Travis County Commissioners Court
September 12, 2006
Item 21
21, aproof 12-month extension, modification--12- modification--12-month extension, modification number 1, to contract number ps 06021 ore, work sores greater Austin area work force board for rapid employment model.
>> my question really was trying to follow the money. We have a contract for 175 175,000.
>> that's correct. We are renewing.
>> but we have only spent 85 000 so far.
>> that's correct.
>> is that because it's new and they need some more time because of the way it reads, they want to roll that into the first 90 days of this year to spend that 175,000 but then they still want 175 000 in the '07 budget?
>> that's correct, Commissioner. We believe that work source will certainly be able to expend the fund. This is not a performance issue for work . It's a process issue in terms of contracting. These were funds allocated in '06 as you well know. There were negotiations that staff entered into with work source and several other vendors in the package that you funded. We believe that work sores can expend these--work source can expend these funds in addition to the funds allocated for '07. That $90,000 is the equivalent to about 30 percent receiving training. We believe the request is in the spirit of the purpose of the funds.
>> I guess then, I understand what they are trying to do. But I mean, effectively what we're going to spend is $265 000 in '07.
>> yes.
>> versus only 85. And maybe since it's a new program, that it just takes a little time to get that.
>> to ramp up.
>> is that what you're saying?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. I move approval.
>> second.
>> question. This is one that perhaps is better off, like most of our other contracts, a January 1 to January 1?
>> that is probably something we should consider.
>> certainly with these roll rollover funds we would have the ability to use the roll rollover during the first few months and get them on that January 1 to January 1. That was Ron the reasons I -- one of the reasons I pulled number two until I got the answer of that is for that contract and the next one, we just approved in markup, not officially official, a five percent increase on all of our contracts. That is not reflected on these numbers but I have been assured on this one and the next one that there will be a new mod when they reload up the budget to put the appropriate number in. But these two projects do not have holdover provisions provisions. Seem like to not have to do a double mod, perhaps they are more, candidates to go especially this one, because we have the extra money to move them to a January 1. That's just a discussion item for another day.
>> I think commissionner a perfect world that would probably be a good thing. I know my colleague over here responsible for helping us with those modifications has a big churning had a -- --chunk that has to be done by January 1. I think we kind of negotiate on some of those renewals so she is not overwhelmed. But we can look at these that we tend to have this kind of drag on.
>> the five percent will not apply to a '06 contract, would it?
>> , it would be on the--no, sir. It would be on the 507. Because of the point that-- that--on the '07. But because of the point that Commissioner Sonleitner made, we need to go ahead.
>> anymore discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> you're welcome.
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