Travis County Commissioners Court
January 11, 2005
Item 17
17 is to consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items. So this is on 15 also?
>> yes, sir. It just came from [inaudible].
>> we had asked that the budget amendments and transfers not be put on consent. Go to the items on a-43 through a-75.
>> that should be the top page. [inaudible].
>> we haven't figured out how to pass out things.
>> give her that.
>> can we get these things stapled before -- I mean --
>> that's what happened a little earlier, didn't have a stapler. Need to have one.
>> would you like for us to run through all the budget amendments or transfers or only those that we ask -- are there questions on a-1 through a-35? We can run through each of these sets if you would like.
>> if you are asking me, a-43 is where my first question starts. Really a-43, the $153,000 and 71, I know we discussed that before.
>> that's correct. The a-43 -- starting at a-43 has to do with the implementation staff for the fax in the county clerk's office and we'll be glad to discuss -- deanna, the county clerk is here with her staff.
>> any of us have any questions on any of the line items before that one? The others are really just the reserve being distributed to numerous --
>> that's correct. And some training from the county clerk's fund, 028.
>> the wellness clinic.
>> right. The wellness clinic.
>> executive manager --
>> deanna can discuss the two options that are laid out in a-43 through a-75.
>> the caption reflects what we talked about during the budget because we spent an awful lot of time talking about this and it seemed like what was based -- in terms of the time and motion studies it at least related to the county clerk's piece of this, they had pretty much figured out what they needed, and joe harlow validated that was indeed correct. So to me it was like what are we going to do with the rest of it? I don't know. So what is the option that reflects what we talked about in excess during budget is what indeed happens.
>> well, both options call for all 13 f.t.e.s to be approved for funding. The only tkeuf tpreps in the options -- difference in the options is the timing. The first option, which is what the county clerk wants and supports is having all 13 f.t.e.s funded now. There's been a split in the implementation date so civil probate will go first and then misdemeanor and the new bonds program will go second. And what p.b.o. Was recommending, which is the second option, is to split the funding of that because of all the delays that have occurred over the years and immaterial plex of facts, something always creeps up. It's a big, complex system. You know, the first time we're doing. This. So we're saying come back in a couple of months when they've started implementing the civil probate side and see how that's going and if everything is okay approve the other issues then. I think the issue for the county clerk is operational as far as the hiring, how quick they can get the hiring done. And I did call at the very last minute before I walked down here hrmd to see if there is a possible way that we wanted to split the difference, that Commissioners court could allow the slots to be created before the funding is in place just so they can go through the posting, the advertising, the getting of the applications, the sorting the keepers and rejects so they can know. As soon as the fund ing is in place they will have a month to hire and pick from the group already pre selected. I talked to them just before I came down here so I haven't heard back from them, but they were researching it to make -- they thought it seemed like if Commissioners court directs them to create the slots, that it would be okay. But they were just checking and making sure there were no laws or policies that would really be problematic.
>> linda just walked in the room. Tp-rgs.
>> good morning. Dana debouvier, tract clerk. Please excuse my voice. What we are asking the court to do is just grant us a little more flexibility not in the amount of the money that's going to be used for this project at all, but merely the timing for when we recruit these people. Hiring 13 people is a big deal and the reality of me being able to actually -- from today get a slot created, post the job, have it circulate, get the applications back in, sort through them, set up interviews, conduct interviews, do the evaluation, have qualified people probably give notice, typically, and then have an established hire date for February 1st, it's highly unlikely. We're going to be moving as fast as we can, but it is unlikely I would be able to meet that. What I would like to do is treat this as a single group. As we're going through the process of looking for these ultimately 13 individuals to do this job, what I would like to have is a little more flexibility in how I recruit them and in the amount of time that I have to recruit them. So my request to the court was while we do not plan to hire our misdemeanor facts people until algtd later, until three months before when I believe joe is going to bring the program forward, I need really to go ahead and start recruiting and giving them a hire date now. You know, that whole process. And it's just really a matter of how does the court grant instructions to hrmd if they don't have the budgeted money. It seems to me it's probably easier if we said we've already decided we're going to budget all the capital as of February 1st. Why don't we go ahead and decide to budget six of the facts people that are going to be working on civil and bond and then the remaining seven as of a get started with so that we can all of this. Otherwise really the timing is not going to be practical. And it is -- I do not mind coming back to the court and letting you know where we are in course of hiring and making offers and start dates and program implementation and any of the projects that are our responsibility as well as joe joining me to provide a response to the court for how he's doing with his implementation schedule. I don't mind returning every week or every two weeks to give you an update on that at all. But it's just a practical matter of trying to recruit and hire. I need to go ahead and be able to do that.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> and that's not a problem to [inaudible] some funding has not been fully secured that we will move ahead to recruit the positions without the specific slot numbers, so we can certainly do that in this instance if the court directs us to do it.
>> in terms of budget amendments, it's basically approving the budgets, a potential motion could be approving the budget amendments and transfers related to the six f.t.e.s to begin February 1st, 2005, and that authorization be given by this court for purposes of posting of jobs and recruitment that the other seven are authorized for h.r. To get the process move, bull those dollars will not be transferred until a more date certain depending on mr. Harlow how the project is moving forward and other kinds of circumstances.
>> right. And the only clarification I would offer to that is that is when you are talking to a prospective employee, you have to give them a start date certain. We would be going forward as if this were correct in our recruitment efforts.
>> the only clarification on the funding, it would probably make sense to include the funding for all the capital, for all 13 f.t.e.s at once because if you split it up you would probably wind up with additional costs as far as the putting together of the cube calls, ordering furniture, getting people out there for the electrical work. So we recommend all the capital be approved at the same time.
>> these are tied to fax implementation.
>> yes, sir.
>> all 13.
>> yes, sir.
>> where is the schedule for [inaudible]? We need to know that, right?
>> yes. And p.b.o. And I have both reiterated the schedule joe has given us for the civil probate side and the misdemeanor side in the memos that's included in your backup. Just to restate it --
>> why don't we just hear it from joe.
>> okay.
>> good morning, joe.
>> good morning.
>> our objective is to get all these in in this year. And to work with the courts that are ready to work with us, and so we have to be somewhat flexible as to which courts we're going to do as to when training is available, when people are available to be trained and that type of thing. Which is why we now move to the county clerk to pick up [inaudible]. We started out with district criminal. Then we brought our drug court on which then gave us two courts running in our system. We need a civil running so then we'll have a criminal and civil. And then we need to pick up a j.p. Then all types of courts and all functions then have been tested out and then the rest of the courts can just kind of fall in behind that. So given that, our schedule at this point shows the county civil, 5205 -- 5-2-05, district civil 7-5, county --
>> just dealing with the county civil now?
>> county civil is the next one that --
>> may first.
>> picking up for may 1st.
>> what's the likelihood of us hitting that target?
>> I think we can do that. If we all work together and have a good training schedule and dana gets her people in place, I think we can do that.
>> civil is very likely. I?m probably going to lose a couple weeks just getting my little road runner feet going hiring and recruiting the people. But civil is -- we've picked the less complicated, and I don't mean it's not complicated, but the less complicated of the two to start with.
>> joe, do you have a breakdown of that particular schedule you just suggested?
>> yes, sir, I do.
>> I would like to have that because I really am -- the judge asked a real good question and in other words if we're not on schedule, then of course we will make computations on what we're doing here in the future. So you are just going to have to be on a schedule. There's just no doubt about it in my mind and I know i've been kind of pushing a little bit on making sure the facts is implemented and on schedule and on time.
>> I understand.
>> and I know we've had some problems and hopefully they have been resolved where it will not prohibit us from being on schedule. I don't want to go into no specifics, but I know there have been problems.
>> well, it's like most any large projects like this.
>> right.
>> you define on the front end what you think you want, bring it up live and you see things that -- oh, I didn't know that and you have to address for that.
>> I understand.
>> that's where we've -- since it's come up, it's never [inaudible].
>> the first six are tied to the --
>> that's right.
>> and the seven are tied to what?
>> criminal misdemeanor.
>> so what's the schedule on criminal misdemeanor?
>> criminal -- August.
>> August 8th?
>> I thought it was July 1. July 1.
>> we have --
>> [inaudible].
>> oh, I see. Okay.
>> michelle's request was where she could move district civil back to the early July time frame. Option to put it together in this fashion.
>> could we leave that item open for discussion, you know, for, say, the next couple of weeks?
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> so we're approving the six today.
>> approve the six today and then please approve as a business model for us to go ahead and begin the recruitment of the seven for what I believe I will really need as an April 1st start date for the remaining seven individuals for criminal misdemeanor.
>> okay.
>> how much training?
>> it's a 90-day training period. It's something we've all stabbed.
>> if you look at the first six and you look at whether or not it takes 90 days to train them --
>> yes. There probably isn't going to be quite enough for a misdemeanor, but we think it's a safe enough estimate based on our time and motion studies.
>> so we're at a motion to approve the funding for the first six.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the capital for all of them.
>> the capital for all of them and recruitment of the seven.
>> and the capital is how much?
>> $71,500. That includes $46,500 for p.c.s, telephones and a few laser printers and then for the cost of the work station, furniture and chairs and their installation of electrical work.
>> and the third part of this would be authorization to create the seven positions, recruit and fill them with the understanding the money will be available at a later date.
>> at a later date, yes, sir. And at this point I?m still thinking that that later date is going to be April 1st. I?m willing to come back and talk to you if we need to adjust that slightly, but I am really filing like we need to get these people on board and have their full 90 days training. Even if joe's schedule were to slip a few days and mine slips a few days, we're not talking about a lot here.
>> in two months we'll have a better idea.
>> exactly.
>> that's appropriate.
>> we'll have civil under our belts.
>> okay. I'll support that. That's creation and funding of six. Capital for all. Creation of the other seven and recruitment with the understanding that at the appropriate time in the future, and you think that would be --
>> April 1st funding.
>> we'll deal with the money for the seven at that point.
>> sounds fine.
>> that would involve eliminating a-43 through a-58 on your budget amendments and transfers.
>> no, it's the other way around. That would involve approving a-43 through a-67 and then a-68 through a-75.
>> right. I thought this was the six. Isn't a-68 through a-75 the six?
>> no, that's the seven. It's a smaller amount because it's later on. There's more proration. I went back and made sure, double-check --
>> where's the --.
>> [inaudible].
>> and the appropriate amendments that go with what we just described. Melissa is the one who needs to get it straight.
>> can we just delete what we are not approving today?
>> yes. In fact, we can take the motion that you just made and delete the ones that you are not approving.
>> thank you.
>> and is that effectively what you asked for, that you basically asked for in the write-up?
>> that's correct. We recommended the six and what we've added since the write-up was the fact that recruiting objective that the county clerk needs for the other seven.
>> well, we're also creating the jobs.
>> that's correct.
>> we're creating the positions, authorizing recruitment, realizing that people will be told that probably you are going to have a certain date but we have to get the funding.
>> correct.
>> the only -- I guess place where I feel a little uncomfortable is that, you know, this target of trying to get this crazy thing called facts in place, I mean for two years has been the most -- I mean the needle on that thing moves all over the place. I mean -- but I guess, joe, if you are thinking that 5-2 is going to be the place that we're going to really be able to get this done, that I?m going to have to, you know, rely on that because it really is going to be crazy for us to interview these people, go through the process, give them, okay, you are going to get hired on this time and all of a sudden, hey, guess what? So, you know, I?m -- a lot of weight on your shoulders. If I?m going to vote for this I?m going to vote for it given that you are saying, Commissioner, I think -- I really think that we're going to be ready.
>> if I could just offer some support to mr. Harlow, I think he's in a better position to tell us what civil is going to look like at the county level.
>> there's three parties to making this successful. That's the county clerk's management and staff working with us, our staff working with it, and then tiburon supporting us. And I met with the new president of tiburon yesterday for three and a half hours on this issue. And we're sure we're going to get, you know, all the support we need from them to do this.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, you are not including in this motion -- this is just the county clerk, right? Okay.
>> okay, but the rest of this is not on today, the other departments that --
>> I?m sorry? There's no issue on --
>> this motion --
>> this is just county clerk.
>> these are the controversial parts, as far as I know.
>> right. And I can correct my earlier statement. I think the a-68 through a-75 are the ones that we will be eliminating for the seven additional -- the funding. So -- but what's before the court is a-1 through a-67 as incorporated in the judge's motion.
>> Margaret -- [inaudible].
>> oh, okay.
>> we're not talking about what the county clerk is doing. This is separate -- [inaudible].
>> I was trying to start with a-43.
>> okay.
>> so after a-43, in order to accomplish this motion, what do we need to delete?
>> a-43 through a-67.
>> is what you need to approve.
>> right.
>> is the motion.
>> we're approving those or deleting those?
>> no, those are the ones you need to approve.
>> anybody else want to confuse this further?
>> no. And that is correct.
>> all in favor of my simple motion? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, dana.
>> now, so do you want us to pull out which one of these? [multiple voices]
>> a-36 and a-37.
>> let's pull out a-36 and 37 and vote on those two separately. Move approval of those.
>> second.
>> that's the 17 five and the 5,000 -- [inaudible]. Discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner, droughtry and yours truly voting in he favor and abstaining Commissioner Gomez.
>> I move approval of a-1 through a-42 with the exception of 36 and 37 which we've previously acted on.
>> discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
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, January 11, 2005 7:58 AM