Travis County Commissioners Court
July 19, 2005
Item 27
Before we get to our 1:45 item, there is another very quick item. And that item has to do with -- with judge goodman and his -- 27, that is to consider and take appropriate action on report on the fy '05 justice of the peace precinct 3 pilot project with municipal services bureau for collection services, including request to extend pilot and additional 12 months, we did get the report last week. From the judge, and had an opportunity to ask questions and receive information. Any additional questions?
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> that is on the extension of an additional 12 months.
>> additional 12 months.
>> okay. Is it friendly for the motion to ask the judge to get with the other j.p.'s and explain basically the many benefits of this pilot program because real soon I think the county should issue an rfp, so this vendor, as well as others will have an opportunity to bid on that. But I think make sure that the other j.p.'s are supportive of this kind of approach. Rather than be -- be basically convinced by the Commissioners court, if one of their colleagues, one of their equals, one of their peers, could share with them the -- what nine months or 12 months now. 12 months as of October 1st.
>> nine right now. Mike osterhage.
>> we -- [inaudible - no mic] we meet every month.
>> we meet every month. I would be happy to share it with them, I think we are all going to have to hear about something similar to this. Because there's a new bill that's just been enacted we are all going to have to get on board with some kind of collections policy, maybe not something like this, but a policy for our courts and county-wide. It's going to be similar to this. We are going to have to do so. Otherwise we are going to forfeit our fines to the comptroller.
>> at some point the facts system will be up and rolling, that really is going to be our best opportunity to dump data into a system on collections first.
>> it is manageable. It is manageable. But it would be much better if we could do this by a computer transfer. Absolutely.
>> is the request friendly?
>> very.
>> if it is not friendly to other j.p.'s, tell them that Commissioner Sonleitner will deliver a message from the Commissioners court as our fall back position. Any more discussion? All in favor? Motion to extend the contract in place, an additional 12 months, one year. The friendly was really for judge goodman just to share with the other j.p.'s her experience and the Commissioners court's suggestion that the other j.p.'s ought to -- to participate in which case we would issue an rfp. Good this -- if he wanted to submit this, he would be welcome to do so.
>> 12 months. Hopefully the r.f.p. That I have in mind would -- when is the next -- next j.p.'s meeting?
>> the 19th. Maybe you could just send an e-mail. The r.f.p. Process will take us 45 to 60 days, right? I think we ought to try to get it in place by October 1. But the j.p.'s have to sort of agree, also. My guess is they will wonder how yours is working.
>> you could send that, though. She could send a little e-mail to the uninformed j.p.'s, say here's what I asked for, here's what I got, the reason I asked for it, here's the results of what I have done the last year, two page memo, would you do that?
>> I can do that.
>> to the j.p. Or one of their chief assistants because some j.p.'s are not -- we would send it in both forms.
>> absolutely.
>> so -- so two pronged approach basically. One is to leave this in place on a pilot basis, the other one is to get them on board, a similar program in place. Rfp, right?
>> we may need to talk about in terms of with that, do we wait on facts in which case as part of the r.f.p. We can talk about an electronic delivery of the information in the data dump or if we are still on a manual process that also needs to be part of an r.f.p. Because there may be different reactions to our solicitation knowing that it's by hand or by -- by the data dome.
>> it creates more work -- data dump.
>> it creates more work if it is by hand, absolutely. Not all vendors might be willing to do the data entry for us. They might require us to do that and send it to them. So --
>> want to do it for a fee?
>> precisely.
>> exactly.
>> we would need to know what our data situation is.
>> judge, commissions, [indiscernible], p.b.o., there's also the issue of -- of 1863, which judge goodman just mentioned, under that bill that has been signed and is -- is in place by April 1st of 2006, Travis County has to have a collection improvement program, which is a two pronged program, one is internal collections where internal staff have to be assigned to collections duties, then another one could be an external or internal to do the stuff that's hard to collect. And if we don't get it in place, I believe it's -- we don't have it in place by April 1st, we start forfeiting some of our funds to the state.
>> I did --
>> so that's a big issue.
>> yes, sir, I did bring a copy of the bill, a copy of the oca's proposed, recommended guidelines and questionnaire that they are planning to send out to all of the counties. I can leave that with you. I have already given a copy to Commissioner Daugherty's office. I can live this with you so that you can see up front what we are going to be looking at and when. I will go ahead and leave this with you all.
>> pretty much the same issue to each of you on the senate bill.
>> this motion is very timely. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> 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, July 20, 2005 11:18 AM