Travis County Commissioners Court
May 10, 2005
Item 28
Now, since we have pbo here, let's take 28, consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
>> item a- 1 is aws jrm follow action -- is just form at action. The gardner-betts build out was approved. At the time pbo recommended that the 35,000 that facilities management wanted for engineering and -- I think it was engineering work come out, so they brought that forward. So that's what I wanted.
>> okay.
>> a-2 through a-9 is a request to do a phase 2 funding for the county clerk facts implementation. The funding wasn't approved until we had to come back when we knew that the deadlines were going to hold, the schedule was going to hold. What they're requesting is instead of the remaining seven f.t.e.'s being funded now, they just want three, two supervisors and an assistant. So they can get those folks trained and up in running. And they're not expecting to come in for the last four court clerks until really close to the end of the fiscal year. And that's $48,041 from the facts operating reserve. And then item a-10 is a request for 26,947 from the general fund allocated reserve, and that's from justice of the peace precinct 2 and it's for temporary salaries to conduct a whole slew of summer projects. She hires college students over the summer that have worked for her before and they come in and do a lot of cleanup work. She has a list of the kinds of projects that they will be doing, everything from cleanup of files for conversion to facts to omni entry, to changing processes. We did this last year and they were successful also. And pbo has no problem with this and recommends approval of that one also.
>> I think it is important to note that jp 2's revenue for '04 actually come in I think about 100 or more certified, including going to the road and bridge and to the general fund.
>> exactly. And the last item is the a-11 through a-23 is a discussion item we put on, and it's the district clerk's office is requesting $96,275 from the facts operating reserve and $33,220 from the facts capital reserve. And that's to implement staffing increases in her criminal division and her civil division for some facts implementation. And that happened six months ago and they wanted to take -- watch and see how it affected their operations first before they requested the staffing. And they have done their analysis independent of i.t.s. If you recall, the county clerk had i.t.s. Come in and do their time motion studies and stuff, and the district clerk's office has gone in and they've done their own independent analysis and that's what the request is based on. And the district clerk is here to speak about it.
>> good morning.
>> how are you?
>> we wanted to see the type of work that we were going to be required to do once facts was in place, so we gave ourselves time for the learning curve, for the employees to really learn what they needed to learn on this new system to acquire the knowledge. And we have found out after six months that we are entering a lot more information that we were not required to do prior to facts. We currently have -- prior to facts we had -- we have a packet that outlines. For example, on the data entry alone, prior to facts we were entering 48 codes. Since we have implemented facts, there are 459 case event codes that my employees are having to know when to enter. Of course, is information is a lot more specific so you are getting specific data, but it also requires more entry. On the case disposition entry screens, prior to facts we were doing three screens. We are now doing 10 screens. And under the case required case event data entered annually we were doing zero prior to facts, and we're going to be doing 8900 since facts. So in terms of the cases, the type of cases that are filed, we've seen an increase. Of course, we have direct filing, and we have outlined for you for the past three years for fy '04, it is now 11,000 cases, indictments and information, 8,000, so that's gone up, but the increase that we are seeing and that requires just this much work as on the motions. And we are seeing quite an increase on those. We are also seeing on the dismissal, for every -- really every type of case we've seen an increase in this, so that's one of the factors that we wanted to outline for you. And as much as wekt absorb the work load we have, but under the circumstances and reviewing what we need to do, the staffing resources we currently have are not adequate from what we're having and the type of work that we're having to do. We are also -- when I talked about the conversion, there were some cases that were converted, there were some cases that were -- that's in the motions to revoke. We're also having to verify information for our reporting to the state. Prior to facts there were some back logs on reporting from other departments and other information that was being gathered, and now the -- we're having to do information on reports and process additional work load. And again, our staff resources are very, very tight in terms of we're needing some additional staffing there. We've seen an increase in public inquiries and request for research. We're getting constant phone calls. The other day I was listening to one of the clerks answer the phone, and there was a person that needed to look up 10 cases. There's no way we can do that over the phone. Our lives are busy constantly, and one operator cannot handle those types of requests. So we need additional resources for that. We need to maintain, of course, data integrity, and we need to make sure that the integrity in facts is accurate. And we need a records management analyst to look at that -- a records analyst to look at that and to be able to verify the information, and we need them to be solely dedicated to this activity. We are requesting $96,000, 96274 in additional personnel costs, and another approximately 40,000 in one-time capital costs. And that might vary. This was before we got all of the information in, so that's probably a little lower than that. And in terms of the staffing, we are looking to upgrade three existing positions and to add six new positions.
>> what's the analyzed cost?
>> 231,000 for staffing, and the one time cost of 40,000.
>> when we put the amount in the reserve, we anticipated some increase for the district clerk.
>> it actually did not have anything in there in the original numbers for district clerk, but because the county clerk's request for the additional staffing was delayed, we're expecting that half of it would be -- would start in February, the other half in April. And everything was delayed by several months. There's sufficient funding in that reserve to cover the one-time cost, the analyzed cost in this year, but then we would have to add it into their budget for the full year next year. In addition, there is -- the district clerk does have a request in for fy '06 for the second portion of the implementation because you've had ideas implemented, facts implemented in your criminal division, but not the civil yet, so there would be an additional amount. And that request is $295,678, plus i.t.s. Technology and other capital of another 100 or so thousand dollars, that's one time. So there would be -- this is the first part to deal with the initial implementation. There would be an additional part in fy '06.
>> so when did we get this to look at this?
>> when do we? Certainly before we approve the amount, don't we?
>> well, absolutely. They can take a look at it. This is what we did internally. They're welcome to come and look at our processes. We are the first office that actually provides all of the information. We've had a lot of contact with the various departments. We're training the staff.
>> I have no reason not to believe anything that you're saying. I?m just saying that -- there is a department upon whose judgment we have relied for the facts information, as we did for the county clerk.
>> well, I did run it by -- I haven't given her anything specifically, but I did mention to her that we wer going to be asking for additional resources.
>> joe harlow is who I had in mind.
>> and i.t.s. Has a work session scheduled for the first or second week in June to give you an update on facts. So I don't know if they would be able to fit that in before then or at what point. I don't know what the work load is.
>> judge, let's take a big timeout. I can remember when the county clerk originally was bringing forward her piece of this. It was originally a discussion item under budget amendments and transfers, and we appropriately said, whoa, this is not something we put in as a budget item. It needs to be a full discussion item with a real name on the agenda so that we can really talk about it. I?m going to put Commissioner's Davis' hat on here on that there are a whole lot of issues related to facts that we need to get a full update where we are on this thing. Because these numbers we're here in the lafl couple of minutes of $200,000 analyzed of what they're asking for now and another half a million in a couple of months. And it hasn't gone through joe harlow to basically bless this mess. But these numbers are correct, and when dana did it, he said her numbers are correct. We've got to go through the process. And I really think that we need a complete update as to whether facts is up and running or not. And what we're seeing out of this. And it's premature to do this today. We ought not be getting these kinds of things on the dais in terms of all the backup related to what having to do. This needs to be a separate agenda item and we have a good, calm, wonderful discussion and see all the costs.
>> then we can -- in defense of my office, we'll send it to pbo. Pbo put it on the agenda. We did not request an agenda item because we were going through the process. And they felt it was necessary to bring it to you because it is an additional request.
>> we'll just follow the same path that we did last time.
>> and had I known that -- [overlapping speakers].
>> we'll send joe harlow a memo asking to take a look at it. If these are the numbers, then we have to live with them.
>> as a matter of fact, our lca report is still not complete on the facts, so we are having to do additional work to compile that information to go to the state. And we're having to do that and we've been doing that for six months. And it really is an issue that is taxing my staff.
>> that stands for?
>> office of court administration, statewide report that everybody relies on that data. Any time they refer to statistics for Travis County, it is taken out of the oca report. So that report has to be accurate in terms of the activity that is happening in the judicial system here in Travis County.
>> this is a lot of additional work. So my dream that increased automation would result in fewer -- fewer fte's --
>> not in every case.
>> I have to ask a question as well related to if people call up and say I need information. The answer is we're not supposed to do research for people. They need to either be able to access it to do their own research information or they've got the hard copy to do their own research. It's not like we should have our clerks be the librarians in charges of trying to track down stuff for people. That's helpful and friendly, but we flat out cannot handle everybody's requests.
>> I do want to provide the information. It's public information. However, if we don't have the resources, we're unable to do it. So we ask people to come to our office, look it up on our computers there in the office or we can charge five dollars per search. But -- and it has to be in writing. We're not able to handle those types of calls over the phone.
>> deanna, I?m not clear. Do you think this ought to be taken up along with our work session? Because it seems to me if we get a complete update on the work session of where we are with facts, it would seem a logical output of that is the following Tuesday that we could have whatever action items are necessity necessitated by where we are with facts.
>> it probably wouldn't hurt.
>> I know one of the reasons we did put it on was our understanding was that the district clerk was suffering and that her staff had -- they're just pretty much snowed under right now. And we wanted to try to get it before you as soon as possible so we could start thinking about it and figuring it out. It's logical to wait those weeks, but yowj how that effects -- I don't know how that affects the clerk.
>> (indiscernible).
>> with all due respect, you guys didn't ask for any help. You said let's let it go and we'll see how it goes for six months and then we'll ask for help. As opposed to thinking you were going to need some help and then making adjustments as to whether you need more or less. So some of this is -- [overlapping speakers].
>> we were trying to save resources for you all and saying if we could absorb some of that work load, we will. We didn't know what to expect. We're prefilling information, we're -- we're the first office that started. Eventually, hopefully some of that converted data, things are going to slow down, but not right now. We can project not between now and five years from now.
>> that's okay. I think we still have time to go through i.t. And then we'll that it done and then come back.
>> maybe the timing of when it comes back to court depends upon how quick i.t.s. Can get in and analyze the district clerk's data and their time and motion. And we can move forward. I think that the facts work session is possibly that first Thursday in June, like June the -- I don't have a calendar, but I think in the ninth. So that's pretty quick for i.t.s. To get in and maybe this could come back, if not before then, then at that time.
>> I?m not overly bothered by finding out what we're finding out. I think we did identify that we're going to let this thing get up and going and then she was going to come back and say okay, we think we got a grip on what we do need. So I understand that. The perplexing thing to me might be a little bit about why didn't we get i.t. In the extreme on this thing, knowing that they probably were going to need to sign off on something. So I don't know whether -- somebody lost the -- the ball got dropped somewhere about, hey, while we're coming up with these figures, let's make sure that we drag i.t. In here so they can kind of verify for us what is actually the case. I mean, it is frustrating to know that this stuff is so detailed, but unfortunately, the detail is what we need in order to get that court system to work better. If you don't have the slip of paper to give the guy and say take this thing out because this tells you exactly what the guy owes, then that's where we're headed with this thing. So I understand the complication, but I would hope that we would move quicker than what we're moving with getting i.t. To verify this.
>> what we need is the full picture. Because this is 200 plus 500. This is three-quarters of a million dollars and I don't remember those kind of numbers being thrown around by the county clerk as to what she was going to need for her piece of it. Plus we've got the jp's and constables. We've got divisions that we're also expecting to be needing additional help. So I think we need to see the really big picture and appropriately handle everybody. But we can't wait for the other shoe to drop of when did the jp's come in and all of a sudden say we have fax implementation issues as well. And where are we?
>> (indiscernible).
>> it seems like we're being punished because we came on first and we need the money. Now that we're actually six months of working that we can verify and bring to you, then you say the other departments haven't started, what if we ask the same amount. Nobody else is online, but the district clerk.
>> actually, they did ask. The jp's, I can remember judge diaz come ng here saying it's coming, we note it's going to be something so we want to put in our plug right now so say we're going to need help at whatever point that is. The county clerk started a two budget cycles in advance --
>> I understand that, but I?m saying they're still not online. We are. And we can tell you from the trenches this is what it's doing to my office right now. So the longer that we delay it, the worse it gets.
>> our backup today came from the planning and budget office.
>> yes.
>> and my original memos.
>> my original memos to pbo.
>> so is that what you would show to joe harlow.
>> actually, we did send a copy to -- I don't have the memo in front of me. I thought we had sent it to --
>> we'll get joe harlow the appropriate backup so he can do the analysis. And as soon as this is ready gets put an agenda specific item on.
>> actually, this is a memo addressed to him, it's alease I can't.
>> move approval of a-1 through a-10.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez temporarily off the dais. We will get this back on the court's agenda as soon as we can. Okay?
>> judge, does that include the a-1 through 23 be sent on to joe harlow for their comments?
>> move appropriate backup. And my guess is that joe may need a discussion with it. The motion didn't include that, but it's the direction from the court, I think.
>> right.
judge, would you show me voting in favor of item 28.
>> the clerk can do that. Thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:12 AM