Travis County Commissioners Court
November 2, 2004
Item 18
Number 18 is approve modifications number 2 to contract number 04 k 0193 ajj, wheeler coatings asphalt, incorporated and number 1 to contract number 04 k 0193 bjj, asphalt pave, 2004 type c hmac program. And I think my one question on this item is that the backup we got from t.n.r. Was a little different than the recommended action. Do you have the memo from joe geiselman?
>> I知 sure I do.
>> the note I have is proposed motion covers $270,000, and joe asked to be transferred the amount of 369,000. That's 99,000 difference and I知 wondering what happened to that and will that be brought back later or what's the --
>> judge, i'll have to look into that for you and get back to you as soon as I can.
>> I apologize. I looked at this last night. It came to my attention, otherwise I would have called it to your attention earlier. Looks like the item covers two parts of the three-part discussion that joe gives us in his backup. Do you have joe's memo, carol?
>> and the $369,000 is for $172,000 and 121 and 76 in [inaudible]. And she was just saying we are requesting what?
>> the agenda item covers $270,000. It covers the -- those two transfers, those two contracts that it mentions. That leaves 99,000 from joe's 369,000. See, joe has a, b and c, and if we follow this 18 language, that would be an a and b or b and c.
>> the actual agenda --
>> in other words, b and c don't add up.
>> they add up to 270,000.
>> and I can see where -- then if you go to the next page it picks up the differential. Actually it's even more, I mean, because the 127 and the 133 don't seem to match the page 2 where the 172, the 121. I mean it is confusing.
>> if the answer is that we pull out the hauling services, that's 76,000, so we're still missing --
>> I知 sure there's some confusion in here because it should be the same at the 369. Let me call.
>> I知 sure there is an explanation.
>> yes.
>> we do not believe t.n.r. Is trying to pull the court's --
>> we will get it straeupbt end out and -- straightened out and get it back to you.
>> we'll pull up 18 later. These look a fairly straightforward. These are low bids and we need these services.
>> right.
>> okay. Why don't we do this then. Why don't we approve these two with the understanding that these would total $270,000. But the results from the cancellation of the gulf states contract. What if we do that? What we will do, if I move to approve the two contracts in this item, the total would be $270,000, though. That's what these add up to.
>> continue [indiscernible] back with that correct figure.
>> we still need an explanation and there's 99,000 somewhere. This is in line items we can use for these two contracts already, right?
>> right.
>> i'll second that.
>> how does that sound?
>> well, judge --
>> they need to check it out.
>> yeah, I mean and even all that, are we saying that b and c total 270?
>> yeah, they add up to that, don't they?
>> no, I think they add up to 260. I mean 260. So even that's incorrect, I mean if I知 looking at 27 and 33 is 60.
>> let's give them time to check it out.
>> the other thing is that the -- in terms of these two contracts, we would approve the amount in the purchasing documentation because that's what the court would approve and sign. So look at those. The numbers don't really jive. Just like we do with numbers from different departments and they are not really reconciled. Okay. Let's just hold up on that.
>> yeah, I think so.
>> judge, on number 9, I think those were the claims that I had some problems with. I tried to get ahold of the sheriff a couple of times and I guess she didn't have time to get back to me. All I want to do is just vote against those.
>> delay one week?
>> we can if that's all right.
I do see carol and frank there and perhaps they have an update for us on
item number 18. Calling that up again, that's approve modification of, approve
modifications to number 2 to court o 4 k 0193 ajj, wheeler coatings asphalt,
time c hmac.
>> carol -- I was going to say frank holder. We're sorry
for the mixup and it's a clear issue. We are awarding the c mix and the f
mix which is hot mix. We're awarding the hot mix portion of this contract
today. And the f mix is what is outstanding. It's 180,633 -- 108,663.83 and
that's what's left on the contract. We're transferring all the money so we
make the transfer, it's 369,000. That's what item a is about. To transfer
all the money in the right line items. Today we are awarding the hot mix portion
which is approximately $270,000, and then we'll be back in two weeks with
the f mix program. Because what happened is all these projects were still
outstanding because of the bleeding that we had and so what you've got here
is a three-part and we're sorry for the mixup. A is just the transfer to put
the moneys in the right line item. B and c is the award of the two contracts
for hot mix. And we will come in two weeks with the aw-rdz on f mix.
>> we are not moving on a today, though.
>> we have to put the money in the right line item to --
>> but we legally cannot do that because it's not agendized.
>> oh, it's just a budget transfer.
>> it's just a budget transfer is not on the agenda.
>> the budget transfer was submitted at the same --
>> that's what I知 saying. We can't do it today because it's
not on the agenda. If it does not need to be agendized --
>> we're just saying what it is. I don't think you have to
actually -- you do approve all of the transfers.
>> my other point was the transfer of $369,000 cannot be
done by us.
>> on this agenda because that was not posted.
>> it --
>> it may be on the budget portion.
>> was it not under maybe number 5?
>> that's what I知 thinking.
>> this amount would stand out. There's nothing this large
on the budget transfer today.
>> but we can approve number 2 and number 1.
>> subject to the availability of funds, we can do that,
and you can -- I mean I assume it will take some time to get the contracts.
We can award next week's contract after the money is transferred.
>> that's correct.
>> the lesson we have learned is that if we approve a contract,
the money needs to be --
>> in the line item.
>> but on this, though, the two contracts that are listed
in the item, the modifications are the ones we need to approve.
>> that's correct.
>> and they total --
>> 270,000. It's a total of 133, 273, 25 and 127, 06292.
>> but that's not 270.
>> it's about 260 and change.
>> it's those two numbers, whatever they add to is whatever
it is.
>> and what the judge has that says 270 versus b, which is
number 2, and c, which is number 1, but those two really come up to 260 and
some change.
>> and that's what needs to be transferred.
>> we need to do this today.
>> yes. He's adding it. 260,336.17.
>> okay, the court or the county judge signs should show
these two contracts and the respecting amounts of each.
>> yes, sir.
>> what is the --
>> the other question is -- [multiple voices]
>> the court -- this is one the judge signs, right?
>> yes, it is.
>> i'll just hold off on signing it until the money is in
the right line item.
>> that's correct.
>> now, does the court have to approve transfer of $369,000
from one item to another for t.n.r.?
>> I would have to look at the transfer. If it's an automatic,
then they can process it and get down to the auditor's office asap and roll.
>> [inaudible] transfer in that amount?
>> as long as there was everything -- program, same line
items, all we're transferring is in the right line item.
>> it's just commodity code issue.
>> we've done it correctly.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you. John, on the legal perspective, what are we
allowed to do under this particular item that I have a confidence level in
my mind?
>> whenever you look at this item in combination with number
5 on budget amendments and transfers and discussion items, I think the judge
may have been concerned from a [inaudible] standpoint you don't have that
described well enough. From what p.b.o. And the department is describing it
is something they routinely do and that it is within the bounds of the law.
>> okay. I just wanted to know. For my comfort level.
>> judge, then I would move approval of number 2 and number
1 and obviously you are going to be the one to sign off on it, but I think
that we know what we're doing with number 2 and number 1.
>> and I second that.
>> all of the actions in number 5 total $20,000 and 125 of
that is the -- 12 five of that is the attorney --
>> we have the money. We just -- it's pre- encumbered. We
have requisitions in the system so it's already been done. I might have missed
the whole conversation.
>> the legal is in the right place. [inaudible] based on
joe's memo.
>> no, no, I just got a page. It was actually transferred
on October 15th. And [inaudible] so the only reason we could get the requisition,
that's why requisition numbers are here, that it was transferred, and I don't
know why we had the a item other than to identify where the moneys are coming
from.
>> any more discussion? Anybody want to kick this dead horse
more? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> you are reading your backup too closely, judge.
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:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:22 PM