Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 2004
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
7 is to consider and take appropriate action on staff recommendation to pay capital idea's December 2003 invoice.
>> judge, I had a question on this, and it's really not about the matters of the request because I read it, I understand it, I get it. My question was -- is why this contract isn't ready. Why are we working in a holdover state of being? And my concern that this is one of the many contracts that are in a holdover provision, all of them in health and human services according to what i've got from the auditor's office.
>> you're absolutely correct. We have a number of contracts that really go to a holdover mode because either the contract's not complete. In this case the contract is being worked out in legal. There are a couple of issues that have to be cleared up before it actually finalized. In our area we have a number of contracts that are in process. Over the last couple of years we've debated about how to try to streamline that process, but this is one of those challenges that we haven't been successful in meeting.
>> my concern is it's six months late. That's not a holdover, that's missing in action. A holdover is a month or two or even three months, that happens, but six months?
>> it is a contract that when it's in holdover, there's no limit on how long you can hold it over. It's a contract that can be paid and it's one that we're working on, but I only have so many order and I have so many deals -- michael jenkins.
>> there is one of many contracts that are in holdover and are also sick months late.
>> I have a number of questions just on the math that I'm not -- (indiscernible). If the amount for the '04 contract is 522 and then we talk about the amount per month is 55,000, that doesn't jibe. That's a 600,000-dollar -- over a 600,000-dollar contract. Then we're talking about an invoice that's for 136,000 for two months, which is $66,000 a month,. Which one of these figures is the right thing? I guess answer the first one, I suppose, stephen. If it's 522 for the year, that's about -- that's less than 45,000 a month. And we've got stated that the one-12th -- maybe that was for '03, is that the difference?
>> no, the one-12th is actually an artificial billing cap. The reality is that in the course of 12 months, the amount of the bills will vary depending on what phase and level of activity is occur willing. But what happens as I understand it in the holdover is we're not allowed to pay more than one-12th of the contract. I understand the concept behind that because you would not want to exceed the total amount of the contract. Well, the re.
>> alvarez:ty is we can't exceed the total amount of the contract anyway, but if you just do a flat line projection of a contract that -- a bill that is over a 12th, then it would appear as if you're doing that, but the fact of the matter is we don't do that.
>> so susan, is that fine with you? I mean, with what's being asked? That this is okay? Because the answer to that is you have a fluctuating month. It's not just a straight line 520 divided by 12. I understand that. A month could obviously be a lot less.
>> in the best of all worlds we would be able to complete our contracts before the previous year contract expires, and it will actually I think follow some of these issues. But under the circumstances, with this particular contract, because of the nature of the things they do and the bills that are received from a.c.c., There are about three times a year where their bills actually peak.
>> when would we be seeing a January and February -- we're in March. When will we be seeing a January and February invoices? I'm concerned that the cash flow is not matching the provision of services. And I'm sorry, I'm really disturbed that it is six months into a holdover and we do not have a new contract.
>> did you get an answer to that question?
>> we don't have those invoices yet. We've not received those yet.
>> January, February?
>> that's correct. I would think that any time we'll be receiving those.
>> you think that before October a or November, though, services were provided, the reasonable majority of which was the amount that's asked for?
>> yes, that's correct.
>> when do we think that we will get this contract back to the Commissioners court so that we can approve a current contract?
>> well, it's one that you could probably -- mary is working on it. Probably do it in less than a day, but the way steven's work is, you prioritize this work for us. You're supposed to be prepared for the aisd deal today, and she was. So whenever they prioritize this as one of the highest priorities, that one will be done.
>> does Commissioner Sonleitner's opinion matter? Prioritize this for the court.
>> we have a lot of contracts, y'all. Not all -- all of them are priority for me. [overlapping speakers]
>> so i've got a brand new thing from auditor's office yesterday that basically says we're caught up on these, these are in great shape, we've got this stuff and then there are the last two pages that basically say we are behind on new contracts, we are in holdover from this provision and that is not a good thing.
>> I'm not that comfortable with it either.
>> good, I'm glad I'm not the only one that's uncomfortable because I'm getting tired of whining about it.
>> let's prioritize this contract.
>> yeah.
>> any more discussion? Anybody else on this item? Move approval.
>> second.
>> which is payment of the amount owed for October, November.
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. We eagerly anticipate having this back on the agenda for contract approval.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:22 AM