary or compensation to the arbitrator. If the arbitrator orders something to be done and orders that both parties share in the costs equally, like if he were to order a study like the one that was originally contemplated and said both sides share equally, then we would share equally in that. But as joe indicated, there could be costs that you would incur that would be more or less than the ones that the city incurred because, like if we were going to trial, what we choose to do in prep time with the attorneys, what we choose to do in terms of providing expert witnesses, what we choose to do in terms of special reports to persuade the arbitrate thaers we are the ones who were doing the right thing or the -- or that our position ought to prevail, that will be our cost and only other cost. Obviously the city could spend three times as much as us on doing exactly the same thing because it may be more important to them to prove that their position is correct than it is to us. So, you know, it can work either way in terms of the cost for preparation for your presentation. The costs that will be equally shared will be the ones that relate to -- and there may be a cost for the location where the arbitration takes place, as well. That kind of thing. Not the cost of preparing for side of the information.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any questions of mr. Savio? Joe, did I let you fin stpheurb.
>> yes.
>> I asked about value. If we're going to do this, do we think the fee, susan, is reasonable for the described services?
>> I do. I think what we've laid out there is a fair fee, and we've reviewed that and I believe that's a fair fee.
>> okay. If we end up going to arbitration, I guess -- and the question is whether we in good faith attempted to look at duplication of service and duplication of fees, and we say we looked at it from our side, here's the product and we could not have done more, in our view, I mean I guess if I were arbitrator, I would be persuaded. Is that stphroepbl.
>> yes, that's reasonable.
>> now, the city will have some responses to some of this. Luckily we have ms. Gordon here. She was grilled a little bit last week. She is invited to direct us at this time.
>> merry christmas. Happy holidays. [laughter] yes, I think I was questioned quite a lot last week and that's fine. That's part of the job. Let me offer some comments regarding this matter to kind of clear up the city's position. First and foremost, the city operates in a general fund capacity and in terms of how we set up our fee structure, it's derived to equate to the cost of service, but as you know in any general fund, there's not a complete cost recovery because it's not set up that way. In the city's jurisdiction, as yo know, we have our full city and then we have the e.t.j. When you look at the revenue in the e.t.j. Just on the county side, you are talking about $600,000. On the city's side, it's a couple of million dollars for our total revenue if you just look at total revenue as it breaks out. So if you are looking at duplication, the total duplication, if we say it's 100% duplication on the city and county side, you are talking about probably $600,000 on your fee side. If we just eliminated that and said you had just the city's fee structure, then you still have a capture of costs. I want to put that out there because that's order of magnitude in terms of revenue and duplication that we're talking about. Secondly, in order -- when we entered into the interlocal, we looked at this, we're looking at the fee schedule and what the costs were for the e.t.j. And me not being the fiscal person looking at it in detail and we started undoing that, that would be a complete new free structure for the city and we have not received the authority to do -- that level of -- in the level we have broken it out to. I don't want it it's we have something to hide, we don't want to share our costs, it's a larger system and study and if the city did that it would probably be close to 200 or 300,000 to go through that and say it's a cost basis when did it's not set up that way. However, the city has committed to eliminate the fees and structure, as written last week by mr. Nuckols is the intent of the legislation. It doesn't say revised fee schedule based on cost of service, it sees a fee that if the costs provided for that service and eliminates the duplication of the two entities, and we're committed to that as far as performance and process review, we've had a process review team conducting that. We have a city member participating at -- a county member participating on that team and we have people that are skilled that are doing that work and that process so we are committed to streamlining our service and we've done several things to just revamp the entire -- the entire process that we have today. And we're still working through that and consolidating into one stop looking at all of our permitting, all of our inspections and looking at those areas so. I just want it to be clear for the record in terms of what the city's rationale is and why we're tkoeugt and why it is a different exercise for the city than it is for the county in terms of order of magnitude for revenues. That being said, we met with the auditors. They met with our finance staff. Our auditors, and we met with deloitte & touche. We think what we've come up with is something that is worthwhile for the city to participate and address the court issue which is duplication of services.
>> thank you for those comments. You mentioned earlier about $2 million revenue generation that basically goes into your general fund.
>> I didn't say $2 million, I said a couple million. I don't have those figures. I said in the order of magnitude, the total revenue you collect is about 600,000 and the city collects several million. For that area eye guess the bottom line is that it ends up going to your general fund, and I guess is that money used to fund certain aspects of county business -- I mean of city businesses, services, anything like that?
>> the general fund --
>> as far as this particular money is concerned.
>> the revenue sharing process is just different because it's not set up as a cost recovery model allocating for all costs. And the general fund taxes and fees support a services in that general fund.
>> okay. I知 just trying to equate the amount of money that if there is duplication of fees, duplication of services, things like that is correct and let's say an example that it comes back that the county would be recovering -- not recovering, but would be collecting fees whereas the city may not, I知 just wondering whether there would be an impact or what kind of impact that would have on as far as funding things from the general fund with what we're looking to. Have you looked into that phase of that?
>> because the analysis has not been done, I don't have the ability to give you answer to that. I think the issue that I was trying to point out is that if you go towards what is the maximum revenue that you collect and say we had 100% duplication, which I don't think we do because we've kind of discussed that in terms of what we do and do not do, if you eliminated the 600,000 and kept one fee schedule, three receipticly you have a single fee. I was making the point there's more than one way to address the problem. And looking what the impact on is city is of going through full cost of service because we have a much larger jurisdiction not in the e.t.j. I don't want to start going in numbers because I don't have revenue numbers here and I don't have that information. I was just bringing that point up in terms of if the focus is eliminating the duplication in the e.t.j. In that review, then we're committed to doing that.
>> and if in the e.t.j. We're supposed to be doing the drainage, transportation and flood plain, a dough tall duplication of the city's fees, that would be a reduction of $600,000 on the city's side. I don't make any kind of assumptions and I think that's what's at the core here, that if there is duplication, I think there may be some on you all's side, but I think there's some thought of you all thinking we're going to be the ones stop doing something and stop charging for it as opposed to I think the real core issue is what adds value to the subdivision review process. That's where I知 trying to get to. And if that review adds value, it ought to be there whether it's done by a city person or county person, we just don't want to have it done twice. I don't make any assumptions that automatically the piece that's the county is cut out. Especially if we've got very specific things that we are supposed to look out for specifically. Seems like that piece you cut out on the city side --
>> my point was in terms of looking at what fees are going towards the service. If there was 100% duplication, the county [indiscernible] is that much. I think at the point we identify the duplication, then the question [indiscernible] to the -- here's the duplication, how will we handle. That look will identity and how will we revise the fees. I知 not making that value judgment because I have not seen the assessment.
>> but I think there may be some that are and it's tight dollars at the city in terms of any kind of loss of revenue is something that's a serious matter. Where I知 not understanding, lisa, you did very accuraty say what was in the legislation, but there's something else that was in the interlocal, the city signed off on an a, bc that Commissioner Davis talked about in terms of we will look at duplication and we are going to revise our fees based on whatever it is that we find out. So the city did sign off on doing this process. We may disagree on how to do the process.
>> right.
>> so getting back to my question from a week ago, what did the city think that it was signing when it said it would review the fees, it would ferret out duplication, and it would revise its fee schedule by October 1st? I mean that's in the interlocal.
>> right. I think at the time that we were doing the negotiation of the interlocal and I was the primary person doing that, I thought a review where we could bring duplication and the ability to bring the fee schedule to address that duplication would not be as intense and detail and would not change the structure of the way would do that. So in drafting that language, I was part of that team, I did not realize on the costs, revenue setting side and the cost how we do that process, all of the details of that. As we started getting into that, then I realized that that is more than the city ever committed to and the level of dialogue that has occurred just in the last week or month had not occurred on our side. And so that was just more far reaching than the city was able to commit to because of the structure that we have in place. That's just completely a different structure.
>> but if the city has no intention of changing its fee structure, which seems to be ace heard you, even if we found duplication, we were not changing our free structure radically to reflect that, then we either need to change the interlocal or I guess that's something that goes off to arbitration in terms of we did our end of it and changed our fees or got to a certain point and can't make a decision about what to do about our piece of it. I知 just kind of going -- we got left out here in the interlocal that needs to have both parties -either change it or do it.
>> I think at this point the city has committed to participate in the study to the extent that we feel we can to address some of the issues. And as we get to the duplication and assessment of fees, that would be the appropriate time to determine what would be the revisions in the fee schedule and if we cannot agree we would change the interlocal or go to our bye traeugs. That's all I can commit to in terms of where we are today.
>> in terms of our ability to certify compliance with the law, what's the city's position?
>> I think the issue, I think tom read what the requirements were in dealing with the duplication and addressing those issues, I think we meet the letter of the law, from my understanding.
>> so you think if we --
>> I think if we do the scope, we would meet the letter of the law. I know there's disagreement about that. And I知 just giving you my perspective.
>> those of us wondering whether this is the city's final position, should we be left with the impression that the answer is yes?
>> as far as I know. Today, yes, this will be t city's position.
>> you've talked with the powers that be and pretty much this is the city's --
>> right. And I sent the letter to joe geiselman explaining basically what our position was.
>> any more questions for ms. Gordon?
>> not for lisa, but susan, several weeks back you had made an offer of a small amount of money perhaps from your budget. Does that offer still stand? What's the amount? And do you see value in committing those kinds of dollars, the same question we put to joe in terms of would you get value out of whatever dollar amount that you modestly put forward?
>> yeah. You had had $100,000 budgeted.
>> correct.
>> and we said we would pay up to -- it's 129, carol said, so we would pay half of the 29 and I think t.n.r. Wofplt so my offer still stands on. That I know you want to comply with the law, and we do.
>> and do you think you would get value out of what dollars the auditor's office sinks into this?
>> I think you are going to be -- I think you are going to be able to document that we acted in good faith. I believyou will be able to document that the county acted in good faith. But I honestly think it is a word game to say that we were supposed to streamline the process and anyone thought you would not streamline the fee structure as well. Surely no one thought if it is duplicative we'll still pay those fees, but we'll streamline the process. I don't think it gets you there, I don't. And it's unfortunate. But I heard what joe said and I知 very willing to pay half of that. Because I think we ought to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law, I do.
>> whether we like it or not, I guess I知 asking the same question I asked before, if we think this ought to be done, we cannot do it in-house. He would have to go outside for help.
>> actually yes for two reasons. I don't real have I the resources to do this, and second, I think you will want someone with an independent assessment of it. So if I did it, would it be as critical as if someone totally with no vested interest doing it. You know, who would you trust if you were on the outside looking in? And not that I -- I think my staff is very competent, but I think there is an added value of having someone that doesn't have any vested interest looking at this.
>> the other eities we need to [indiscernible] as much as reasonable @f we're going to do it.
>> yes.
>> on phases 1 and 2, the city is prepared to cooperate in the fast tracking as much as possible.
>> yes, that's correct.
>> well, in fact it's on the agenda in a few weeks. I don't know that it's getting better week to week. I move approval of the proposed contract.
>> second.
>> for the reasons that we have discussed today. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Now an opportunity for discussion, comments or what have you.
>> we need to make as part of the motion that the source of funds is the $100,000 that we -- did we actually budget that in your department, joe or was it earmarked?
>> it's budgeted.
>> great. And the differential would come out of bridge expense or is that coming out of t.n.r. General fund?
>> it's probably t.n.r. General fund
>> it's just we need to figure out the mechanics so those appropriate amendments can happen to make this thing a viable contract and the same thing related to susan's office as well.
>> we'll have our budget [indiscernible] ready today.
>> it will be out of general fund for t.n.r.
>> thank you.
>> there is a draft contract in the backup, right?
>> that's not the final draft. I have a final here.
>> okay. The motion for the source of funding would be basically the $100,000 we budgeted during the budget process and the other 19 thrust 10 thousand committed today jointly by t.n.r. And the auditor. And I guess to the extent we need to --
>> I was just going to add, if you would like to streamline it a little more, you might want to direct p.b.o. As automatic so we don't have to come back to the court. That is up to Commissioners court.
>> friendly to the second.
>> that's friendly to me. Any more discussion?
>> yeah, I have a couple of use questions before we take the vote.
>> okay.
>> I guess, joe, i've listened to you very carefully and i've listened to staff very carefully as we have gone through this process. Plus with the advent of hb 245, a lot of things that we have been mandated to do by law, but hearing what I知 hearing, trying to come up with a way how we can deal with the development within the e.t.j. Of cities,en this is not only done with city of Austin, but of course we have to deal with other cities within the -- Travis County eventually. And listening to all the testimony, I feel kind of hand tied in a sense. Hearing what you said many times before, we need really full participation in this process from the city and also the county. We're not getting that. The added value that we are being able to acquire by an audit, an independent audit would do as far as looking at the [indiscernible] side of what we're doing as Travis County as well as the city of Austin, thee structure, duplication of services to make sure that those things are -- duplicative services are reduced, I think it's also very pofrpblt but I guess back to the -- very pofrpblt but I guess back -- important. But I guess back to the old grinch stole christmas, which is arbitration, that's a very expensive process and I don't know whether or not if -- I really haven't had a chance to get back with tom knock ols on review of the law so share not only on the up front but the whole shebang, but the arrest traitor has to determine many things going forward. It may be a double expense for the county. This is what I知 really fret full of that we have to pay big time twice. I don't think the taxpayers would appreciate that. However, the taxpayers I think do understand that we have to comply and try to move forward with where we are in this process with doing it with these two particular house bills. So those are basically my concerns. I really don't want to support this, I really do not because I just don't think we're playing with a full deck. And I think both entities need to -- but of course the city has explained their position and of course we've explained ours. But I do firmly believe that an arbitrator, when they look at the evidence presented will say Travis County was been going in the right direction and hear what the auditor said and what you have said basically sing we could go with three-fourths of the local [indiscernible]. Three-fourths is a lot closer to the whole than 50% of the so with that three-fourths percentage of what you are saying, joe, and I知 trying to listen to you because you are the chief of that particular department, I知 going to support this, but it's just very, very -- I have to make those points because I think that it kind of separates and let's me know how my support is coming and why I知 speaking in the way I知 speaking. So with that, joe -- judge, I just basically make my comments and we can go on with the vote.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner and yours truly in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. Thank you all very much. Somebody will revise the contract and get that to us later today. Okay.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:26 AM