Travis County Commissioners Court
March 29, 2005
Item 30
So let's call up item no. 30. And that is to consider and take appropriate action on request to instruct the planning and budget office to do the following: a. Compile an estimate of all costs for present delinquent tax collections; b. Summarize performance data from relevant county departments to be provided in report form to Commissioners court no later than April 12, 2005; and -- that's two weeks from today -- c. Receive proposed rfi for collection and enforcement of delinquent property taxes from purchasing agent and issue rfi for collection and enforcement of delinquent property taxes, with responses to be delivered to the Commissioner's court no later than April 12, 2005.
>> I guess we have the latest draft, does everyone have the latest draft?
>> the committee members are eager to come forth and share their work product with us.
>> you should have received a letter from the planning and budget office on -- on budgeted expenditures dedicated to delinquent tax collections. That was delivered by e-mail and hard copy on Friday. And you -- you should see that -- that approximately $1.4 million is dedicated for that purpose encompassing approximately 28 f.t.e. In both the tax assessor collector's office and the county attorney's office. And details. Of that data are provided to you going back to fy '02.
>> I am looking at the e-mail from cyd grimes on yesterday at 12:18. And that is the latest version of the draft.
>> okay.
>> now, I think that I subsequently, well after that time received e-mails recommending several things. So those are still like hanging. They have not been incorporated yet. You wanted -- you wanted to cover those first?
>> I can --
>> the authors of those e-mails can.
>> do we expect dusty?
>> yeah, we were instructing david escomilla and nelda wells spears to be here, expected them any minute.
>> okay. Did you all get a copy of the e-mail that I sent y'all? I spent it to everybody. I had a list of 41 questions and the nice thing is that I had -- I asked cyd if they would have a chance to be able to match up the 41 questions that I came up with what would be appropriate for an r.f.i. Versus what's appropriate for an r.f.p. To kind of split those out that we would find out which things are already in there. I think we only had, cyd, what is it? Maybe a half a dozen that weren't covered by either and, you know, decisions could be made about whether they were appropriate questions and whether they are for now or a potential for later. What I did on mine is that I took the r.f.i. That was done on deferred comp from -- from 2001 or two and I literally took the exact questions that are employee -- that our employees benefit had come up for the deferred comp to try to get information about the topic. I literally stole 41 questions that I was just shocked at how exactly the same they were related to relevant questions to be asked either for a request for information, which is where we're at right now, or if it actually moved to an r.f.p., which is a separate and very different process.
>> I have -- [multiple voices]
>> we -- [multiple voices]
>> office to make copies.
>> [multiple voices]
>> I have marvin making copies. We have split it out, after our discussion yesterday, we split it out and he's making copies of the ones right now that we did not feel like were addressed in the rfi that you might want to add.
>> I sent that to you all at 12 noon right after the draft had come out saying well here's what I have been working on since Friday.
>> okay. Let's address a big issue then. What I had in mind three weeks ago when we discussed this item was an active look with the court having the option to take action if it was deemed necessary and appropriate. I have since after that conversation with -- with david escomilla and others learned that the time crunch may well squeeze us a whole lot more than I imagined, especially if we use like a dual approach. Therefore in the introductory paragraph I recommend the following changes. There will be four. Three small ones, one addition, three deletions one addition. In the second line that we delete two -- delete to be used as a planning tool to, so that second line would read: issue a request for information to determine. Okay?
>> that's only one sheet.
>> line four -- catch that first one? Commissioner Davis?
>> we are trying to pass out things and it's --
>> distracted here. Folks are passing out stuff here.
>> marvin it's not a complete list. Starts at 24, goes to 38, sorry. It's not appropriate.
>> we just split them out.
>> look at these questions and make sure that they don't duplicate the other questions?
>> yes. That what we have tried do out of Commissioner Sonleitner's list.
>> okay.
>> sergeant.
>> I知 sorry, judge, where were you I知 sorry.
>> back to the introductory paragraph. Second line. Strike through the words is what this motion would be, strike through the words be used as a planning tool to.
>> instead of receive information?
>> under the --
>> line two.
>> strike the words line two, first sentence, right? Be used as a planning tool to.
>> oh, line two as opposed to second sentence. Got it.
>> so that second line would read: issue a request for information to determine.
>> got it.
>> okay. Line four: we delete "pay". And substitute "contract with." now, that same paragraph, if you go from the bottom up, the third line after will be considered, we insert the following sentence: mull multiple two pages or one?
>> original and ones is shuffled. You need both sheets, judge.
>> okay. I only have three sheets, though. If I get two on this one, I only have one left.
>> that's your one, you have already gotten your other one.
>> I need those two pages, right? [multiple voices]
>> four lines up.
>> okay. Third line from the bottom. Affirms that submitted rfi's will be considered, period, right? We add the following new words: alternatively, Travis County may award a contract based on the information provided in response to this rfi.
>> well, if that's --
>> do I need to repeat that.
>> > repeat that, judge.
>> let me get all of these out and then it will be open for discussion. Alternatively, Travis County may award a contract based on the information provided in response to this rfi.
>> here's the problem.
>> wait, that's not -- that's the first paragraph. We will be able to discuss all of these.
>> okay.
>> got that addition?
>> uh-huh.
>> deletion, the last sentence, no contract will be awarded as a result of this rfi process, that would clash with the alternative language if approved. The intention here is to give us the -- the authority, the ability, to issue a contract if we think that we have sufficient enough information in response to the rfi. That was in the form of a motion. Commissioner Sonleitner discussion?
>> questions. Is an rfi an r.f.p.?
>> no.
>> so how can we turn an rfi into an r.f.p., if we really intended this to be an r.f.p. We should have put out that this was an r.f.p. And there are a whole lot of questions that I think are not in here that are appropriate for an r.f.p. That will not be a part of this proposal unless we do some massive, massive changes to make this document what it is.
>> well, you may be correct. We may not have sufficient information to act on. In fact, we may not like any responses that we get.
>> no what I知 saying --
>> I don't think that we ought to put ourselves in a position where we miss the deadline, even if we find information that we think we can act on. In my view, this gives the court the option that we had three weeks ago, when we voted basically to get the information to take a look-see. If as a result of the look-see we believe that information is there sufficient to award a contract, then this language gives us the ability to do it and if we don't think the information is sufficient, we don't. When I chatted with david escomillo, he's here, he reminded me that the court does not have to do an rfi or r.f.p., if we think that the information that we get in response to the rfi whatever we approve today is sufficient then we have the freedom, the flexibility to go ahead and award a contract. Now, I知 not presupposing that the information will be there. I am presupposing that we ought to have the ability to do it. The other thing is, you know, I didn't think that people were stonewalling us when the rfi was out there. I thought it was a good government effort to see the fact, that was my goal anyway. So I said instead of having it my way, maybe ending up with a 3-2 scroat, let's do it -- 3-2 vote, let's do it that way, six of one, half a dozen of the other, 4-5 vote it's what we had. This is clear, if there's a legal issue with it, david has an opinion different than what he told me the other day.
>> not different. You need to be careful about some things. This is a law firm that we're talking about. Lawyers, this is legal work we are talking about doing. In order to do legal work in this state you have to be a licensed lawyer. That's a profession. This court has an exemption under the purchasing act for professional services, if this court chooses to exempt a contract, because of the -- because of the exception that professional services, three votes can decide on that contract. We need to be careful in that an rfi means something, it's a standard that's used. And there's documentation that exists out in the state that an rfi means x. And when you simply change this language, it really doesn't made an rfi anymore, I worry about how some of the vendors are going to see that. The first thing that they are going to say is you all are doing an rfi, now what you are doing that is changing it in substance, calling it an rfi. Regardless of what I really intend, in order to get what you want, I think that we ought to. We have two concerns. One is change a little bit of the language that you are talking about, go ahead and state rather than your alternative language, alternatively the court reserves a right pursuant to the purchasing, the local government code article 262.031, et seq, to exempt these services from the purchasing act and let a contract at any time. I think that's the better term of art to use. So that we protect your --
>> we need --
>> you can go through with this, but you can put that in here instead of your language. Give you the same right, I知 trying to give you what you are trying to get here, but do it in a way that protects you legally. But the second thing that I think we need to be concerned about --
>> repeat your first thing, though. Let me make sure that I understand.
>> I would rather let me write it and come back to you, that came from my head. I think that I could do better if I had a chance to write it down. I would think alternatively, the Travis County Commissioners court reserves the right to -- to award a contract, to exempt these services, professional services and to exempt a contract for delinquent property tax services pursuant to Texas local government code article 262.024 and i've got the exceptions that number one or is it -- a -- 262024 a 4.
>> okay. Did -- to tell you how flexible I am, use your language and put the -- afterward, put it after my language. If yours is still better, your legal opinion, that's fine with me.
>> second issue that I think you need to be concerned about. The -- the real difference between an rfi and an r.f.p., it looks like you might want to use this information and think this might be enough information to choose someone to select somebody. And the -- the great thing about an r.f.p. Is that it not only includes information here are things that we require you to give us, it includes criteria for how you are going to judge them. And this document before you has zero criteria. You know, why did you truthfulliness -- one, did you truthfully answer everything. Two, one of the rules is have you paid all of your delinquent property taxes. If not, all of these different criteria, how well you can provide services, what evidence you ployed to guarantee all of that, a lot of things that you are going to want to know and get to the contract stage that are not in this document, this document was not prepared so that it could be evaluated for proposal. We are not even asking for proposals in this document.
>> we are asking for all of the information --
>> right [multiple voices]
>> if the pursuant to statutory provision that you have in mind, in fact gives us the right to exempt this from competition, period, then why is it a fair interpretation that a request for information it shows a whole lot more beyond the call of duty than we are required to --
>> you are right. I should have -- when I got to number two, I should have stopped and said wait a minute. This isn't a legal concern. This is a practical concern to try to put a court, for you to get this information that would be beneficial to you that you can use is that it sounds like you want to reserve the ability, the right, to go ahead and act after this first step. Legal.
>> the information it's sufficient.
>> if the information is sufficient.
>> I think that you should use my language more, to more preserve your rights so we don't get criticism from it. Secondly, not from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint that this information you get is actually beneficial. The analysis is beneficial to you and so people don't criticize you for why you justify what you did, how you -- how the r.f.p. Process is better for that, you have criteria. And that criteria has now been established and it's best that this court, as a court aadopted a document, said here's the criteria we are going to use -- [multiple voices] that's not in here.
>> nothing.
>> the mission from the court to us to put together. That's not legal. You can't exempt this contract and your justification is three votes wanted this result.
>> can you exempt the contract after we get responses to the rfi.
>> sure, yes you can. Any day.
>> that's exactly when I had in mind. But the criteria is not going to be out there.
>> that's part of the problem judge.
>> if you exempt it --
>> it's not a legal must. My job, I have been criticized in the past for not telling you enough to understand and protect yourselves is what you are doing is going out and you follow this path is -- when you get to the point to make a decision, should you decide to exempt it and justify which firm, which horse you pick, what was your justification in an r.f.p. You would be able to say here's the one who graded the highest in the criteria. You have no grading system whatsoever in this document.
>> listen.
>> yeah.
>> in my view the number one criterion will be financial gain for Travis County taxpayers.
>> we should put that one down.
>> put it down there.
>> okay.
>> it doesn't take a book to say that.
>> I知 not -- [multiple voices]
>> this is about money. It's about money for taxpayers.
>> put that in.
>> it's about money. I wouldn't say necessarily about taxpayers.
>> listen. I cannot fathom how -- what questions we can come up other than how will you make your decision, maybe [multiple voices] these 40 or 50 questions here ask every conceivable thing in the world.
>> we don't rank those questions, say this one is how we do it. That's just what we normally do. You are right, as your lawyer I知 telling you that you have the legal right --
>> three weeks to write them.
>> we had three weeks to put together an rfi, you are not going to make a decision on it. That language you struck, for example, that -- that's not something that we came up with. Cyd took that standard form rfi's.
>> you all are making the rfi a whole lot more academic than I ever imagined.
>> the court said that's not what we intended we are going to change in a.
>> that's what I知 saying.
>> that's fine.
>> I知 saying if we put people through entering 50 questions here.
>> you might want to get somewhere. I agree I知 trying to be your lawyer honestly --
>> I知 trying to be the county judge.
>> to protect you. That's what I知 saying. Understand i've been criticized in the past for not explaining things to you well enough. I want you to understand that if this is the only changes that you really make, don't put criteria in, you are going to get all of this information but not a grading sheet to do and so if you do act after step 1, under what is still called an rfi, in the trade is a two step process, I want you to be aware and be ready if you are asked how did you pick this one over this one, you have to say, well, there wasn't any objective grading criteria, there was no criteria, which is required by the way in an r.f.p.
>> when we brought this up two or three weeks ago, I brought up the point of saying at what point did we send out a letter to the other 83 jurisdiction that's we collect taxes for and do their delinquent property tax work. I was specifically told at that time saying we are just gathering information right now. It may not be information to contact those folks.
>> [indiscernible]
>> if we are thinking about really awarding some kind of something based on the information coming out of here, at what point do we start contacting the 83 jurisdictions to find out what their opinion is? Let me go one step further. I actually spent some time in terms of going through here. Let me tell you some questions that are not in this rfi that are relevant things. Name, address. Name of officials who will coordinate all activities related to this collection plan. Telephone number, location of local office. How long has your company been in business? How long has it been in business in Texas, do you have all appropriate licenses and registrations, is your company a subdear of another company, full disclosure of any ownership or control by any other organization or agency.
>> cyd, why didn't we put those questions in.
>> because those are r.f.p. Questions, judge.
>> cyd, why didn't we put those questions in the rfi?
>> I got these questions at 12:20 yesterday. And I had already sent out the latest, latest, latest draft. I didn't want to.
>> your answers is these that matter can easily be put in the rfi. That what I知 hearing. We can add them to the 26 questions that we have. We have all 41 question that's I turned in which are our peak questions or are already addressed so, so those are a few less, then others that are absolutely relevant, especially if you are going to talk about a -- moving forward on giving a contract. For example, some things --
>> I have a motion and a second dealing with the first paragraph.
>> for examples, things has any contract of yours been terminated by cause. If so I by whom. Any other reason that's Travis County would expect to be voluntarily disclosed, has your company or any key person ever been sued, cited or disciplined by a ... Indicate all interfacing and timing that will occur with Travis County in terms of it through computer tapes. What kind of interface is going to be needed. What input? Do you have formats that our system can adapt or vice versa. If you were all reports that will be issued to the county and all other governmental agencies. Furnish example of all reports. Will all be gas bee 34 com client. Your worse three years of performance since 1995. Your best three years of performance since 1995. There are huge questions that ought to be in any kind of anything related to something that could --
>> we are -- we are going to get to those soon. Now, david, legally, what if you want to take this part 1 general information and the first paragraph, just make it a request for information and proposal.
>> we are not posted for the --
>> david legally --
>> let me tell you first, I知 very disappointed that that question comes to me today because I foresaw this question coming to me, I took steps last week when there was time to change the posting to make it clear that I wouldn't have to answer that question because if I did, however I do it's going to be suspect. Let me tell you because I have taken those extra steps, to protect the court's right back then, here is my advice: if you are --
>> what's the answer to that question. Are you saying you don't want to answer it.
>> I知 telling you the answer to the question is unclear. It's going to be the standard set under cox versus -- cox versus aisd. The american-statesman case. The standard is going to be how important is this issue to the public of relevance and interest to the common person that what's the requirement is what is the standard that you should have posted to give fair notice to people that this is what you were going to talk about. The difference being that you are going to be talking about -- let me finish.
>> wait a minute. You are saying it's all right, but don't do it today.
>> I知 not saying that.
>> you always have the opportunity.
>> are you saying the posting keeps us from doing that today.
>> I知 saying there is a threat that what could be done, you could be challenged on this as violating the open meetings act, because of posting and the remedy would be, they undo what you did. You can always come back --
>> what's little answer to my question [multiple voices]
>> the answer is up to a jury to know.
>> it won't be up on a -- to a jury. Legally can we or can we not simply make this for information.
>> it's a fact question. That's what I知 going to tell you, it's a fact question. The standardly be given this particular issue, how important is it to the public and so given that, what is the level of notice that you should have provided to the public. That's a fact issue.
>> all right.
>> so therefore that's why I say so now let me give you advice, I would rather take you into executive session at this point and give you that advice. But if you want that advice in public, I will give it to you now.
>> I asked the question in public.
>> but now I知 asking the court, which is their right, whether they want to hear my legal advice in public or in executive session.
>> I will withdraw that question on the ground in order for us to make progress it ought to be withdrawn.
>> legally your position is the better position of the two that I have mentioned is the -- either my language or your version of my language that basically says we may use the information here in response to the rfi pursuant to the law that allows us to do that. I move approval of that, all in favor of my motion which basically is to make the changes to the language that I suggested. Show commissions Davis, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Sonleitner. That's the rewrite of paragraph one. Do we want to go to the questions? There are a lot of questions here. Did you say 48. Did you conclude all of these should be asked or a part of them.
>> the list that we just passed them out divides them into ones, if you want to have alternate, doing an r.f.p., include the r.f.p. Questions, the ones that it already addressed don't need to be in there. The one that says subject matter experts should be included, we just need to work with the experts on making sure that we have not covered them already.
>> I think there's one other item.
>> in the spirit of what judge Biscoe has said, rather than what you just said there, 40 r.f.p. Information that would be helpful in case we decide to exempt the contract and move ahead with the awarding ever the contract. I知 trying to keep this in the spirit of what judge Biscoe put in the first paragraph.
>> thank you Commissioner.
>> I知 actually trying to be helpful here, also trying to get my questions put in.
>> there's one other item, given the new language in this first paragraph. That may need a little bit of work, but it's doable. That is to know what to do with all of the information that's going to be provided in anticipation that -- that contract may be awarded. What criteria to be used. It may be as simple as just simply net additional revenue to Travis County then what is currently being received today taking all costs and all revenues into account. If it is that simple, then we should put it in here it seems to me so that it is very -- so that the benchmark is known in advance rather than dealt with once all of this data comes in.
>> can you reduce that to a question?
>> I don't -- I don't think it's a question. I think that it's a statement.
>> can -- is it already in here?
>> the criteria on what to do with the data is not in here. The -- the criteria on how will all of this data be evaluated --
>> can you reduce your statement to one, two, three sentences?
>> yes.
>> why don't you do that for us and let's consider it.
>> okay.
>> cyd, let me make sure that I understood what you said. So already addressed we can delete.
>> correct, it's already in there,.
>> which is good.
>> so we delete that. From [multiple voices] 12 through 27. So.
>> 1 through 11.
>> the r.f.p., what about those?
>> we would include those.
>> put those in.
>> correct.
>> and then --
>> 28 through 38.
>> can we take just a minute and look through this.
>> uh-huh. Okay. Any issues with the r.f.p. List,.
>> rfi.
>> it's listed under the header of rfi.
>> it's incorporating r.f.p. Questions into rfi.
>> numbers --
>> this is Commissioner Sonleitner list.
>> I知 trying to be helpful.
>> it's not mine, it's Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> actually, this is the employee's benefits committee of Travis County felt that these were important enough questions to be asked about people safeguarding the dollars of the people who work for Travis County.
>> I don't hear -- I don't --
>> taxpayers of Travis County.
>> good enough for the committee and Commissioner Sonleitner good enough for me.
>>
>> subject matter experts. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...this leaves a little bit to be desired; however, I am not in this business and I have a catchall that is sort of -- sort of reasonable, additional language that we should add. Some of this stuff may well be proprietary, some of it may be confidential. I don't want to run off firms. I will add the following language -- david, put your legal cap on.
>> okay. Go ahead.
>> I知 sorry, judge, on 28 through 38-n?
>> let me add this language. I don't have an issue with these directly except, I do believe that if a firm is a firm -- a firm believes that certain requested information is proprietary, confidential or should not be disclosed in response to this rfi, the requested information may be provided to the Commissioners court. Should I say, in a separate document? , shall be provided, not maybe. They may choose not to provide it at all or are you saying they may send it to you?
>> we may decide we don't want it anyway.
>> if 10 firms respond and we we need information from these two because these are short listed, that will be fine, though.
>> I think it's a separate --
>> shall at the court's discretion.
>> don't put at the court's discretion.
>> shall provide --
>> in executive session.
>> judge, you can't -- the only way -- i'd have to look. But two is who can go in executive session, only those parties that are in -- [overlapping speakers].
>> let's talk about what you're trying to get and I can get you there. I think what you're trying to get is I can understand that we're asking some very questions that go toward the business practices that I can see some of these respondents not wanting that information of public record. Here's the first bad news. Y'all have no control over whether something's public record or -- we always try in our contracts to protect the court from saying we won't release something because it puts you in a hard and a rock place. Who decides if something gets repleased? The attorney general. We standardly put in our contracts that we promise not to release something unless the attorney general orders us to do so. That's what we do so we don't make a promise we can't keep and we lose. I don't care what the attorney general says, you promised you wouldn't release it, you had to and now you need to pay us money. That's the concern. So we always protect the county by saying, you promise what you want, but say king's x, unless the attorney general orders us tory lease it. So if you're intent is to try to protect some information, the only way it can truly be guaranteed protection is if it falls under one of the protections under state law, the public information act, and if the attorney general agrees. So there's a way to do this for those things that can to set up the process in there that says we'll protect it if we can. But putting y'all in the middle of that just doesn't do anything. The public information act will recognize no difference, probably less difference if it's submitted to you, a court, versus submitted to cyd. Y'all are all public servants subject to the public information act.
>> proprietary information, I may not want my competitor to know. If we're down to the last step and Travis County says we like what you gave us and we're thinking of going to the next step but we want this information, which means that if you don't agree with this, you don't get the contract. If you do, you do.
>> let me get you there. Let me explain it and then we'll work on language.
>> cyd is new to this. This isn't new. A lot of times we go out for proposals and whatever and you've got language in here already. [overlapping speakers].
>> it's usually in data types of things where you've got patented information and we've got language that agrees with that. The ag has -- most of that is patent related. There are some things during the process where one side can't go see what the other side proposed and gives them advantage, so we've got some rights to protect it during the process. So I don't think you really have to play with the language so much to protect it during the process. Now, to address the part you said about the end, we may now -- let's say there's something that is protected by the act that we may want to use to go to the next step. In that negotiation phase we can say we want to go with you, we want to move toward you. But in order to do that, we feel we have to release this, and the person, that entity, can waive that right and allow us at that point to do it. So I don't think it's broken. I could probably go through the language, review again what you're intending and probably come up with better language, but I think we're generally protected from that in a way you're going to get what you want out of that.
>> there is language in that last paragraph on that first page that talks about that they need to mark any information as proprietary. We can add the confidential or trade secret. And then I do say, it's the ag that rules on what constitutes freedom of information.
>> it's on the very first page.
>> the last sentence also needs to be struck.
>> lots of it needs to be struck.
>> I think it needs to be improved given what you've said if you think that's going to be an issue. I had thought it so important because there might be a lot of information with a firm that they might think is proprietary. I don't think from my understanding of the attorney general's rules that there's much that they're going to consider as proprietary here. So it's a difference of opinions.
>> that's my point. A lot of this may well be proprietary or confidential, but I don't think it ben it's us at all. I don't have the ability to go through all these questions here and identify them one by one. I don't know that we've done a good job of that. Some of these questions seem to be a little bit more punitive than helpful to us. Personal opinion.
>> I understand.
>> who is it that we're talking about here? And we're talking about Travis County being the entity that has done in in-house, there is transparency, totally as to what we do around here. What we do is a matter of public information in terms of who our employees are, how much they make, what are their benefits here. It's trans pairnlt.
>> but firms aren't going to come to Travis County because they contract with us. I'll be honest, to a great extent, a lot of the business and business transactions become public. Not 100%.
>> I agree.
>> I知 trying to be reasonable, but at the same time, here's what we want and need, especially what we need, to make sure that we are not just being overly burdensome.
>> I think that's exactly right. If we want responses, we have to make sure what we're issuing is fair and isn't owner us or -- onerous or burdensome. It's not easy. It takes work.
>> when I came up with my questions, cyd did go through these when it was delivered to her and other members of the committee. So others on the committee that were helping do the rfi were privy to the e-mail that I sent everybody out of the and she went through saying these are things that we think are already in there. Good question. Already in there. These are things that are really more r.f.p. So if you're needing to gather more information, these would have been questions that they would have included if they knew that was the route they were going in terms of something that needed a more fully developed, more of a delivery of a particular kind of professional service. And then the other one was, she didn't know whether it ought to be in the first part of information gathering or the second part, but there's nothing in here that was not a good question that needed to be asked at some point in the process. And if it's a two part question, it's in one or the other. But if this is a one part process, it needs to be in there now.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner moves approval of the question -- questions one through 11 on the sheet and questions 28 through 38 on the other second street.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> i've got some discussion to make on that. And it may get blended into this thing.
>> I am really embarrassed by what is going on right here. Cyd, I want to ask you a question. In your opinion, if we had gone down the path of our original rfi and we had gotten the information back, would we have then had the time to turn around and then put out an r.f.p. And have had ample time to decipher the information that we got from that r.f.p. To make a decision whether or not we need to put this out before a third party? It's my understanding, and I don't need the explanation of -- I didn't think I needed the explanation of what an rfi was because I thought where we were headed was down a path that could show in the light of day in this community whether we are doing the best job that could be done. I assume, I know because i've had everybody tell me, that we do a great job. But my gosh, all I知 trying to do in this process is to verify that with people in this community. And I知 not sure that if anybody is watching this thing right now that they wouldn't go, what are they talking about? I mean, it's embarrassing to me because I think -- and let me tell you what. Whenever I知 getting e-mails that the fact is you haven't shown any interest in my advice on this matter, you haven't asked to meet with nelda wells spears and you thought it was important to meet with the others instead, what should we make of these facts? Let me tell you what, I don't need this kind of stuff and nobody in this community needs this kind of stuff. It is inferring that what I知 trying to do up here is that I知 trying to pull some monkey business, and that is not what is going on in this community. I am trying to in the light of day show people when somebody asks me, do you think that you are getting the absolute best deal that you can get, that's all that i've asked. And this thing has gotten into now I知 skeptical of that it's taken me down a path to only for me to find out that, do you know what, Commissioner, you can't do that after you get the information from the rfi. If you do get the information from the rfi, you probably don't have enough time to put out an r.f.p., to get it in, especially if you're talking about collecting the taxes for this past year. And quite frankly, at this stage of the game, there are so many questions out here that I probably couldn't be. I probably could not feel comfortable in passing judgment on that. But I知 still interested in showing that if we do the absolute best job, then I知 willing to say that's what we do and we put the thing through the process. But we've got something going on here where I think that people are trying to stop us from doing what I thought that Commissioner Gomez and I asked for, which was simply let's just make sure that we can show everybody in this community that the way that we do this is the absolute best that we can do. And, I mean, this has gotten into a different strain here as far as I知 concerned. I mean, I知 not comfortable in it. I知 glad that we're answering questions out here because I don't like to go into executive session and talk about things that people can't listen to on television. I think that that is what people deserve in this community, and I will tell you that if there's something going on here other than what I wanted, which was just simply to see if there is someone that could do and could collect more money for Travis County than what the Travis County tax assessor collector can do, then that's what I was looking for. Now, beyond that -- I wanted to say that on tv so somebody could say what in the world are we talking about? Because I think that probably 30 minutes ago people checked out and said I don't even understand where they are with this deal. [overlapping speakers]
>> one at a time, says the county judge.
>> that e-mail is not from me.
>> I didn't say who it was from.
>> it was not from me.
>> and Gerald, my point on this is this: I think you're absolutely correct. These are great questions to ask related to how are we doing in terms of in-house collections, how are we doing? Where this has unfortunately taken an unfortunate term is that we seem to have vendor-driven deadlines and not what are the deadlines of Travis County to make a good, public, open, transparent assessment of how are we doing, and if we think we can do better, we start an open, transparent process that allows us to find another way to do it. This is totally being driven by other people's deadlines that if you don't do it, then we missed another one-year of opportunity to switch. And I don't think that's the way people ought to do things is this vendor-driven deadlines to get something done are what's driving the deadlines that have been thrown out here in the process.
>> I don't think it's so much the vendor, I think it's the time line that everybody has to work on. And this is not the very first time that this has been brought up, that this issue has been brought up. And it has been dropped through the cracks in the past years and it was time to go ahead and pick up the ball and let's run for the end and try to get something done that is -- that just tells the public what kind of job we are doing. That's all it means. And it sure doesn't feel that way to me.
>> I guess my point on this -- i've been pretty quiet -- is that even if the court decides to infuse or include these questions, what my question is, will this be, as Commissioner Daugherty brought up, enough time for us to at that time have enough information to go ahead and select somebody to carry on the wishes of the court if we're going to look at the question of delinquent taxes. I really don't know that answer. Like I said, dealing with what you've dealt with in the past, would this be enough time in this process as we speak today to actually go forward. Is there enough time in your mind of doing this stuff?
>> well, my understanding is that there's some sort of may 1st deadline. And if may 1st is a deadline, then I would say no, that we don't have sufficient time.
>> okay. And I think that's where Commissioner Daugherty was probably leading up to. Now, let me ask you this then. What would be the proper way for us to -- if may 1st is the deadline, what would be the proper process? We're looking at this today and we haven't looked at an rfi, a lot of things have been said today, but if we looked at this, what would be the proper process for that deadline to be adhered to after hearing today's conversation? As far as your best judgment, being the purchasing agent that you are and knowing that there is a process. Would an r.f.p. Suffice to get to that?
>> well, I was thinking that -- I would say that my recommendation as your county purchasing agent who has been here for 12 years, and we have pretty much been consistent in our processes that is if you truly want to award a contract, that we start over with the r.f.p., we've got a lot of the questions already there. It shouldn't take us that long to get an r.f.p. Together. The hard part in my opinion is the analysis of all this data. And I can't do it, so you have to send it on to like pbo, your auditor's office, who I understand susan is very busy with legislation right now. That's another problem with this time line. And then the county attorney's office. So if they can commit to spending all their time in a short time frame to do the analysis, we might could be ready in a couple of month. I would say two or three months to do the anal analysis based on everyone else's work load.
>> we could have exempted all this from competition and whether we have the information available. Do you agree with that legal analysis?
>> yes, this is one of those contracts that does not follow the purchasing act. If you wanted to go hire ken oden's firm tomorrow, you could.
>> we have a motion before us.
>> you asked for some language. I have language on criteria for --
>> we'll get to that. The motion before us deals with the r.f.p. And the -- (indiscernible). And the subject matter experts. I seconded that motion. Any more discussion of that? These are the questions basically. We are not including 12 through 27.
>> yeah. Said gives me assurances they are already in there.
>> any more discussion of that motion to include these? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. The whole court. That passes by unanimous vote. All right. So my request was for the language that we -- that we give a firm that believed it had confidential information that it didn't want to release early in the process the ability to hold off on and that at a later date come to us and say here it is.
>> at your discretion, they can take anything they wanted to out of those questions and say we're not going to answer that because we want to invoke this -- if we want to put it down very straightforward, we're confident they're not using it to abuse and there's not a real legal argument for proprietariness. My suggestion would be that we have some kind of a process to determine that. If you put that in their hands -- you can ask for or not ask for anything you want in this process. So your real judgment is do you ask for it, do you not ask for it, or in the middle do you ask for it and let some process decide whether you really have a little exception. And then you leave that exception in the hands of the vendors or in y'all's hands?
>> when we get the information, but based on my experience here at the county, in a lot of cases there's confidential, proprietary type information they'd rather not disclose in the process because they don't want it to end up in the wrong hands. If, though, you are close to getting a contract, then you are willing to turn that information over. So I知 looking at the language that basically conveys that.
>> if we look at our process, that wording is standard language that all information in proposals will be kept confidential and secret until a contract is awarded.
>> unless the ag says otherwise.
>> we don't even usually -- we keep it secret until after the contract is awarded. Then when other firms want it, they have to go through the ag's process.
>> I understand. Except here's what happens. I want to make sure you understand what controls you have and you don't.
>> if what you're saying you think it's the best we can do, y'all get together on that language. When I looked at the question, I put myself in this and say, I don't know that i'd want to reveal later on in the process. But if a contract hinges on it, my confidentiality is a whole lot less relevant. Let's just do the best we can.
>> but from a substance standpoint if this is to compare apples to apples and compare information to get to that contract part, you're not going to have control over if you give them a way out what you're going to get. You will get apples and oranges. Some of them aren't. Some will answer question four. Some of them aren't. How do you have an apples and apples?
>> if you have apples and we have oranges, then we have -- (indiscernible). I don't want to put the cart before the horse. This is something that in -- this is a possibility that in my view is a realistic possibility.
>> let me try this out. The Travis County Commissioners court will make its decision on the basis of four key variables. Number one, the total future fiscal net benefit to the county treasury, taking into account, a, the speed of collections, b, the total delinquent collection rate, and c, incremental revenue from attorney's fees and parcel fees, offset by incremental expenses to collect delinquent taxes. All revenue will need to be certified by the county auditor. Two, the net benefit to Travis County taxpayers, including those that have become delinquent in the payment of their taxes, including the payment of penalties, interest and attorney's fees. Three, the relative efficiency and effectiveness of collecting delinquent taxes for Travis County and other jurisdictions. And four, the net public good from continuing to collect taxes using county staff versus using a private firm.
>> based on -- net glick good based on what?
>> the wisdom of the Commissioners court.
>> I agree. [ laughter ]
>> what you're saying here is the benchmark.
>> you can type that up so we can read it. Or I can have somebody do that.
>> why don't you?
>> it's shorter than what you've been discussing.
>> all right.
>> there's something to be said for if we did it in a two-stage process, the kinds of questions 1 through 11, 28 through 38, really get to a much more detailed extent. If we never get to the point of saying do we even want to go further, then these firms are not going to have to answer a lot of questions if it turns out we go, umm, I知 happy with where we are, but we're not. I知 also focusing back on what cyd was saying that to properly get through this, we're talking about two or three months. And that's not where we are today, but we are writing and rewriting things on the dais, we are getting legal advice on the dais --
>> excellent legal advice.
>> and at 2:57 we're not anywhere near going through all of this stuff and talking about changes that we need to see to have a document before us to even approve. I mean, we've had several different letters to the state legislature -- [overlapping speakers]
>> I think it takes longer to plain what we're doing.
>> are we going to have a document done by the end of today?
>> but I think it's better to do it here. I don't want to be accused of -- [overlapping speakers]
>> i'd rather do it here in public.
>> are we going to have a clean document today?
>> we're going to have a clean document by the end of today.
>> well, considering we can't even get that together on a simple letter to the state legislature in one day, I find it really hard to believe that we're going to reformat an entire thing here. And again, for what deadline?
>> if we get information we think is insufficient, we'll do exactly what we did five years ago. Five years ago we had the same fight we're having today. We started looking at it. I say we get the best information we can. Say the reasons why. And we will have 50 other items. (indiscernible).
>> do we think that firms can get something like this answered in a matter of two weeks?
>> I知 thinking that would be timely.
>> what would be the wrong thing in material of putting out an rfiqp, pick your initial, because we have to advertise it, then they have to bring it in, and then our committee has to have time to take a look at it, rank it and make it in time for our internal deadline to get something on an agenda.
>> the committee is made up of public servants. They have agreed to serve Travis County the same as the members of the Commissioners court. Working together we can get this done. Now, rather than further delay today, I have two more concerns. In number 6 we have -- blah, blah, blah. So are we wanting to know cause number, amount owed. Why wouldn't we be more interested in the totals, in the money? Why would we have five thousand cases or two thousand, and we would -- (indiscernible).
>> i'll -- it might seem onerous, I agree, but there has been a lot of discussion about we're filing too many lawsuits and against what type of people. You won't find that in general information. This is public information, public information that is available in quickly, easily put together in spreadsheet form that where we needed to drill down in that data, we can find what zip codes are being sued because those questions and those accusations seem to be coming this way. The only way to compare apples and apples is to get that data. I don't believe that data -- from cis data we can tell if there's similar economic impact on those. We can do that type of work. It's going take awhile. You can't do that type of work if you don't have that data.
>> we're thinking that this question alone will add two, three, four days --
>> all this is computerized. I disagree. I think they've already got it. If they don't, they answer simply, we don't have that data available. But if they do have that data, I think it's important.
>> it's available. -- if available, please provide.
>> and some will turn it in.
>> is that the number of lawsuits you filed last year --
>> not just the number. It's been how it's had a disparate impact. It's not just numbers. I would agree with you completely if the accusations had just been total numbers. It's disparate impact.
>> how can --
>> we can drill down in those and try to find out depending on the locale what impact that might have in a comparable section of the community.
>> why don't we ask for information regarding the totals in specific counties?
>> not counties. I need it by -- I think zip code.
>> why not by counties if you need that.
>> but then we need to find out if this type of property tax is a business, is it homestead. Judge, I believe if available covers it. If this -- all I can tell you is from my standpoint this data is incredibly important if it's available. I can see your point if it's not available it shouldn't be the thing that exempts someone from being considered. But boy, it will -- I think that's going to be a critical issue. I've heard of from some of you, lawsuits filed and disparate impact, that data will be critical.
>> you didn't hear it from me.
>> i've heard it from others.
>> now, when I read these questions, I was left with the impression that if they have the same information that -- and I have comparable information that I can provide, it ought to enable the county to do the same thing. We say we have these specifications. Sometimes we accept a comparable on the following items, sometimes we don't. In the request for information, you need to know exactly what we're asking. But there is comparable information for either of us to make the same determination, do the same analysis, accept the comparable information.
>> I think it's something to consider. The only concern I have is again, you're leaving it for the vendor to make the choice. You are saying now what information you want, but then you're letting the vendor choose whether they're going to provide it or not. If you impact whether you're going to have a true apples to apples comparison. I think it's better to ask for it and let them explain why they can't. And after the fact we can understand, okay, here's why you couldn't.
>> and can we have an explanatory statement covering it?
>> that's right.
>> now, I have an individual that feels a lot more punitive in our questions and our request for information than we are typically. And my concern is simply to the extent that may exist, trying to put in place language that allows us to circumvent it or get over it. So if you could get that to me later today.
>> I didn't realize that I would be writing --
>> can I ask one other question. I don't mean to be punitive or elongate this any further. But if we are talking about information related to something that could be awarded as a contract, might we think about we also would need to attach a key persons' list because that is normally something that would be out there in terms of needing to know who are all of the people that may have -- as a standard part of any of these things that are out there. As part of the rules, the key persons' list --
>> if they're part of the rules, I wouldn't want to change it at this time.
>> it's not attached. It's stuff we've got that needs to be atafd if this thing indeed goes out.
>> enlighten us.
>> I wanted to respond to the deal with the cause numbers and the lawsuits. That was something that I had put in. Basically put it in because it was of concern to the law firm that originally asked me about it. If we were using it as a benchmark, I would like to be able to see to compare what we're doing versus what they're doing. Since it was so of interest to them what Travis County was doing, especially since we're seeing may -- some information coming back or people have been told that lawsuits are our primary means of collections, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It's a last ditch thing. I would like to see the same information from them so I can compare where we are as opposed to another 3,000 parcells what they're doing.
>> if available, we'll ask Travis County too.
>> I have made it available. I have no choice. I did give it to them. This is in the document I have given to cyd and it's in the spreadsheets with all the things I have provided back in February to the law firms so they've had quite a few months to look at this information.
>> so we are looking for an apples to apples comparison. Right?
>> if you've noticed, we've asked for a lot of information, so we've asked for information that these people feel like they need to do -- they need to have to do an apples to apples comparison.
>> and one of my comments --
>> so that's number 4, apples to apples comparison. Put that down. It's what we're looking for.
>> that's correct.
>> it's in there, I think. It just says we're trying to gather information so we can make a comparison.
>> a benchmark. My concern is what he just said that I知 afraid the court is going to be criticized for not giving other firms enough time to respond to this. I didn't get to answer Commissioner Sonleitner's question. Normally the saw says -- the law says we have to advertise for 14 days. Our standard policy is 21 days. It's something very complicated, we can extend that. Our standard time is 21 days and we're only giving folks 12 days.
>> what does the law say?
>> the law says 14 days.
>> the law requires 14.
>> remember, you can exempt it. But I think what she's saying is you've got three things to think about. One, you don't have to follow this law if you don't choose to. You haven't chosen to follow it. Secondly, the law says 14, but you have a practices and standard of 21. Between 21 and 14, you're free legally to do it, but listen to what she says so you're doing it knowingly if you're doing something different than you normally would do. But again, you always have the legal option to exempt this and you only have to give one day. Or you have to give 72 hours to post it on the agenda.
>> if we have a document today and we want to post it or advertise it 14 days, will the statesman do this for us tomorrow? What's the lag time there?
>> I think I need two days, two or three days. If we do it in the chronicle, we already missed the date. If we do it in the statesman, it costs us more money. If we don't want to advertise, I have the name of four firms that we know do this business. We could not advertise, we could advertise because we're not following standard procedure.
>> why would we not follow standard procedure?
>> I知 looking at one we haven't gotten to today yet, item number 2e7b, which is an equally important project, the Travis County design build project out at del valle. The rf imvment according to cyd's memo closed on March first and here it is on the 29th, four weeks later when they get in some very complicated proposals about a very important project, it took four weeks to get from the closing of the rfq to a recommendation to the Commissioner's court. So I知 just -- two weeks is just way too short a time period.
>> if we make the deadline April 15th, can our committee help us evaluate it?
>> what committee? It's not in here.
>> that's usually what we put in an r.f.p. And say who the reviewing committee will be. We usually do that.
>> four weeks on the jail --
>> I have to at least remind the court that we all or many of us had this exact same discussion in 1999. In the spring of '99 this discussion occurred, and the court in its wisdom at that time said this is too complicated and not enough time. But, by gosh, we're going to do it. And a whole bunch of people started working in November and it was finalized in March and a report was submitted to the Commissioners court on the outcome of that. It's five-year-old data and it is wonderful to update it, and it needs to be updated, and it should be updated. As a matter of fact, some of this data, the questions are much more complete than were asked back in '99. But this is deja vu and I think a number of us went through it at that time. And it was right around this period of time with this deadline. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but it's a little history.
>> what does the law require regarding may 1?
>> from what I understand, judge -- I apologize that I知 not as quleer on it. I understand that in order for the private delinquent tax firms to be able to attach an up to 20% fee on top of everything that's due at that point, that a letter needs to be forthcoming, sent to all delinquent taxpayers on may 1.
>> I知 sorry, what was that fee?
>> up to 20%.
>> and that's whether you file a lawsuit or not. Simply by touching the piece of paper, there's a 20% add-on simply by touching the paper.
>> right. They don't have to go the 20%, but the law says up to 20%. My understanding is the standard is 15, but you've asked me what the law is and the law says --
>> a letter to the taxpayer has to be sent --
>> on may 1. I would suggest you do it a day before, two days before. You don't play with it. We are not required to send that letter so I am not as knowledgeable about the logistics of that. But my understanding is that by may 1 that letter needs to be sent.
>> don't we have somebody sitting in court that probably knows that?
>> I think there are several.
>> then somebody come up here and tell us. Don't act like you're not somebody that can't answer it.
>> it's not appropriate for me to ask.
>> I think there are others in the audience too. Don't think that this is --
>> my name a dale line linebarringer. This is ken oden, a few of you may know. Ken's been a partner in our firm for the last two years and I知 founder of the firm a lot longer than that. To answer your question, you need to send a notice during the month of may. And you have to hire a law firm on or before July the first.
>> so what would have to happen by may 1, anything?
>> no, sir.
>> it's just that you say it has to be delivered during may?
>> that's correct. The dilemma is this, is that you would mail the notice that says that a law firm -- that all accounts that remain delinquent after June the 30th will be turned over to a law firm. And at that time an additional penalty will be imposed to everyone who owes the delinquent taxes rather than just some of the people. And that that fee will be imposed. So if you have not hired a law firm, and that's the reason for the may 1st confusion. If you have not hired a law firm by the end of may and you've mailed the letter, you have some confusion. Now, what has been done in a very similar situation in the past is that a letter was mailed that said the county is reviewing proposals and may retain council if council is retained an additional penalty up to blank will be added to the bill that's due. That gives you time to send a delinquent notice, which sometimes -- that letter in fact when it's happened, it produces a tremendous amount of money for the taxing jurisdiction on the fact that a lawyer might be hired rather than that one has been hired, because one had not at that time. And when the jurisdiction hired the lawyer, there wasn't much left to collect.
>> so what is the more reasonable time that a letter needs to be sent out? May 1 is not a deadline then?
>> during the month of may the letter has to be mailed.
>> okay. So let's presume it can go out the last weekment.
>> it can go out on may 30, may 31st.
>> so we don't need to do the gymnastics that we need something back in two weeks and then the following Tuesday. That's just not true. We can take another two weeks.
>> well, there is additional time. The only caveat that I would add is that there should be some preparation given to the letter that will need to be mailed so that if you took action on the -- during the last week in may, somebody's going to have to print and mail those letters. And there would need to be time to mail those letters prior to the end of may. So, for example, you could have those letters prepared and be ready to put it in the mail if you do something. But if you don't do anything, they don't get mailed. There are ways. It's just a questions of logistics actually.
>> and if you came to judgment during may that you were sure you didn't want to proceed forward, then you wouldn't have to be burdened with those kind of planning issues. If I could briefly address a couple of questions since my name is written in a couple of times. You are -- the process to decide how you hire lawyers, the last actual contract for hiring collection of even non-lawyers had neither an rfi nor an rfp done on it a few months back for reasons the court addressed at the time and valid reasons. It's not legally required to have a particular name. You don't have to do neither. You don't have to to both. But what you're contemplating here I think is pretty good. That is you're saying we misunderstood the suggestion or what an rfi could result in even more delay. So if we want to make sure even more of the benefits of an rfi and an r.f.p. Are given to us in making the decision, we could put all or both requirements in one document. If you did that, the process that you would be embarking on in my judgment for 20, 25 years of participating in public affairs here would be that you would have chosen a process that would yield the greatest degree of information in the history of any contract i've ever observed in Travis County. And I wouldn't quarrel with you doing exactly that. All the requirements that Commissioner Sonleitner has suggested, to make it more demanding on a firm that responds, I think generally the firms would say -- i'll put it this way. Our firm would say make it as depending oz you're comfortable with. I wouldn't say that you should be that demanding if the actual ulterior motive is to delay it. Delay it past. And by the way, it's not a pressure on the firms. The issues of the time line are in statute. That's why the discussion is that way. And I would encourage you to be mindful of the statutes, but the firms that will respond, and there's I know of 40 to 50 firms that do this work in Texas, many of them respond, I知 sure. And they are -- they are used to responding -- the public entities' deadline, whatever it is, they have at their hand a lot of information, whether it is this demanding, you will have a lot of work to do in a couple of weeks. But the burden is on them. And if they don't provide it within the deadline, then your response and your assessment of their response will be reflected in how you see it. What I would say, though, is what the judge had called some stonewalling. I think is -- shouldn't be rewarded in the sense that if you go down one path to find out that an unintended consequence is to rob you of the ability to make an informed decision within a statutory deadline, then you should look at options to not be con strained in that way because that's not fair. And if you can do it within a statutory deadline and get more information than you could have ever gotten to make a decision on, then I think both sides, which are somewhat biased -- private firms are biased because they have a monetary motive. The county departments had some perk bias that they don't want to be interfered with. And I think it's basically the glamorous job of the county Commissioners court to sort that out, be demanding of both sides, set out a fair process and if you don't get enough information to act on, then don't. But don't let a deadline that is a statutory deadline be pushed back further and further by proponents that really had that as the goal to begin with if you can get the information together to do the good job. If you can't, then of course you need to kick it back.
>> let me make a statement. I agree to everything that mr. Oden has said in here but for this issue about turf and stonewalling. In the end that's something y'all are going to have to make your individual decisions. They can come and go, staff is going to stay. And staff is important, but what's more important is the relationship that we have. And I guess I would just challenge you -- and the word rob was put in there. All of that priewmz an intention -- presumes an intention. An intention to -- we've got a motive. Not we. Some people have a motivation to impact you in a way that y'all would think is unfair. And I知 in the prosecution business. I get people that accuse people of doing something all the time and I remind you that people are innocent until proven guilty and it is my charge to prove them guilty. So I知 more trained to filter of what's the real truth to this, where is the real bad action? And I just challenge you based on what's said when terms like rob and turf and bad motivation, these are people you work with everyday that you count on. Please be careful, please analyze. And more importantly, talk to those people. If you think I have done anything that might be that way, tell me, because i'll be the first to knit it, the first -- to admit it, the first to apologize and the first to correct it. And I think every staff I worked with on that committee would do the same.
>> I believe and I agree with you. Nor do I think that we ought to be calling people bounty hunters, scummy businesses. We don't need that any more. The private sector doesn't need that. Because somebody is trying to make a buck?
>> I agree with you.
>> and let's face it, all of us have -- somebody has all of our ears. I mean, I知 not any more going to meet with these two guys than I知 going to meet with you or I知 going to meet with anybody else that asks me to meet with them. I mean, it's just amazing that we can't separate these things and say, here's what it is, it's a business decision. That's all it is is simply a business decision. And we have to ferret out up here where we feel like the fairest thing for the taxpayer is. That's all it is. So I知 more than willing to say, hey, I don't want our department called anything other than they're great public stewards of the community because that's what they have ex-sem plafide. Exemplified. It sends the wrong message to me. One of the questions that was asked that I probably would agree with, additionally I have requests that include both the tax office and the county attorney's office is submitting a response. I mean, I think that that's -- I think that that's fair. I mean, it's like okay -- [overlapping speakers].
>> the only thing that I was going back to and is working with the comptroller's office, he had a cost benefit analysis booklet in which he had a model and he proposed that the public sector and the private sector should turn in bids together as a competitive on competitive basis. And that's where that idea comes from. And I don't think anybody ever, ever said that john sharp wasn't a good public steward of the state's resources. Those two issues came from those two questions.
>> my understanding was that was our legislative action to require it. And there's a reason for that is separation of power. Here's my response to that.
>> so I think that would be a good way for the public to know that everyone is putting out the same information, answering the same questions. And it goes back to the feeling of fair, fairness in the process, and good faith. Good faith on the part of everybody. And I too was very turned off by the name calling. And that's just very offensive to me. And I don't care who it comes from, and I don't care whether I respected that person highly or not. That's offensive. And it doesn't lend any credence to the public process that we're trying to carry out here.
>> speaking of respected people, our tax assessor is here. Ms. Spears.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but I take offense to some of mr. Oden's language as well. Nobody has attempted to delay or there's no turf war going on here. And I can recall several years ago when mr. Odom was just as adamant as david is about this process and the specter of putting out public works for public firms. He's wearing a different hat today. As I pointed out to you when this first came up several weeks ago, nobody asked me for any additional information. No one on this court has asked for information that is public information. All of it is public information regarding where we are on collections and how we got there. And we give a report to the county everyday. You have all the information. You may not have taken the opportunity to review it, but I have provided all of the information that is included in this rfi to Travis County. Why should you now come and say that I should be part of this rfi? To provide you with the same information again? And some of it is information that we have already provided to mr. Linebarger's firm.
>> I don't know that it makes sense to provide it twice, but at some point when we're trying to compare how we do in-house to firms, firms in the private sector say they can do it, then you've got to compare the information. But I don't know that I envisioned just to generate new information. It's just getting it to the right person that's on this committee that will make a comparison and recommendation to the court at some point. Now, in an e-mail I used the word stonewalled, but I take it back. And I meant it when I said it and I mean it right now, there are efforts that I think are doing that. And if it was not intended, so be it, but the effect was delay. And that got us to where we are today. In fairness, though, I do think that we ought to take a good look; therefore I move at this time that the deadline deadline -- that we advertise for 14 days. It will then take us -- to get the ad run, that's the 28th, 30th, 31st. And let's just say April 15th, which is tax filing day. And what day of the week is that? That's Friday. Let's just say the deadline is April 15th. That will give us an opportunity to do whatever we want to do by the first part of may. And I want to look at this with open eyes. Taxpayers ought to have a system that will generate the most money. I知 not talking about a 10,000-dollar amount. It would seem to me that if by prioritizing part of it, we generate for taxpayers significantly more money, then we ought to do that. The other thing is based on where things stand, the county is going to contract out this work and ought to get as much money as they can.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...now I知 not shooting for elimination of the Texas assessors office or the county attorney's office.
>> sounds like it, judge. Sounds like it.
>> no.
>> some questions here.
>> is there a second to the motion. Okay.
>> Gerald raised question about whether ms. Spears is expected to answer this or not. What is the dwip active answer to that, please.
>> no motion has been taken on it. No motion I don't have a problem with no motion and they just go away. Those were just suggestions [multiple voices] brainstorming and putting those questions out there [multiple voices]
>> whatever information you need from the tax assessor, she'll give to us.
>> I知 making sure because if she doesn't give it to us in the form of this particular questionnaire.
>> no mags has been made.
>> somehow they have been precluded from being the one to are council for the deaf --
>> no motion has been made.
>> it's gone away.
>> I can only answer that, Karen, in that I have in the private sector I have responded to an r.f.p. And one of the people that responded was the department, I mean in the city. If you don't want --
>> just asking.
>> I知 just asking expectations. It's not require, therefore if she doesn't somehow we have just bumped out our own in-house team because they have already turned in -- -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> with that. Are they going to be allowed on the technical committee if it's going to be evaluating these proposals?
>> I think as long as the process is fair and there's good faith, involved, I don't have a problem. Otherwise I don't want it to look like we are stacking it.
>> just asking the question out loud.
>> private sector, but I think what is real important is fairness and good faith.
>> I just want to also bring out that in addition to ms. Spears giving us information, we were getting regular e-mails and I don't expect that not to continue from elliott beck's division telling us exactly how much money is coming in on a month on month basis related to civil attorneys' fees being brought in, whether they are making and exceeding budget. We have also been getting information on that. Ken, I have to ask you here because you have put it back on us that we are the one that's are going to have to make this decision. I can remember you coming into my office when you were the county attorney, when this issue had come up before, and I don't remember you articulating that the reason that we needed to keep it in house was because you were protecting your turf. The things that you told me were inch tran parent, more fair to the taxpayer, we do a better job. I知 wondering what's changed. I will tell what you has changed, we have a tax division bringing in even more money than we did before. We are getting more properties put back on the tax rolls. So I知 wondering what's changed since you told me that we ought to keep it in house and it wasn't about turf.
>> well, that's a great question. I知 boiling over with the desire to answering it.
>> good.
>> I want to clear up a couple of points. Number one, any insination that my position has changed in any way is inaccurate. I've never said anything other than what I tell you today. You should not privatize the delinquent tax collection, the attorney and/or the work is what I知 talking about, it's not about nelda's shop. Attorney end of the work. In whole or in part unless you have come to be convinced that to do so was better for the public. Than most what -- what the judge has articulated as the bottom line economic result. I never thought that private firms that came and talked and pitched the deals to us ever came up with a better offer than -- that would make it a better deal. And if they don't in this round, you should not hire any one of them, including my if I were. But I do think what you are implying is -- never was my position, that you shouldn't be at liberty to take an honest look and you shouldn't be intimidated by the rhetoric on either side. I never intended, if -- if you knowing me hadn't made it obvious enough, I have great affection and respect for all of our county officials. Whatever you think about my change of professional position. That has not changed. It will not change. I think that it's not a -- you know, what we are reading here, what Gerald read, I kind of get this discussion into those areas of feelings, are other people's e-mails, that I think that are kind of beneath the process for all of us. So all anyone has the right to ask on either side of the debate is just an honest evaluation, that's our only position. By the bias comment, by leading with the fact saying private firms are always biased on the basis of the economic potential of it, I was including us with -- with basically saying everyone who comes to the discussion has some bias. I didn't mean that -- that you all were biased any more than we were, but that the position and analysis that you take you may bring some bias in it. But I don't -- my position won't be changing anything about how you ought to judge it, is it better for the public or not. If it is do it, if it's not don't. I want to say, though, a couple of issues, that we are closing out if I could ask dale to address a couple of the things that -- that come up about the general process.
>> if you have anything to say.
>> no, thank you for asking the question. The -- my name --
>> did you get a chance to finish?
>> I知 sorry.
>> [indiscernible]
>> are these other vendors.
>> we will let them in just a minute here.
>> I thank you for a chance to answer the question. And I want to emphasize, also, for ms. Spears and dusty, first thing that I want to say is that we -- we started requesting information four or five months ago in anticipation that -- that the county might -- might consider a privatization project. We -- we have received the utmost cooperation from ms. Spears and dusty. We asked if we should go through open records requests, they say it's public information, just ask you what you want, we will provide it to you. They have in every case. When I started in this business many years ago, there were very few counties that have privatized collections. And now virtually every county in the state beside travis is privatized collections, I知 not saying because everybody else does it that's the way you ought on do it. But I am saying that -- that my firm does represent many of the large counties, including bexar county, harris, dallas, nueces, el paso, et cetera. We don't keep that business because we adopt do a good job, we don't keep it because we don't get along with the [indiscernible] we work directly under. So while there is some contention going on, I知 aware of the e-mails where I have been called scummy and why i've been called a bowpt tee hunter, I take great pride in my professional reputation, I know that no one employed by Travis County have made those allegations but there have been reference to them. I think that's unfortunate because I think the one reason that we have succeeded over the years is because we try very has toward please our clients and do the very best job possible. I知 very proud of who I am and my law if I were. Thank you.
>> the motion is two part. One is to advertise the 14 days, whatever we adopt today. If we adopt anything and second would be the deadline for submitting information, April 15th, 2005. Any more discussion of the motion. Yes, sir, mr. Escomillo.
>> you let one firm have an opportunity to speak.
>> we will give five minutes to any firm that wants to come fort, give whatever you would call it.
>> is there a time at 5:00 p.m.
>> 5:00 p.m. Is that a good time?
>> two. Two.
>> April 15th, 2005, 2:00 p.m.
>> [indiscernible]
>> no, ma'am.
>> that motion was made before the speeches were given. County judge's slip. Please have a seat, give us your name, we will be has ento get your comments. Anybody else if you are here representing a firm interested in this project, come forth, give us your name and we will be happy to get your comments.
>> good afternoon, I知 john bank, the managing attorney of purdue brandon, as far as clients I would say we are probably the second largest delinquent tax firm in the state. I don't want to waste the court's time. I think there's been a lot of issues addressed and thoroughly discussed. The only thing that I would appropriate out, that's something that mr. Linebarringer mentioned, they gather data four on five months ago. We are behind on that curve. We just got information about two weeks ago and it's not a cookie cutter practice. We are going to need some time to -- to compile data, digest it, put it in a format that we think shows our firm and any other firm, in its most positive light. The only thing that I would ask, and I知 not sure if we're at a point that we can request this. But just adequate time and I don't think April 15th gives us that.
>> what's -- how much time do you, what are you looking at.
>> well, I think what was previously said was two to three months is an evaluation period and I think at least by -- by 30 to 45 days.
>> okay.
>> I知 just saying, judge, it would be very difficult for us to compile the data. Because it's not simply, I know mr. Oden did say we do respond to these on a regular basis. We do. But you have to taylor it to the client. And a client as large as Travis County, that's going to be -- to be very time intensive.
>> with, I think this rfi would be new to all of the firms.
>> uh-huh.
>> now, whatever the linebarringer law firm started gathering six months ago, they did on their own. Five years ago, I know they did get information from us, we got information from them, but I知 assuming that has to be updated. So -- so you suggest basically another year if we are right on sending these letters out in may, we would be effectively kicking it to '06.
>> no, your honor, that's not what I知 suggesting. With all due respect to the court. There is a letter that's required to go out in may. It's 60 days before July first -- no sooner than 60 days before, no later than 30 days, so it's the month of has he that a letter needs to go out. There are other ways to recover a fee and part of that is how you are currently doing, that is filing suit. So you can -- a delinquent tax law firm can certainly collect a fee and earn its keep through the litigation process. It's not delaying, it wouldn't suggest that the court delay this for another year.
>> okay.
>> the letter is just a quick, send out a letter, collect your 15% or 20% without having to file suit and work.
>> you are saying 30 days at least.
>> yes, 30.
>> at least 30 days.
>> you were with the same firm, I know.
>> no, sir [indiscernible] bryant smith director of operation. I would echo the same thing. We would like at least 30 days.
>> you would like 30 days, but can you get --
>> it's going to be very difficult. It will be very difficult to do that.
>> considering that, you know, in terms of any kind of a letter, that can be sent out sometime during the month of may, going backwards from there while we can still get in 30 days and still have an evaluation occur and to be able to meet any kind of -- of deadlines here. That's just one way to get the fee as we said. It's not the only way to get the fee. I think 30 days is appropriate for something of this magnitude. You are right. It is something that you can't just pull out the one that you had for Williamson county, Williamson county and say, erase it out and put travis. It's quite different.
>> what about additional week, the 22nd?
>> what's wrong with the extra two weeks? Three weeks.
>> that will be three weeks.
>> remember, these folks have gotten information that other people have not gotten and they have not been party to it in terms of -- seeing that Travis County is thinking about going down this path.
>> may I respond to that, judge?
>> sure.
>> we -- the information we got from the tax office is public information. And we were told the -- with a phone call, we actually -- we became aware that the court was -- had a family discussion when you let the other contract for collection services out in precinct 3. That was back in the fall sometime. I don't think we've gotten any information from the tax office other than what's been discussed publicly other than maybe three or four weeks ago. Dale says three or four months, it might have been oh, maybe six weeks ago, but I would guess that it's more like four weeks ago. But -- but it's information that any pepper could get with a phone call. And so I don't want there to be an impression to the court that we have been doing something any other firm or any other citizen couldn't do. And if we have anything in our possession right now, that we receive from the tax office, those -- it's a delinquent tax enrollment sort of thing, we would be happy to provide it to -- to -- back to the court to issue to every other proposer and make publicly available so that there is no -- we have to start from scratch just like they do in responding to this. We don't even know what questions we are going to be asked yet. But I would make that available back to the court and back so that they could distribute it to any proposer.
>> help me understand on deadlines. If we added it was extra weeks, which would get it to 28 days, pretty close to 30. That gets it to April 29th, that is still plenty of time for a -- for the evaluation team to meet, be able to get back to the Commissioners court on at least three if not four Tuesdays to be able to get some kind of a decision out of us and still plenty of time for thiption ings to occur.
>> I think April 29th if you are going to do it, it's a fairness thing. Not just a matter of if it's been in your possession, happy to turn it over. You have been able to analyze it, that same courtesy has for the been extended to the other folks. There is an advantage of time here I知 trying to level the playing field as we go into a competitive process, it's intended to be a competitive process and not others feel squeezed out because they have not been given the same opportunity to get in a proposal.
>> for the sake of the record, I need to add this right now, given my relationship with various parties, in fact I知 county attorney, but not as your attorney, as a publicly elected official, don't forget three weeks ago I mentioned three criteria that were important to me: one, what ken voiced we voiced for two years now, that it's got to be a net benefit good for Travis County. Two, that the Commissioners court publicly affirmed that. You did three weeks ago, thank you. The third, if you will recall, was an open, fair, honest process. I think that you are trying hard for that. When I sit here and I hear I知 guessing you didn't say you are the third largest, but certainly the second largest, we start with an rfi, approved a two-step process, whether you knew it or not, I didn't know it by the way three weeks ago, whether you knew it or not this court adopted it. For today to change that it your legal right to do. But today to change that and then have the competition, I think this court and cyd grimes wants certainly is competition. That's what makes this an open, honest process. And when you have the competition sitting here, saying we think that it not a level playing field, you have got to judge -- try to analyze and really understand in your heart is it. But I want to be on record here for the future that I agree. I think what they have done, I want to be on record I think if they asked for 30 days, the safe approach, this process has already been complicated and tested me a great deal, but the safest approach to avoid any type of -- of being as sailed by the public that we did something wrong, including me that I have done anything wrong, I usual this court to go with the 30 days. [multiple voices]
>> we are not speaking against -- I知 trying to say since you have expressed two concerns, which was the consequences of delay. I知 trying to make offers that would try to accommodate that --
>> I recognize that, respect that.
>> I think that's very important. If we do the 30 days, that there is no delay whatsoever in getting back to the court with -- with a decision. Or a recommendation or at least a report. But, you know, we -- we get into the -- the habit of -- of constantly delaying. And things don't come back to the court when we say that they need to be back. And I guess what I知 saying is I want this court to be taken seriously as trying to deliver its role as well as the policy making body of this county. We have always been fair. We have always gone the extra mile, I think to be fair. But by the same token, I want this court to be treated fairly as well. And if we set a deadline then that deadline needs to be met.
>> Margaret, I think in terms of just to be fair, also, to our own internal staff, if you say in -- you know, in 15 days you are going to need to set aside a lot of time to be able to accomplish the test.
>> sure, of course.
>> it's a whole lot easier to tell our staff this stuff is coming in on the 29th, you need to set aside from quality time in the few days after that to be able to get a decision to this Commissioners court to do exactly that. It's a whole lot easier if you say that they are whatever, is due in on the 29th versus it's due in on the 15th. This allows our own staff to be able to properly move things and set aside the time to do exactly what you want to accomplish. It's not just a matter of external fairps. I think it's also one of internal fairness as well to get people to get their schedules clear right for you to get the time there so that whatever committee needs to meet will be able to set this time aside and too that.
>> and do that.
>> cyd, I guess the testimony that we've had today, listening to the statutory requirements as far as the ted wliep is concerned, my question is would those statutory requirements be adhered to with the request of 30 days for -- I guess from today's date, being -- being attributed to this particular process?
>> I would have to ask p.b.o., the auditor's office, the county attorney's office, and Texas office to answer the question of how long will it take them to do the analysis once we get all of this n.
>> and -- all of this information.
>> from p.b.o.'s standpoint it would be fairly simple if we have the criteria established in advance. A template established in advance. We could begin work tomorrow internally on a template that just is an empty set. For comparison purposes. When the data comes in, drop, drop, drop, drop, drop. Summary, here it is. Now, I don't -- whether that's going to take seven days or 10 days, it can't be done in two or three because we do have 50 questions. And some of the answers to those questions are not yes or not. And some of the answers are spread sheets. But it is doable. I think we probably -- it is in everybody's best interests to begin work now on a template so that things can be dropped down.
>> once we get it on the 29th, how long will it take to -- I mean, to me we have may and June or -- I mean we have to have the contract awarded July first 1st. So that gives us -- [multiple voices]
>> we will do like anything. That's the dead line, we will meet the deadlines that you have set. I want to remind you may is also important for another thing. We're talking about the last month of the session.
>> I guess the notice is something that --
>> [indiscernible] next career. [laughter]
>> next year.
>> we are going to do it whenever you say,.
>> okay, thank you.
>> I don't see how we can be on the committee. I've got two key people that are out on major illnesses. The session is just eating our lunch. I don't see that going away. So you know I think that I had better serve the county working on revenue caps and issues we have in the session. You know, it could be when these come in, that -- that someone would be free to work on it. But I really think that it would be a disservice for me to commit that to you at this time.
>> we are going to run into a big old issue because the question will become inevitably give very much your role, I hate to do this, but is this revenue certifiable because we all know that there is revenue and certificate final revenue. And certifiable revenue. The difference between those is in part what you all do. And if you can't come forward in -- in a period of time to be able to say I知 comfortable as the county auditor, we are going to run into a problem. That's not to put you on the spot but I guess I did. But I hate, I want to see the train if it's going to come. That is a train. We know what happens with elected officials, and private officials, in their best judgment and in their best analytic framework, say I can do this. You know, sometimes that isn't necessarily what gets budgeted. Now if a firm says I will commit contractually, to guaranteeing, I will use the assets of my firm, to guarantee this physical benefit, I suppose that it would be easy for you because that's a five-minute deal. But if it is not a contractual commitment, which in essence talks about three year or five year deal. And you will never be disadvantaged, then I think somehow the county auditor has got to have a role in it.
>> if we get to that point where we are not comfortable with whatever it is, we just don't do it. When in doubt, don't, basically. What day of the week is the 29th on?
>> Friday.
>> I withdraw my motion and I would like to substitute another one.
>> the 29th? Of April?
>> 14 days advertising with a deadline for submitting information April 29th, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.
>> second.
>> any discussion of that? Did we give you all a chance to finish.
>> thank you, appreciate your time.
>> would that get it there.
>> yes, that would be sufficient, thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote -- all in favor of the motion, show Commissioners Davis, doherty, yours truly, voting in favor, voting against, Commissioner Sonleitner. Do I have your information?
>> yes, you do. This is simply what I read and wrote quickly. Off the top of my head. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> should we say that the Travis County Commissioners court award a contract on the basis of --
>> yes.
>> uh-huh. Do you want me to read this.
>> well, with the changes that are being suggested, yeah. I don't want any confusion. On my part.
>> the Travis County Commissioners court will decide.
>> will decide whether to award a contract on the basis of four key variables. Should I go on? Four key variables, four criteria.
>> four criteria. That's what john healy would recommend if he was here, oh, john is here.
>> okay. Go ahead, mr. Drummond.
>> all right. Judge. One, the total future fiscal net benefit to the county treasury, taking into account, a the speed of collections, b the total delinquent collection rate and c incremental revenue from attorney's fees and parcel fees offset by indecree mental expenses to collect delinquent taxes. All revenue will need to be certified by the county auditor. --
>> what does 1 c mean.
>> c is -- there are expenses to collect taxes, those are mostly people. There are two revenue streams related to the collection of delinquent taxes. One is parcel fees, about a dollar per parcel to the various taxing jurisdictions, that brings in about a million dollar to offset the million four of expenses. Then there's attorneys' fees, last year it was $2.9 million, the year before it was $3.3 million. So there is a fiscal impact as a result of doing this business internally. It doesn't mean it need to be, it just means that's a nut, the nut should be covered before --
>> that's one of the factors that we would consider.
>> yes, that is a simple calculation.
>> okay.
>> to the net benefit to Travis County taxpayers, including those who become delinquent in the payment of their taxes, including the payment of penalties, interests and attorney's fees, there is a difference sometimes. As to whether a taxpayer will pay x amount or y expect depending upon where they are in the delinquent tax process. Whether it's collected by a county agency or a private agency. That's two. The relative efficiency and effectiveness in collecting delinquent taxes for Travis County and other jurisdictions, that's pretty straightforward. There are a variety of questions that are intended to ask about interface and coordination and roles and responsibilities. And then, four, is a catch-all. It is the net public good from continuing to collect taxes using county staffers versus using a private firm. I was not flippant when I said in the wisdom of the Commissioners court how will that one be determined. That really is the court's role. To determine the net public good everything taken into account. There may be competing -- streams of data. And that's -- that's maybe one of the reasons why it's called the court.
>> though we do that well every week.
>> every Tuesday, all day long.
>> and I want it recognized and respected by everybody. Because it is a role that it's a legitimate role that I知 elected to carry out.
>> that's why it's explicit.
>> thank you.
>> [indiscernible] reminded me that watching television, that our general policy when we are certifying is we want to see it, so our tendency would be to certify the same revenue that we did previously unless you had a contract otherwise. So I知 thinking based on what christian said, maybe that's what you need to be looking at, that there's a contractual obligation. Otherwise what we would be doing is probably assuming the same collection rates, but then the next year based on actual results changing that. So I don't know if that changes your thinking.
>> I understand what you are saying is that there needs to be should the court receive this information and choose to enter into a contract with a private firm, that in that negotiation phase there needs to be guarantees and not just their assets because anyone can go into bankruptcy, that guarantee, but collateral rised guarantees that would give you the ability to -- because we have gone out to a contract or something, to be able to certify that.
>> otherwise our tendency would be what we do with everything is you know we are real conservative that first year because it's easy to say revenue is coming in and it doesn't make it come in. So we would tend to be looking at what we were doing now, if there were evidence it would be somewhat better, we might do that. But chances are we would wait for the second year to make sure unless you had a contractual obligation. But you could do that. I mean that's up to you.
>> well, then let's get at least a comment from brian, john and dale, is that something, is that a deal, I mean, why go through this if that is something that you just literally can't do. If it's a deal killer, we don't need to put our staff through -- I don't know whether that can be done, I mean, can you all answer that or john or brian? I guess there's probably an answer yeah I mean that's done all of the time or, I mean, heck, no, we are not going to guarantee you.
>> well, I think there could be some technical problems with lawyers. Any law firm guaranteeing a result. In litigation or performance of legal duties. On the other hand, I think it's entirely feasible within the constraints and I haven't gone back and researched every aspect of this in anticipation of this question, but I think that it's entirely feasible that lawyers could make projections which of course could not be confirmed as -- as perhaps from an auditing standpoint. But there could be fee -- fee adjustments, there could be other things to be considered as to the evaluation of things. I mean, you know, this goes to the heart of what the proposal would be and what I have heard all day is that we're not going to -- all that we have asked is that you take a look at it. If we demonstrate to your satisfaction that our proposal is better than what has been the results in the past, and you have reasonable certainty that we achieved those goals with perhaps some ramifications if we do not, then it would be up to you as the governing body of the -- of the county to make that decision based on the proposals. If I went farther, I would be starting to talk about what we might put in our proposal, give these guys a huge advantage.
>> what I知 asking is [laughter] if -- if susan says hey, what I signed off on was 26 million dollar, a law firm willing to say we are bringing you a $26 million cd, we are putting it in there, we have the right to do it, is that -- I don't know. I mean, what -- I think we deal --
>> two things. First of all, if you are contemplating a guarantee of -- of a collection rate or a net refuse few, all of that. This the -- how the outcome of the suits or different things that you collect on, the new state bar rules, probably the old ones, too, but they literally will require us when we send you a document to promise because you can't have lawyers [indiscernible] quite that much. It literally must have disclaimers that say every lawsuit is different, results may be different. We have to actually buy our own code of ethics not -- by our own code of ethics not promise a specific result. What you have accomplished with christian's recommendations is a quantification and a criteria for not just will you do better here or do better there, but combined do you have a credible presentation that says the net result will be better or not? And in that sense the role of the auditor before contract and I think she make as good point, if you are asking her to respond to something before contract, even after a contract until there's some performance, it is similar to her other revenue certifications and that is does it meet her standards for a valid projection or not. You would call on her to make those kind of revenue projection calls on how you certify funds in a budget. She may want to do that or not or may not be able to have enough data. But I don't want to go so far to say us as lawyers can certify. We actually are prohibited by law from making, seeking business, you can't make those kind of promises.
>> well, I知 not asking for, I think just to leave the door open, I think those will come in the contract, that's right goes we will get to it. Just for the court to understand it's not a guarantee of success of any particular lawsuits. As a guarantee of a final refuse few to us, either through a contractual penalty or whatever. I知 not going to say that I have gone through the bar rules to understand that because I haven't seen the proposals yet. I don't know. But I see that as work for me to do in the future. For right now to reserve that option it might give greater confidence to the auditor.
>> yes, sir.
>> the only thing that I would add, I think that I知 going to echo comments from mr. Oden, I don't think anyone in the industry is in a position to guarantee or collateral rise results and I don't think there's any case law specifically addressing it, but I know that there's attorney general opinions, not only about I think it's more directed at give backs and that -- that dick kind of suggested that you cannot guarantee a result. I know that everyone in our industry that I have spoken with will not do that. Will not -- it's not that we don't think that we can outperform. Again it comes down to giving you numbers and comparing each other. We do this on a regular basis, saying why we think we're better than another firm, they think we are better than us. I don't know anyone that will collateral rise or guarantee.
>> I can see that's an issue if I can't get my auditor to go. I知 comfortable with signing off on -- I知 not asking you to come up with a number, but at some point in time going to the auditor, what did we do last year, what number do you want to plug in there, how do you get comfortable with x amount of dollars. Obviously there's a way around it because everybody else does it.
>> it's consistent with what I知 saying is it's another contract for legal services. You do not require a certification of -- of a result to that extent as you do bond lawyers, any other lawyers that you hire. You -- you have criteria in what credits stan is suggesting that I think a professional auditor could look at it and say if -- if we believe in our view the collection rate would probably be here, the additional turns, the hard thing to figure is, how much money would they save us in other areas not just tied to the performance on them. What do they provide that currently is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket for in-house operations. Then you have to put it all in the mix and see what she thinks.
>> the difference is that presently there is a -- an income stream that is coming in. At a certain rate. And one can do that calculation over the last five years, show every single year and you can see that income stream. You can see the same income stream where the average of the delinquent tax collection firms for their left armest clients, their best -- their highest rates, their lowest rates for the last same period of time three years, five years. There is a set of facts about all of the 3 million dollar worth of attorneys' fees, there's a set of facts that says it's costing a million four to -- in expenses, about a million of that is already offset by parcel rates, about a two and a half million net, net, net that would go away. Those numbers do exist and they are operate straightforward so that in the proposal, I would assume the firm will need to say here's what we have done in the past, and that will have to be compared with what Travis County has done in the past, with respect to collection rates and then an analysis made of, well, if you privatize it, how do you make up for that last revenue, total revenue that has been going into the treasury, if the net is more, one should privatize. If the net is less, one should not. I think.
>> [indiscernible]
>> the key here is not a promise. The key will be the ability to have that promise result in certified revenue. I know that puts the auditor on the spot, but the auditor is on the spot all day long. In this process. [laughter]
>> when you get the information in, we will figure out where we need to go, how to get there. There are three pieces of information that we talked about trying to add to this. Move approval of the smith memo or did we approve that already.
>> no, you did not.
>> smith memo with the recommended changes.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show -- that passes by unanimous vote. Now, so -- so two or three things that -- can we get those by 5:00.
>> I知 going to be here and meet with cyd and hopefully look at a quick review on what was said and put some language together.
>> move that we approve the rest of the draft as is, unless there's something of critical importance to somebody.
>> second.
>> discussion? Cyd? Were you about to say something?
>> no.
>> this is on the full amended everything? That's what this next vote is, making sure that I知 following.
>> the rest of the contract, the rest of the rfi that we have not discussed which would be the first part of the questions. Will be the second part.
>> we had already done that. Yeah.
>> are you sure.
>> yes, sir.
>> we did it on the specific requirements, a, b,.
>> you're talking within the committee's work.
>> got it.
>> questions one through -- question one through 26.
>> okay.
>> you deleted what?
>> we did the Sonleitner three categories, we deleted one, we approved the other two. This picks up the questions and everything in the rfi presented to the court except for the introduction that's the modified introduction which has been approved.
>> right.
>> there's just a few other references to like on -- on part 2 a, it says it's such a decision that may have been more data requested, I will go through, anything that's in conflict with your intent i'll take it out.
>> okay.
>> if you approve this motion, I think we ought -- what we ought to see at 5:00 is a draft that encompasses all of the changes made today one document, we would approve that.
>> judge, I don't really know that I can do it by 5:00. We will try our best.
>> I知 sure staff are listening, but they don't have this.
>> we will be here as long as we need to be here today.
>> oh, us, too.
>> unless you want to authorize, authorize one of you to confirm that. Never mind. Never mind. [laughter]
>> all in favor of that motion?
>> it's a thought. [laughter]
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> just kidding.
>> everybody -- show Commissioner Sonleitner voting against that motion, everybody else in favor.
>> judge I would --
>> move that we basically recess this one item until the end of court today. And my suggestion is that that will be sometime between 5 and 5:15.
>> could I respectfully ask that you take item 10 next, so I can get through and go up and work on this. Can i?
>> I have two quick questions.
>> one when we were preparing information for christian, we were asked the expense to delinquent tax collections and in that number that's cook away with anything that we are doing today. As far as what we started February the 1st. I heard you talking today that it is your expectation that my staff will continue doing what they are doing all alone. There is no impact on the staff; is that correct? So what I am -- may not be submitting an rfi or whatever this is, we are going to be paralleling it, have all of the information for a bench mark that's being asked by other people that don't relate to a private firm. We are going to be paralleling that information. Part of the cost. We are doing the same things is that correct?
>> I don't think you ought to change until it has been --
>> no.
>> there may not be a decision to change anything -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> giving numbers as far as costs, we are doing the same things we are doing today, okay that's fine.
>> yes.
>> secondly it has been my concern we can -- it is a tax assessor that does send out a 30 day notice whenever this comes. I would wish that you would be thinking about this because do we send it out with just the Travis County amount on it or are we accepting this letter out with all 83 jurisdictions on it and how you want to deal with that, just a question that I bring up today that I would hope that somebody would get back with us sometime because this would take preparation if we are splitting just the county off. Something we have never done, look at doing things differently, I would like a bit of a head start if we are going to prepare that letter for county only, please, that's just a request.
>> where do we leave the other 83 jurisdictions who all pick different [indiscernible]
>> how much time do we need to call 83 jurisdictions and get a response? Let's say we call them, they say it's a shocking surprise, they don't watch channel 17 as they should, would we expect them to think about it three or four days and get back with us.
>> do you want a response from say the superintendent or the school board? Obviously the board has to post it and respond. I think a superintendent might be hesitant to make a policy decision without seeking information from their board. Which then how often do they meet? Meaning posting it, getting briefed appropriately and then giving a response that's the key. We have been told in the past by some of the jurisdictions if the county ever wanted to go this route, they would like to make their obey determination about which firm they would select so we could have multiple firms doing this with all of the jurisdictions.
>> I don't think we ought to give them that choice. My vote would be you go with us -- they have a choice to collect their own taxes. I think our position ought to be if we make a decision. Either you are with us or on your own. The choice is yours.
>> I don't think we can do that by law.
>> well, there's legal and there's I don't know, judge. But understand there's contracts that we have with them.
>> we mind us of those questions because we need to get them. I don't see us. Seems to me that we would want to get the responses and at least have a week or so to look at them before we start leaning, see what I知 saying. The question is whether we want to put them on notice that we are looking in this direction. Maybe we ought to agendize it this week.
>> if it works for david, it works for me. Public issues this we ought to discuss.
>> the will of the court.
>> respectfully will of the court, that's new.
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, March 30, 2005 12:50 PM