Travis County Commissioners Court
December 14, 2004
Item 9
Number 9 is to approve Travis County participation in the common integrated
project phase 3. 9. Approve Travis County participation in the common integrated
justice system project phase iii with the Texas conference of urban counties,
inc. To provide technology framework.
>> let me add this is the result of the cdc effort to collaborate
with all of the urban counties so that we can learn from each other and not
repeat each other's mistakes. Hopefully come out with a plan that works for
all counties in -- in a -- in a money saving effort and then also in an attempt
to -- to get integrated justice systems on the road foster than -- than they
have. But I think we are -- we are the trail blazer in everything. But take
it from there.
>> good morning. Judy princeford with its. This is a project
that the court has previously approved and I think we have spent 56 -- about
$56,000 to participate in the phase I and phase ii. This third phase is a
phase that is very similar to that of what Travis County did five years ago
where all of the justice departments got in a room and decided what data they
would contribute and share. So this face will be actually an agreement among
the participating counties, whoever those might be, so what the framework
will be, the infrastructure as well as the data that we will share. It is,
and -- and its really is whatever the pleasure of the court is on this, we
will certainly put in effect. This to me is like an investment in business
that you make. I look back at my career at i.b.m. P.c. Unlimited was a little
bitty company that I made calls on. I wish that I would have bought stock
in them because they became dell. So $61,000 is an investment Travis County
would make in this. I知 not sure that this will come to fruition, but if it
does, this investment should help us reduce our costs in the future and that's
my understanding from -- from what involvement and what discussions that i've
had. Mr. Harlow is in las vegas, I will make him pay me --
>> at a technology seminar, not just having fun.
>> yes, at a technology seminar, you have to -- you have
to help me on that. He is.
>> but --
>> I have a --
>> yeah. Excuse me, Commissioner. Just add a little bit more.
That -- that cuc then called on all of the it directors from the urban counties
to on come together and share information, share experiences and hopefully
share investment in the future for urban counties.
>> right. The integration of data because of technology is
here. And we are working on products in this industry that will make it easier.
I think with 911 and the need for homeland security, the need for information
for law enforcement is wide-spread, so that's what this project should result
in.
>> let me ask you a few questions, right now I haven't seen
any evidence in my opinion that would make me feel comfortable about what
we're doing here today. Even though we are talking about 56 million -- $56,000,
now we are referring to almost $52,000 for this particular request. We have
what, about 254 counties in the state of Texas in -- and of course what we
are talking about is how many counties are -- are participating, willing to
participate now?
>> there are 14 urban counties that are participating. The
smaller counties are going to be a benefactor of the 14 major counties that
have been participating. Secondly, has there been an across the board survey
done, talking about data sharing, that is a big problem I think with persons
really wanting to [indiscernible] data. Has there been a survey done of the
254 counties in the state of Texas that are willing to share information at
this time?
>> and -- I know Commissioner Gomez may have been involved
in this, I -- to be honest with you, Commissioner, I can't say absolutely
that's been done. But my understanding is that is that the counties have mailed
out a questionnaire that urban county conference --
>> came out from cuc [multiple voices]
>> they normally do.
>> what's the answer to that question, though?
>> that the urban counties' staff contacted the urban counties
to see if they were interested in this kind of approach. They replied yes
because we can learn from others so we don't repeat mistakes that can sometimes
ends up being very costly in money and time. So yes, the answer is yes.
>> I guess my question is of the 254 counties in the state
of Texas, who apparently we are trying to make this all inclusive with smaller
counties coming in, of the 254 counties, my question is how many counties
are willing to participate in this project?
>> well, only the urban counties will be in a position to
participate in -- in an effort like this because they are the ones who are
going to have the money. Now the smaller counties will eventually benefit
because they -- very much like a region here. The bastrop and you know the
other counties and the capco region would eventually benefit. But we know
that they don't have the money.
>> right.
>> not like the urban counties. This is mostly an urban county
project. As far as the bill is concerned, going to keep occurring, we don't
know exactly how much it's going to cost, nor the overall investment period.
If anybody can tell me that, I will feel a little more comfortable as far
as what the taxpayers of Travis County will have to foot and have to pay even
in the event of serving other counties. , if you can answer that for me, that's
another answer. But there's several unknowns here that are not really at the
level of being comfortable with. That is spending money with -- with something
that everyone has not really signed off on and you have got a few out there
that are saying they probably will or probably won't and then we are having
to continue to invest, invest, invest, on something that's not really we can't
really put our hands on. It's not tangible. Like I said earlier there's not
enough evidence out there for me to feel comfortable as far as spend being
taxpayers' money in that regard.
>> I can understand that regard. This phase iii from everything
I gathered last night, when I talked to several other people, is the phase
that should define the cost, should define all of this. I thought back to
our i.j.s. When we first started with i.j.s., One of the first numbers that
came out, I知 glad that you are seated, was $850,000. For our i.j.s. System.
We all know that is not true. So that number we had to go out and research
to find out what it would cost to integrate our system. So this phase iii
is the one that should come back and you should from this phase iii know exactly
what is needed. I talked to mr. Harlow, he was in a meeting last night at
the technology conference and he came out and say what they had told him is
that our participation will reduce our cost. By that if we so choose to participate
in this information network across the urban counties, then we would possibly
pay a reduced retainer fee or participation fee. We may get a volume discount
for -- for software like the integrated software, the interface software that
our industry is developing. Or our participation may eliminate the need for
us to modify our current system to include certain data that other counties
have agreed to include. Should we want to participate. I always think of that
as it's like an insurance policy. I think that if you participate and are
able to define, your business option at the end of this phase is then a decision
for you. Because you possibly save money if you want to participate. But Commissioner,
your point is we may not even want to participate and we will still be investing.
>> I guess I知 looking at what was taken earlier, that you
brought the 911, 9/11 and also on -- homeland security, have there been any
attempt at the national level for folks, counties, cities, to tie into a national
system.
>> from my understanding, I know that the sheriff has talked
with people that they want that to occur. I think that we have been talking
about almost ever since i.j.s. Started .we had someone from national to come
down and look at what we were doing from an integrated standpoint. I think
that this is where this is headed. We have a group of people in this area
that are repeat offenders. I think that these urban counties want to share
information about our common people. Common persons. So, yeah, I think nationally
those people could be on the -- on the horizon.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Having databases that having no common relationship
being able to tied in with a common interface for all?
>> we have -- the industry has products and we've looked
at several different vendors and not to mention those names.
>> no, we don't want to mention no names.
>> but we've looked at several different vendors, and i.t.s.,
One of the things we're trying to do for Travis County is reduce the cost
of interfaces. We come to you when we need interfaces for certain things.
There is a prosecuted that we are evaluating right now that looks like we
can integrate uncommon systems. It probably will be a similar product to what
c.u.c. Will offer. We -- the difference, I think, is that getting other agencies
and other entities to politically agree to share data. I guess that's where
these 14 counties are. You know, the products are out there. We could do this
ourself. But then we would need to go to Williamson county and create our
own interlocal. We would need to go to dallas county. We would need to go
to tarrant county. The interlocal that I think is before you today is one
that the 14 counties that are still participating in this are saying we are
in agreement, you know, we want to explore this further. We want to invest
the money to just have an option should you decided to it. But you are right,
there is products out there in the industry, yes, sir, that we could do this
ourself. We could do this ourself. The hurdle is going to those 254 counties
and getting their agreement and interlocal. And that would give mr. Hilly
a great deal of job security.
>> I get my point is it really would be significant I think
to me if we knew exactly those particular counties, I mean small counties,
not just the urban counties, but if we're going to go at this I think in an
aggressive manner and to be inclusive, those that are willing to cooperate
in such a system, and not only that be willing to share data which from my
understanding there are some counties that really don't want to share or participate
in the process. So without that participation, we still will not be I think
where we should be as far as 100%. And of course there's a percentage, what
is the percentage right now, I have no idea even with those counties. So I知
kind of concerned about that. And what type of mandate, if any, at the legislature
that is something that can be mandated from the state legislature that will
-- if this is such a political venture, is there anything that the state legislature
can do to mandate or counties to participate in this process if this is the
direction we're going.
>> I guess I would have to ask the county attorney if they
thought that was feasible to have --
>> I just don't want to see us continue to invest money and
we come in on the short end of the stick on investment that could balloon
into a money-grabbing thing that I don't think the taxpayers of Travis County
would be really comfortable with if we don't realize and see the benefits
of the money that we are spending. That's what's bothering me right here.
>> one of the [inaudible] added to the interlocal agreement
every time they add a different project portion as it's developed over --
it could be years, the county has an opportunity to approve each one of these
amendments as you go along. You can get out of this agreement with 30 days'
notice. And the language that's all drafted and worked up, we're actually
the last county to approve it, if I知 right. This latest amendment. Everyone
else has already approved it. And i've been dragging my feet for many of the
same reasons you came up with. I didn't like some of the terminology on terms,
the language that was referenced. But I talked with the other county attorneys
in the other counties and they said it's a good program and it's one that
we need to just go ahead and get behind our i.t.s. Directors and move ahead
with. So that's why i've signed off on it.
>> well, I guess my question is on this particular investment
that you are requesting from the taxpayers this morning, $51,924, this particular
money I guess along with the other moneys I guess are coming from the other
urban counties or the other 14 counties that are participating, this money
will be specifically earmarked to come back to answer I guess a lot of these
questions that have been posed today.
>> exactly.
>> and if so, I would like to maybe reserve my decision to
support or not support something based on the findings of what we're talking
about. So it's hard for me to just give a blank check here and say go ahead,
but the county attorney says there are some terms that he was kind of confused
about. So I知 still confused. And having talked with the other counties --
attorneys from these urban counties. And again, I知 being very cautious about
how we spend taxpayers' money. And we don't get in a boondoggle situation
that, you know, is going to cost us money.
>> right. This will come back and they will come back with
detailed specifications.
>> I would like to see it.
>> if we participate.
>> if we participate, yeah.
>> right. Well, I think they will probably develop those
specifications. I知 not sure if this lack of -- if we don't participate, if
the lack of funding from Travis County will affect the project as a whole,
but I would bet it would.
>> but if we were say we are not into phase 3 but we want
to participate in phase 3, will our phase 4 payment include what we would
have paid in phase 3?
>> I asked that question yesterday, judge, and they said
this was to determine the cost of participating in the integrated justice
system. And so I would think yes, that our cost would go up. He said that
we would get a reduced cost for participation.
>> there is an attachment a that has more than 14 counties.
>> right.
>> 14 would be the 14 largest counties?
>> the 14 urban counties.
>> looks like a lot of small ones, I guess medium-sized ones,
based on the population here from 3.4 million down to 26,000. But has the
Travis County sheriff concluded that this looks like a good project for Travis
County law enforcement?
>> I know that they are aware of our participation in this.
They are not the representative that is going to the meetings as of yet. I
do know that they want to share in an information network. We have a project
that's going on right now that is a crisis intervention network. And we're
sharing a.p.d. Data.
>> if there is law enforcement data shares as backup indicates
that backup would come from the sheriff's office. City of Austin, a.p.d.,
Travis County sheriff's office. There is also a court administration component
which would include the judges.
>> yes.
>> and ms. Hale. So I guess pretty soon we need to bring
them into the fold and make sure they are -- Commissioner Gomez -- Daugherty.
>> well, I知 not so sure that judy is the one that needs
to be here perhaps as much as don lee from c.u.c., But I do think that we
need to, you know, bear in mind the reason that we are not talking about 254
counties. This is a c.u.c. Deal.
>> yeah.
>> and c.u.c. Has, I think, 35 -- I think it has 35 members.
I mean of counties. And it is disturbing a little bit to think that if you've
got 35 counties in c.u.c. That you've only got 14 of the 35. It is concerning
to me that it's hard to really -- to identify specifically what this thing
is and what you get. For example, I mean, if it's all really much more related
to the integrated justice system, I mean we have the omni. This is where it
gets very confusing to me. I mean I知 thinking, okay, don't we have a system
set up called omni now that allows us to participate -- and I don't think
we are not part of omni because we are part of this.
>> no.
>> omni is real what I i consider -- and omni is basically
if somebody picks up somebody in waco and there is a warrant for their arrest
in Travis County, well, then, we have the ability to get [inaudible] or take
charge of that person and then we are basically going to bring that person
in and get our money.
>> exactly.
>> and so I don't -- it is a very confusing -- and I can
see why people would go what do you really get for this? I mean given that
we've spent $56,000 to date, we really need to spend an additional 62,000.
Do I understand that harris county is not even going to participate?
>> harris county is not participating in phase 3. They are
in the process of developing an in-house integrated justice system and so
they have not participated. They will not be. And to talk about both of your
concerns that what can I pick up and say --
>> that's tangle. This is what I paid for -- tangible.
>> in i.t., A lot of the cost is the design and the intellectual
property of that paper that we hand to a programmer that he codes from. So
that's what this phase is is it's the design phase. And I think that harris
county, to me it's an insurance thing. It's a risk. They won't participate
in phase 3, but when phase 4 comes out, they may elect to contribute data,
and you are taking a bit of a risk. They may or may not have all of the data
in their built system that needs to be shared. And if they don't, they will
add it. There's is a little different -- theirs is a little different situation
that is Travis County in that they are developing in-house. We have 12 people
that support our integrated justice system. They have 40 something is what
i've heard. The difference is we have to pay for changes. They pay 40 programmers
all year long to be available to make changes. We go and pay $30,000 for an
interface, but they may pay $75,000 all year long for a programmer.
>> if we participate in this at $62,000 and harris county
is not, do we have the ability to gather information from harris county or
is harris county say, you know what, we didn't participate in phase 3 and
so what we've done, no, we're not going to share with c.u.c. And with what
you all --
>> we have the ability ourself to go and work out an interlocal
with harris county. It's harris county -- if harris county opts to come back
into this urban project, then yes, we would -- if we opt to stay in the urban
project, then we would share information. We don't know.
>> it would seem to me, and I know that you are not the queen
of this and you can just go this is what we're doing, but the c.u.c. Should
say you know what, we've got all of our membership involved in this and, you
know, you may be smaller, but your amount that you participate in because
it's on some sort of a prorata sherri guess with population. It would make
me feel a lot more comfortable because I even understand that is it true that
joe has I want mated that we -- intimated that we may not want to participate
in 4 and 5 because right now it looks like there may be a phase 4 and 5, and
has it been said we may not participate in 4 and 5? That's even more confusing
to say we're going to get to 3 but we're not going to do 4 and 5.
>> I think it depends what we bring back to you as a business
option with 3. And I think if joe said that, in my opinion, he probably means
it. It depends on what the cost is and what the benefits from option 3 is.
>> I知 not saying that he said it, I知 just saying I heard
there are some --
>> and I think that's part of what this is. This is an exploration
of what's available from a integrate standpoint. And I will be honest if you,
at this point i.t.s. Can't tell you exactly what you are going to get from
this because that's what this phase is for.
>> but you can -- but i.t.s. Is saying that they are supportive
of -- I mean i've really got to rely on i.t.s. If i.t.s. Says I知 giving you
thumbs up, we think we're going to get our money's worth if we participate
and you all signing off on $62,000, i've got to have a lot of faith --
>> here's what I think i.t.s. Is saying. I talked to him
last night and he says here's how I feel. This investment in phase 2 allowed
us to direct some of the data structure so that where we are right now, we
don't have to completely do a flipover and he and I are sitting in front of
you two years from now saying we need to change the i.j.s. System, we need
to change the data s-l. Our participation in phase 2 allowed us to direct
that technology. So to participate in the detailed specifications are probably
to our advantage. And he does support that. After that, dependent on the results
and the cost, then we would come back to the court and say it's really going
to cost too much or we feel it's to the taxpayers' benefit and the law enforcement
agency. I think that's the hard thing of where we are right now. This is to
tell you what they are selling you. And I don't know if I should call you
a product, but that's what it is. It's going to be an integrated statewide
product that c.u.c. Is going to offer.
>> well, I知 happy to rely on i.t.s. To say this is something
that is beneficial to Travis County if we go no farther than this phase 3,
we're going to have gotten our $112,000, $120,000 because that is something
that we are going to be able to use and is going to be beneficial to this
community.
>> I go back to an investment. Back to the p.c. Unlimited
story. If I would have been a smart woman back in 1980 something, I would
have bought stock in p.c. Unlimited because it became dell, and I didn't.
I don't know that this is going to be another dell situation for us, but we
don't know yet.
>> I went to the c.u.c. Meeting with joe when they were talking
about this and I certainly don't understand the technical details, but we
had some fairly indepth conversations, and I think that in laymen's terms
what you really paying is for us to be at the table and to help form what
is going to be. And if we're not at the table, others will be. And they will
design a system that does not include what we want. There is an advantage
because -- I think there is -- and this is oversimplification. There's really
two positions. A., We want to be in a position where we can communicate and
that may be all Travis County wants to do, just communicate. That may be what
we stop at. Or we may say, look, there's going to be a conglomerate of counties
that have an integrated justice system. We may want to be part of that. And,
you know, what they pick may be the one we have. In which case, you know,
there's some real advantages to us if the state happens to go on tiburon,
on facts. They haven't really gone to a vendor because they are still designing.
But I think what you are paying for now in simple terms is simply to be at
the table and direct that so that we can share in the data should we want
to and we can evaluate a statewide system or participate and put our two cents
in for the development of that. And that could have a lot of benefit for us.
But I think that's what you are paying for. Harris county has decided apparently
not to sit at the table. So when it's designed, it will not take into effect
what they want or what they have. I think that's really what we're paying
for.
>> that does not preclude, though, that we are right on the
brink of having systems that are designed, are already out there being able
to [inaudible] into a statewide system. In other words, we are right at that
threshold so this is why I知 kind of confused. If we're at the threshold of
a common ground or common link, for whatever system you have out there as
far as integrated justice, then that appears to me that that's something that's
right at hand and why spend the money.
>> let me tell you the difference. Because I agree. We are
--
>> we are right at the verge.
>> we have those products. And they are coming out and we're
going to use them. And I think in fact one of those products will be it. The
difference though is that is the software technology. It's like windows, if
you will. This design phase is going to actually say what words go on the
window or the word document. And so that's where it would cost us. If we didn't
have, for instance, enough data for all the participating parties and this
group decided they wanted every participating party to be contributing to
this integrated system, we would have to go back and add those data fields
which would cost Travis County. If we were at the table and saying you don't
need all those participating parties, I think that's what susan is saying
it just gives us the right.
>> and I understand that.
>> the commute computer and how compute -- the computer and
how much it will cost.
>> I understand that. We're sitting at the table and we're
talking about i.j.s. System which has all the appropriate data fields we could
push to ensure we don't have to invest more money because we have the appropriate
data fields, here we are fighting pore what we want and somebody else has
a system as far as the urban counties are concerned and they have maybe not
the same data fields as Travis County, somebody is going to be fighting to
see who is going to model -- they are going to model after that database and
their connectivity also. What I知 trying to say is that be that as it may,
my point is that there are those that are still out there going to need connectivity
and there is a common link that's right around the corner that will be able
to make sure that everything is compatible. Right now there is incompatibility.
This is why year going through what we're going through now. Even houston,
harris county doesn't want to participate. We have a new sheriff that just
got elected. I have not heard anything from the sheriff to see if the law
enforcement attachment to this is something that he is supporting. It's a
lot of unknowns here and I do not want to be in a position to -- put in a
position where I have to make a decision on a lot of unknowns. I don't think
that's fair. And so I知 kind of at a -- in a no-man's land with that type
of scenario, especially if we are continuing to suggest that we are going
statewide, which is 254 counties. And that's kind of -- you know, what I知
telling you on this.
>> we approved the $61,000 in the budget process?
>> yes, we did.
>> yeah, we did.
>> well, then I move approval based on that decision that
was made then.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> I didn't support it then, judge.
>> okay. All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty,
yours truly voting in favor.
>> I abstained. I didn't support it.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> based on the information I put before you. I just need
more information.
>> yes, sir. Thank u.
>> thank you.
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 2:39 PM