Travis County Commissioners Court
August 3, 2004
Item 23
23 a is to approve 12-month extension (modification no. 2) to contract no. Ps020181lb with corrections software corporation (csc) for renewal of the financial module for the community supervision and corrections department and, 23 b, receive status report on cscd collections, especially amount(s) due Travis County. 23 a was incredibly routine. As I recall, a year ago, when we looked at csc, we said that we would put in place one year and then get a status report. As I indicated in my e-mail. All of the information that I have heard has been real positive as to csc. But I did think that we ought to have 23 b on today's agenda. I asked members of the working committee on collections to give us a status report on this.
>> thank you, donna ferris, csc. It actually been two years since we started this process. I came here in the summer of 2002.
>> time flies, I thought it was one year.
>> well, the original contract was in 2002. When we were looking for an interim solution for the real world. And at that time we had approximately $2 million and we needed to pass forward. We signed that contract two years ago. I think it was August. And then within six months we came online with the csc system in February of last year. By the end of last year, we had passed forward a million of that two million. And today we have only approximately $160,000 left. And we estimate that about 15 nowndz of that -- $15,000 of that belongs to the county. In the last two years we have passed forward approximately $3.7 million to the county. That's my report. I知 ready to answer any questions.
>> you can --
>> sir?
>> I知 sorry. You said in the last what -- the $3.7 million, that's --
>> in the last two years. That's a total. That would be outstanding money at the time when we went online and -- in 2002 and then we are passing forward money daily. There is no lag time. The county is able to collect their 10% on the -- on the money that's passed forward to the state. We estimate that we've -- that we've collected about $50,000 as a result of passing that money forward in a timely manner.
>> is that -- is that old fines and fees or is that current up to date --
>> the $3.7 million represents all of the money. That would be the outstanding money at the time, 2002, as well as all of the ongoing money collected.
>> but is it broke down? In other words, what is the point of what was outstanding separate from what's current? What is the part of.
>> we estimate this is about -- I think about 10% of the money that we had outstanding was county money. So we would say that about $200,000 was old money.
>> I realize that I -- that I -- not the -- I知 kind of -- I知 not saying that this is not good in what you are doing, I知 not knocking that.
>> uh-huh.
>> but I知 looking at -- the different departments in the county.
>> uh-huh.
>> that recoup moneys from -- from your effort. And I知 looking for what -- what of course the fines and fees committee recommended as far as funding for next fiscal year. What I知 trying to make clear in my mind is the amount of money that we have suggested to expend, about -- a little more than -- $208,000 for another 12-month extension is the money that we recouped to the county per department available for review to see if there is some type of equivalency -- equivalence as far as what we collected and goes to Travis County and what's actually going back to those departments? I really don't know the answer to that because each department, of course, have their own line item as far as how they receive revenue. Get revenue. I知 kind of concerned because I really don't have any --
>> I can just tell you in the last year we have passed forward about $1.6 million to the county. We have outstanding approximately $15 million is all that we have left that we will be researching and returning to the county. $15,000. Excuse me. Excuse me. [laughter] I stand corrected, 15,000 is all that we have left. 15,000 is all that we have left.
>> okay. And I -- I知 going to ask the committee, you don't mind me -- I need to ask the committee something. Can you possibly tell me -- is there a breakdown as far as revenue that we receive from the auditor, certify this revenue that's come in that this would be something that we need to do supervision extending -- as far as extending this for another year based on revenue certification and especially going to those individual departments that Travis County of course would like to get its money in those particular departments as far as future use, going back to the general fund, is there any way of knowing that?
>> the court -- the owe owe mike serves on the fines and services committee with me and a number of other departments. The amounts that are certified come out of the auditor's office and I can say that planning and budget members of my staff and members of the auditor's office have reviewed the system, the csc system with cscd and other members of the fines and fees committee, it's our opinion that it is the best system that we have available right now for the collection of Travis County fines and fees. As far as the percentages that come in, the committee does have details that I will be getting to the court within the month on the recommendations of the committee. That have more specifics. I know one of the question that's your office raised yesterday, Commissioner, I didn't get back because we were in the hospital district meeting were those numbers at the bottom of cscd's spread sheet that indicate since February 1st of '03, the -- the discount that are the revenue that -- that the Travis County treasurer's office have received for prompt payment of the state fees totals 54,185.77. That's something that we were not receiving previously because we were not able to -- able, based on the -- on the previous system to -- to submit our state amounts on a prompt basis. I know I didn't answer your entire question, Commissioner, but I will have more specifics when the committee -- but recommendation based upon an evaluation of csc, that cscd take over the collection of this -- of the other Travis County fines and fees. We have not made that as a formal recommendation to the court and we are working on a pilot or report on that. But we will be coming forward. I don't think there's anybody on the fines and fees committee. I don't think there's anybody that's saying -- in the future, there's a reason that the court approved it on a one year basis is the fact that perhaps in the future, the facts system will be able to replace csc, it has not to date been able to do that yet.
>> I notice in the preliminary budget that is part of the money that we are looking at being tied into the budget for fy '05. Since that's the case, $208,000. However, I have not -- I have not seen any -- any indication from the departments that -- that are in receipt of not only the -- not only the past fines and fees, but also the current fines and fees as far as going to their particular -- [indiscernible] -- as far as distribution of that money. That revenue that's coming in. I was hoping that would have more of a breakdown of that effect. I don't think it's that way right now, I was looking to get a good shape shop of -- snapshot of those departments that are getting that money. Lastly, since we have been looking at this for a long time, I agree with the have very whole heartily on -- heartedly on what he said. We looked at csc concept itself to look at it through -- a -- on a pilot project to see if we'll meet the test of [indiscernible] fines and fees. However, with this particular software the concern is still going to come back to the facts system that's going to have to interface with this because we still are leaning towards facts. If it doesn't integrate with the facts, that's more money that we have to look at as far as integration. Those are very legitimate concerns as far as I知 concerned.
>> I think p.b.o. Is very aware that there's -- there's an integration issue with csc. The reason that we -- that p.b.o. Recommended it in the preliminary budget is that in our opinion there is not another alternative at the current time to address this. Once there's another alternative we obviously will do the evaluation with it. With the department. And make a recommendation. But at this point we -- we have no other alternative but to go with csc.
>> the county received about $3.7 million over the last two years.
>> I have a little information on the last 12 months that brings it out a little bit if you are interested in it.
>> I知 definitely interested.
>> let me just ask my question. My question was how does that compare to what we receive in the -- in the -- before the last -- in the two years before the last two.
>> I honestly don't have a that with me right now.
>> no idea. One of the things that occurred the tax office began to collect money, which is another variable that comes to play in there. You know, in the last year. So of course we won't pass forward as much as as a result of that. But to compare the two may not be -- a reasonable comparison.
>> what donna is saying in the last two years, the money that they have collected doesn't include any new county court cases. No collections of any kind for that. If you take that into account, it's probably about the same amount of money that cscd collected for the prior two years. That would be my guess. But -- but they are collecting on -- on far less cases and bringing in about the same amount of money in that same period of time. That's why one of the things we were saying is like going back and having them start to collect the county's money as well, county court at law cases.
>> do you have other financial information to share with us?
>> yeah, in the last 12 month that you have the data for, July '03 of June of '04, that 12-month period, it's about 1.5 million, that cscd collected for the county. And -- and the large portion of that money is criminal fines, which --, I don't know if you are familiar with that at all, but goes to the road and bridge fund. That's a million all by itself of the 1.5. The other two big numbers in there are -- are the sheriff's criminal fees, it goes to the sheriff's line items, $115,000. And then the other one, which I was sort of surprised by, district court restitution paid on the county. Not restitution paid to victims, restitution that people who are paying these fines and fees, probationers, are having to pay back to the county for costs that the county incurred. That's $112,000. So those three line items by themselves make up pretty much the total. There are -- there are about 10 other line items, but none of them are close to 100,000.
>> do we have certified in next year's revenue projection about $1.5 million? From cscd, leroy, or do you know?
>> I -- I would have to go and check. I don't think that there -- that we are -- that we are lowering other revenue -- our revenue estimate for next year in any of the criminal fines and fees areas, but I would have to get back to you.
>> okay. Any other questions, comments.
>> I -- I just want to say congratulations. This was a mess. Two years ago. You took a lot of criticism, a lot of it coming from me. You pulled it together. I want to say thank you to cscd, thanks to nelda and her shop for pulling together her piece, certainly to susan, mike, all of the folks in p.b.o., You pulled it together. I privately jim told you and rosy that you are doing a great job. But I think it is incumbent upon me to say it publicly as well. This is night and day from where we were. I think the most important statistic mentioned of all of those numbers, we were leaving money on the table that the state of Texas was willing to allow counties to keep as a percentage if they timely turned over the mopes to the state. Moneys to the state. We were walking away from hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years because we didn't have our numbers together. We now have our numbers together. So those are dollars we never were getting. What was it, $54,000 that you just mentioned? That's real money. So I want to say congratulations, you pulled it together, I知 extraordinarily proud of what you have done.
>> you have kept an old friend in me and gained a new one [laughter] Commissioner Daugherty?
>> well, I do remember you all coming to us, telling us, desperately that the csd program was a program that you needed to do your job. And it's obvious that that -- that that is the case. And -- and I guess my biggest concern, this -- you all said hey let us do our job, we are telling you what equipment that we with need to do -- that we need to do our job. But at some point in time, you know, I知 probably going to say, well how many times do you need to extend this 208 that at some point in time I would think is -- is going to go up. Now, it's obvious from the back -- from the backup here that they are not interested. In taking that -- that contract up at this stage. Who can answer -- I know that cscd, you know, will cringe when I ask this. Is there ever going to be a time when facts is going to be something you say give it over to us, you all are of the opinion that didn't ever give us fact because we don't think that it's going to work, if that's the case, I would like to know it right now so I can say, let's just all get used to that I mean because obviously we are still spending money on the facts system, I suppose. , or we are trying to get to a spot where you all are going to be willing to say okay that's that does exactly what csc does for us. Or say you know what, if we are spending money on the facts for the application on what we are trying to get money out of you or you all are trying to get money out of I would like to know. I知 happy that you are able to collect this money, it's obvious that the csc system allowed you to do that, what do we do, how do we answer that? Does p.b.o., Does i.t., Auditor's office.
>> I think leroy will answer that.
[one moment please for change in captioners]
>> until they come up with exactly how we're going to collect these funds, how we're exercising that, we're willing to do that.
>> but there hasn't been a plan to go off of cscd and just go with fact.
>> I think that you don't need to answer the question then -- [overlapping speakers] we're not really interested in doing that at any point in time. I guess at some point in all of this, I would like for somebody just to say it. This fact system is probably never going to be integrated to the point where cscd is going to be comfortable enough to use that so that we don't have a 208 or whatever kind of a yearly -- you know, I知 willing to pay $208,000 if I was collecting several million dollars. So that's a pretty easy thing. But I think that we're not admitting that. Do you agree that we will probably never get fact to the point where cscd says we can get out of that what we do out of our cscd?
>> I have the csc financials and the the case manager is in their system and they will stay with that. In order to keep fact's current, we will have to do an interface back to facts.
>> and that's what pbo believes is that the next step you will see is once we get fact up and running in the clerks and the jp's that we will be coming back with an interface request through csc unless things change.
>> but let's just say we could get this thing completely moved over to facts. There would be an increase in the cost and maintenance ongoing on facts because we have a brand new module to be brought on board. So there's got to be some kind of ongoing maintenance cost. The question is whether it's going to be on the facts side of the ledger or csc side of the ledger, but the bottom line is still somebody is going to have to pay for the ongoing maintenance under these very complex systems.
>> that's correct.
>> but the question is would it be anywhere near the 2,000-dollar budget? And if the csc system obviously is working as it is, who cares? If you have a system that works and you collect the money and do it, that's more important to me. So -- we've all made mistakes personally where we thought we were going to buy something that we were going to use, and it was going to be as effective as we hoped it would be, and it just hasn't been that way. I mean, bottom line, that's what we're effectively saying, isn't it?
>> I think the answer is you're probably good in keeping this at one year and coming back and looking at it because the real answer is facts isn't in place yet. So when facts is in place you have a little easier way to make some determinations and it's easier to figure out what interfaces may cost and do some analysis on what your best cost move is as far as for integrating or not integrating the collections from cscd. And until you get to that spot, this is the best solution what you're doing right now today.
>> and this contract has a five percent possibility and they did not choose to exercise that possibility this year. They kept it at the same price as last year.
>> it's for those reasons that I move approval of the 12-month requested extension. Any more discussion?
>> yes, judge. I have a question. Joe, looking at the big picture hopefully that we'll all arrive doing the same thing under the facts system, and that's the whole intention as far as I can remember as far as the direction we were kind of mandated to follow, and that's to all be on the same page, so the integration and all the other type of respect of networking throughout the Travis County was something that we've been striving for for a long time. The fact system itself and the interface with cscd, what -- has there been any talk of maybe like a one-time cost? I don't know what the one-time cost would be. You have measures and that was brought up, but I don't know if this would be as great as what we're talking about here. What in your mind would that be as far as dollar amount? And I know you haven't looked at it, but if --
>> we would have to look at what the interface would cost at that time, there would be a one-time cost on csc's side as well and there would be maintenance on both sides of that. I think the answer really is to if facts comes up, and we're very close, then we'll get that working and then we can see how -- we can work it back with cscd.
>> I just wanted to make sure that -- make sure that all of us were on the same page when it comes to the facts and all of the purchasing that's related to the facts system on board. I hate to see cscd using this software and then yet they're still missing the opportunity to not deal with facts, but everybody else will be. So that's part of my concern. So when that time comes, i'll be really glad to look at that. And then later I guess as far as what your comments were concern willing earlier that -- concerning earlier that you brought up a lot of detailed information that you were giving to us. I'd like to have that detailed information because I知 really trying to stay on top of this as much as I can but I still need a lot of information that's related to this particular vendor and coming in here on a yearly basis on a 208,000 208,000-dollar hit. That's my concern. Thank you.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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.
Last Modified:
Friday, October 28, 2005 9:18 AM