Travis County Commissioners Court
August 15, 2006
Item 27
All right, let's call up 27. 27. Consider and take appropriate action on request to charge municipalities fees for sheriff's office dispatch and related services.
>> judge, in the last two weeks, we have -- we have worked out of my office to -- to get feedback from the -- the six that are here with regards to them taking back to their management to include probably I guess their elected officials. If we all didn't remember, this amount on the 50%, is not anywhere in our budget. So -- so whatever we collect this year will be sort of new found money because it's not -- p.b.o. Did not put any anticipation of getting any money from any of the municipalities. Now, I will say that you probably got, mark in my office said they got you a copy of all of these. What we have found is that bee cave has -- has indicated that they are probably going to try to do something with -- with Lakeway and they will not be part of the -- of you know starting this year, they will not be part of the dispatch. If you take the 12330 [indiscernible] 11 out, it brings that total down there at the bottom down to 69,625.53. I also want to let everybody know that there are other folks that at least indicated that after this year they may or during this year they may try to cut some sort of a deal so that they find another place to do dispatch between this queer and next year, that's fine with us because we certainly told them that they could do that. I think the one that indicated that pretty strongly to us was manor, thinking they may union try to find another source --
>> main could talk to Pflugerville.
>> that's who they are probably talking to.
>> that makes sense.
>> next year obviously, I mean, if you go to the -- to the following page where it shows the 75% amount, you know, that -- that probably is not worth talking much about at this stage because quite frankly I do anticipate there will be some other people dropping out between now and then. But at least for this next year, we are going to be able to collect an additional $69,000 for dispatch going forward. If there's no -- if there are no issues with that, because we worked pretty hard on getting people to go back to their communities to get sign-off on this. And if there are no issues, with it, I mean, I move approval of us going forward with this 50% amount. At least, you know, getting us an additional almost $70,000 for dispatch.
>> judge, what do we need to do to make sure that we can get the auditor to recognize these dollars coming in? Is it through an interlocal, is it through -- how do we make sure that those dollars can be utilized in the budget? Hey, ray.
>> let's [indiscernible]
>> because we want to -- if we do this in an interlocal, she can certify interlocal money. It's making sure that susan's piece is captured.
>> rick, what you probably missed walking over here, I can see you are a little winded, have -- I have shared with the court that we have found out that everyone is going to be, have signed off on the 50% amount except for bee cave and bee cave decided they are going to go and probably try to do something with Lakeway.
>> that's been speculation and discussion. But I haven't talked to them lately.
>> okay. But that this -- this amount that would take that from the 81955 down to about 69,000, that we would have, also shared with the court this was not any kind of preliminary numbers, this 69, $70,000 will be just additional revenue that we will have that will go towards dispatch.
>> correct, we haven't had it anywhere.
>> then also shared with them that -- that my office had heard that there probably were some others that -- that may elect during this year to try to find avenues to go elsewhere, starting next year, manor being the one that I heard, I think, and manor the one that has athletes mentioned that they may be doing that.
>> we have explored other options.
>> okay.
>> well, judge I mean -- I mean, Gerald would you include in your motion the concern that the Commissioner Sonleitner brought up as far as looking for, you know, being an interlocal of course also including the order to --
>> absolutely.
>> certify that -- certify the revenue, especially after the interlocal. I understand that the county attorney --
>> I think we would have to have the interlocals in place -- -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> couple of weeks.
>> we would be talking about in concept. But it's not -- it not ready to show to the other communities yet.
>> okay. Well, they know that it's -- that it's coming and they have got this and as a matter of fact we even shared with them, said, hey we don't really care when you pay this, I mean, any time during the year, I mean, the sooner the better but obviously I would imagine that they would want to --
>> nuevo laredo forward. To -- move forward.
>> obviously a conversation we had with other governmental entity just 15 minutes ago, an interlocal would very clearly state what Travis County would do on their behalf. They would have expectations something to measure performance that indeed they did get what they contracted for and the county would have a legal vehicle to be able to say and may we now please be paid for it after we have delivered such service. It's for everybody's protection.
>> with those additions I'm absolutely fine with that.
>> well, I accept them.
>> okay.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your hard work on that, Commissioner.
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:
Tuesday, August 16, 2006 12:08 PM