Travis County Commissioners Court
September 12, 2006
Item 9
Number 9 is consider and take appropriate action on setting the calendar year 2007 sheriffs and con stabel stabels fee schedule.
>> good morning, I'm with the planning and budget office. And every year the exhort is required to set the next calendar year's civil fees for con stable's and sheriffs office. Your back tail has the schedule of fees to be chair chair. If you look through, we made some changes to most of the fees, increasing relatively small amount. The biggest were $20 or 15 percent increase for writ of possession or distress warrant, 11 percent increase ranging all the way down to one and two dollar increases for some of the mental alcohol drug commitment peace bonds. Those seem to be pretty routine and straight forward forward. There has been a question raised by the county attorney about the commissions and the sliding scale on the commissions. Pbo had proposed in the memo that that change of sliding scale to just a ten percent across the borerg and I believe mr. Connolly had some comments on that.
>> I forwarded my comments to you by e-mail. I think I just wanted you to see that there might be some issues if the idea is by setting at a flat ten percent is that you achieve some simplicity, it's not as complicated as having the sliding scale. But on the other hand, it does open up the possibility that in select cases, you could have a situation where especially if the property that was seized and sold or the money collected waswas a large amount, then you could have a situation where the commission might be disproportionate to the actual cost of providing those services. So, I just discuss that . And what some other counties have done, just to give you the idea of some different options, other than having a fixed or a sliding or doing something that other county have done, which is just to try to cost it outit and build a party for the actual cost of providing those services.
>> do we know how long the sliding fee structure that we have had before us has been in place?
>> I'm not sure on the specific date but since bill darbury has been working on itter seven or eight years for sure since we've--it, seven or eight years that it's been in place.
>> we have had a sliding scale, as far as I know from looking back an at the file, since the beginning when the Commissioners court was first authorized to set these fees in 1981. I think that from the beginning, most counties adopted a sliding scale commission for executions because the law that existed prior to that time provided for a sliding scalescale mission for executions and order of sales. I think most counties, including Travis County, adopted that kind of sliding scale.
>> for me the sliding scale is one that that is withstood the test of time and challenge in terms of somebody saying that is a fair recovery. Now, since it's been seven or eight years, I would argue that the price of a con stable and administrative work, computers, gasoline has gone up. So I personally would feel more comfortable with a slight just am of some sort in the sliding--add just am of some sort in the scale. The example you gave us of the flat, of what that did in some really large writs, really is one that could put us completely under, I think threat, that that's not based in the cost of service because it's completely goes the other way. And yet, another county that had abandoned that and went with kind of a flat, it's like you're not recovering what really is responsible here. So I'm good--
>> what does the law provide provide? Is there a legal standard?
>> the law says the Commissioners court may not set the fees higher than are necessary to pay the expense expenses of providing the services. Now, the ax g was asked in-- in--ag was asked in 1988, does that mean in any individual case you can't charge a fee that's higher than your expenses for providing the services in that case, or does it mean in the aggregate? The attorney general conclud concluded and stated in a letter opinion that at that limitation, does not apply to individual cases of it's meant to apply to the, setting the fees so that they don't raise more money than is necessary to pay the expenses of providing the services in the aggregate. According to the attorney general, the fact that it's a fee schedule that you set up may result in collecting a fee that's higher in some individual case would in the necessarily violate this statute. But still I think it's a consideration. If you set a commission, sliding scale commission on these things that is design designed to more closely approximate your actual expenses, then overall, then your collections over a year should also more closecally approximate--closely approximate your actual expensesjim, are these--
>> jim, are these particular kinds of writs possible to do by private process server servers or is this strictly a county gigis thisi think that most of--
>> I think that most of these, you can't do them by private process servers.
>> I was trying to be sensitive to things that could--
>> there are a few like service of citations, but very few.
>> all right.
>> most of these writs cannot be served by a private process server.
>> if we assume that ten percent across the bored is too much, what middle ground can we find? Find?. We think the current percentages are understating costs. Is that it?
>> I haven't reached that conclusion and I don't know that anybody has done that. I don't know that that is the mow investigation to change.
>> that wasn't the motivation. It wasn't rev. It was more a system my-- my--simply if I cage of the process. Because this year pbo added 500 thousand among the five offices to serve the writs of execution and they had a lot of issues and wanted to make sure that they had the staff necessary to do this. So it was just an attempt to try to get that to be a little bit more, yeah, easier for them.
>> okay. Well, what if we applied the ten percent to the first 15 or 20,000 and say a lower number, like four percent or so to all after that, and then put this down for an early '08 work session?
>> okay.
>> give us an opportunity to see the impact. If we need to tweak it again again. We did raise the cost, is what you're saying.
>> right.
>> by budgeting more money.
>> right. And plus overall, you know, step increases and health insurance over the years.
>> okay.
>> right now, judge, what we have is ten percent of the first 10,000.
>> right.
>> five percent of the next 15,000.
>> right.
>> and 2.5 percent of amounts over 25,000. And I just want the reiterate, it's my an understanding that we did not change that or propose to change it because we thought that that was not generating sufficient revenue or wasn't covering our costs. It was simply to simplify. Because this is a little more complicated and there are sometimes errors made. And then--
>> that was before I heard that we had invested substantially more dollars.
>> right. The fee increases that are proposed, I believe that the auditor's office, if it's approved as is, as proposed, it would only bring in an additional 150, 160,000 for next fiscal year, that they would be able to certify as revenue after getting with the con stabels on workload and those kind of issues. So it comes nowhere near paying for it. What pbo had said in the memo initially, we're trying the stairstep it up over the neck two, three years am because making up half a million in one year, that would hurt. That was too much. We wanted to do it slowly and see how it work.
>> trying to do three things of the one is comply with the law. Two is generate a little more, additional revenue. And come closer to meeting what we think the costs are. Flee, kind of--three, kind of put it in a position to look at new fees that slightly increase over the status quo. So this time next year we would have more specific numbers to look at and can justify wherever we land.
>> okay.
>> that may be a little better than just waiting a year to tweak these percentages.
>> judge, I guess my concern was, and if that's the motion, I want to second the mowing, but I want to mike d?r the mowing k but I want to make sure that legally, what the judge's recommendation, what he is recommending in the form of a motion, is that something within--is that something within the parameters. Because it does start at four percent. The tail end of this thing. But also ten percent on the first 20,000 plus the rest, the remaining being hit with the four percent. So is that within the realm of something we're able to do?
>> well, sliding scale is permissible. I'm not sure that I caught the judge's motion in the sense that, in how he wanted the change the current sliding scale. But it is permissible to have a sliding scale so long as, that the revenues that you raise with these fees do not exceed your actual expenses in providing these services in the aggregate according to the attorney general. So, I can't really comment on what, how much these, if the change you're proposing, I don't know how that would affect the revenue. And if it would result in raising more revenue than is necessary to provide these services. So I can't--
>> I was trying to have something simplified by having two percent ands instead of three.
>> two levels instead of threeand I would apply the ten--
>> and I would apply the ten percent say up to maybe 20 20,000, over 20,000, I would go to like four percent.
>> okay.
>> so ten and four. And 20,000 or less for ten percent. And really above 20,000, four percent kicks in had.
>> okay.
>> I'm thinking if you have 100,000 at stake, four percent of that would be 4 ,000, which strikes me as being reasonable. And at the same time a ten percent, if you apply that to 20,000, you know.
>> yeah.
>> 2,000.
>> the other expense that has not been counted in is probably settlement of a lawsuit. You know, because the writ was not done, carried out the way it needed to be done done. So that's always going to be an additional expense that has to be accounted for.
>> another note on the certification side, given that the fifth revenue estimate is supposed to be presented on Tuesday and the auditor's office is going to have it prepared next Monday changes on this, et might result in some or ol of this additional revenue not being certified or included in the fifth revenue estimate because the auditor's office is going to have to go back and say how does this change in the commission rate change everything.
>> I understand.
>> judge, really what we have is the first 10,000 is going to remain at the same ten percent. We have upped it a little bit on the next 10,000, rather than 15,000, to go to ten percent.
>> right.
>> then we have lord the threshold of what is the smaller--lowered the threshold of what is the smaller number down to 20 20,000 but raised it to four percent.
>> right.
>> got it. Making sure I'm an understanding the numbers.
>> it really ought to generate additional revenue. I understand not a whole lot.
>> right.
>> I hop it puts us in position where this time next year we have exact numbers that we can say here is the revenue we got, here is the cost, either we are doing all right or we need to increase.
>> increase them a little more, right.
>> blaine.
>> auto tor's office. If you--auditor's office. If you approve this today,ly try to contact the constable and do the best I can to revise revenue numbers. If you pit it off a week it will be after the fifth references mat. That doesn't mean you could not--references mat--revenue estimate. It doesn't mean that you could not do it. We were talking about the original change, about 166 166,000 for nine months. So, if you do something today, I'll do my best. If you put it off, then it will be on the fifth revenue estimate you will still get the cash and certainly you can still do that.
>> I'm hoping we will do something today.
>> with regard to the sliding sale commission only or for everything? For all the increases in all the other fees?
>> all of it. I have to go back to the con stables and get a complete revision . My work with them was based on this one. I need something from them to analyze and it will have to be very fast, obviously, since we have to finish the revenue estimate. Pretty quickly. It has to be in your hands by Monday. That means it has to be put together by Friday. So probably I would ask the con stabels, by the end of the day tomorrow, to tell me what the effect of, if we went with a system that had all the other changes but instead had this sliding scale. If they give me a reasonable number, I will put it in the estimate. If they don't--in the revenue estimate. If they give me something that I have trouble w it may not make the revenue estimate. But it will be something.
>> okay. The motion is ten percent up to and including 20,000. In excess of $20,000, four percent.
>> second the motion.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor. Show Commissioners, Davis, Gomez the only two voting in favor. Commissioner Sonleitner--
>> I'm trying to do some arithmetic here. Sorry. Let's take the hypothetical, 19,999, which is under the 20,000. If you apply the ten percent that's going to be 1,099. If somebody is 20--1999. If somebody is 20,000 times the four per, is that 800 is thisthat's kind of where it works--
>> that's kind of how it work now when you get past the cutoff.
>> I'm just wondering if the 800.
>> take ten percent of the first 20,000 and then four percent after that. Everything above that.
>> got it. Okay. I get it now. Okay.
>> step it up.
>> it's a step. I will be voting in favor. I just was having a math moment there where I had to think it through. Thank you.
>> 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, September 13, 2006 10:11 AM