Travis County Commissioners Court
November 21, 2006
Item 23
Why don't we discuss 23 as much as possible, see where that takes us. 23. Consider and take appropriate action regarding approval of reimbursement resolutions to permit the procurement of contracts to proceed with the following projects: a. 2201 post road renovation; b. 5555 airport boulevard renovation; and. C. Purchase of vehicles in the fy '07 budget in the amount of $1,122,750.00. And stacy -- and we have our fleet manager mike joyce here. On c, what are the issues there?
>> budget process, isn't that right?
>> there seems to be a little issue about the kinds of vehicles, right? That's what the e-mail -- suggested?
>> that's what the e-mail was about, yes, sir. I was going by what the -- what the -- what was published in the budget. It talks about -- about a sedan, full sized, pickup truck for the width I believe division and the replacement of a sedan, c 507 I believe was the number. Which is a car off of -- off of -- in the -- in the budget it speaks of -- of two sedans and a pickup. I know during the budget session we talked about pickup, some other items, vehicles, we talked about that -- a few e-mails, talking about wanted an s.u.v., a tahoe. The type of vehicle just needs to be decided one way or the other. Just working off the information that I had in my list at the time asking for this reimbursement resolution.
>> not an issue
>> [indiscernible]
>> we had a work session on August 20th on this, which mr. Joyce was attendance. We discussed the c 507 being replaced with the pickup truck, a crew cab, two wheel drive. The shady hollow vehicle being a crown vic, the specialist one of the new positions be the crew cab pickup truck.
>> what's the issue? In other words those things that you mentioned now is something that we discussed during the budget cycle.
>> right. Like we've been trying to get together and put it in, you know, track the order of -- you know, when we are having a delivery date, I have been specifics about the two pickup trucks and the -- and the crown vic. I saw this coming on the agenda Thursday. There wasn't any backup on it. I couldn't get any backup Friday. Got some backup from -- from one of the offices, Commissioner's office on Monday. It's -- it wasn't what I thought we agreed upon, what was approved by the Commissioners court.
>> the budget.
>> yes.
>> during the budget.
>> yeah.
>> okay. So -- so I remember our discussion about a -- about the need for a larger vehicle. Is that in this, too? The need to one larger vehicle?
>> are you talking about the constable?
>> yes.
>> but that's not precinct 3 -- is that part of this discussion?
>> no, it's not. I mean because richard was needing --
>> we were talking about the -- the whole reason why we put it on our budget work session was to clarify that the impalas were not meeting our needs and that we needed -- wanted one crown vic, two crew cab pickup trucks, two wheel drive.
>> what's the difference in the cost?
>> very little. They are almost identical in cost. Cost of operation, cost to purchase.
>> okay.
>> I'm not here fighting over types of vehicles. I'm here just looking for a resolution so I can start the process.
>> to make this really easy on y'all, exhibit a to the reimbursement resolution says vehicles. It doesn't say any items or anything.
>> > apparently there's no agreement. We might as well resolve this while they are done here. Who else is here? It's roughly the same money, you just want to know what kind of vehicles the court approves for the precinct 3 constable?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. I can go back up and check from our capitalist for fy '07 that was adopted it will say specifically there. I didn't know this was a particular issue on this item. We were focusing on other areas of it. Ance the question right now. I would have to go upstairs, find it, research it, figure out what's in there. I do remember the conversation, bigger vehicles, pickups, those kind of things.
>> there really isn't an issue since the pickups and the crown vics are the same. Specially when you factor in the crown vic is the said shady hollow vehicle.
>> are you sure here on c?
>> we affirmatively made those decisions, going back through the record, dollars attached to it, specificity, I can finally say that word on --
>> probably the other part of my concern on this, too, was we are wanting the same vehicles, same vehicle types that the sheriff is getting , you know, they evidently had a meeting with the sheriff's people to discuss specs included in the order, we want the same thing same color, same vehicles, it should have been put in with the sheriff's order.
>> well --
>> at the same time, I mean, --
>> if it's the same money, they shouldn't put precinct 3 on there not the sheriff --
>> [laughter]
>> well, another kind of --
>> just do it that way.
>> yeah.
>> and that's --
>> I can't do their order because I don't have funds available to do it. It's tied up in the new co which doesn't become available until March.
>> no, no, no. We have, on our
>> [indiscernible] we had approved for fy '06 we couldn't order the '63 constable mdc's until the co's were sold and came in sometimes in March or April. The po's were just issued in October, October 10th to purchase those 63 mvc's. We have missed a whole year of getting those mvc's out and trying to improve our operation and data collection for budgeting purposes and
>> [indiscernible] up our management. Four we have lost, five or six months. The deal is like if we are -- we can't order these vehicles until the
>> [indiscernible] we lose another
>> [indiscernible] months, older cars, breaking down, a vehicle down, another a vehicle to make do until these vehicles get here. We need to get our cars ordered.
>> we understand. This item really is for the court to advance money to purchase $1.1 million worth of vehicles until we can issue co's, get the money, then reimburse the general fund. The question is are the three vehicle that precinct 3 asking for included in the total number of vehicles to be purchased by this amount?
>> yes, sir.
>> it just a resolution which takes care of the thing that you are talking about stacy.
>> it says resolution, but it need money, it needs advanced money, basically.
>> let me just make sure that we are being real clear because we only mentioned precinct 3. Are all vehicles that we discussed during the budget process part of this order?
>> yes, it is. I would -- I pulled out all of the vehicles, more than this 1.1 million that I'm asking for now. There's some equipment in there. The equipment is not that necessary and time critical that I have to get it right now. The cars are. I need to get those done. The manufacturers shut down earlier and they quit taking orders. I need to get it done. Those are what you see here in the list.
>> okay. But are you all clear on exactly what kinds of vehicles precinct 3 is asking for?
>> yes, sir, I believe so.
>> my motion is --
>> accept it.
>> any more discussion of that. That's just a little piece of this whole deal, the big question really is advancing the money from the general fund for three items, we need to discuss that. But just on the kinds of cars is the motion and second.
>> on the kinds of cars?
>> for precinct 3.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> [multiple voices]
>> to is to give precinct 3 the kinds of cars that asking for in court today.
>> we are asking for a reimbursement resolution.
>> that's -- this motion doesn't cover that.
>> this covers the kinds of cars. Right? All in favor? Show commissions -- by an enthusiastic unanimous voet.
>> golly gee we voted on this during budget.
>> now the matter of the reimbursement resolution. You need the money for the cars. Is your point. That's c.
>> uh-huh.
>> and a renovation, roger? Post road. We have done these reimbursement resolutions unfortunately too often. During the last two or three or four years. Used to be one would come up every four or five years. Lately we have been doing them, may have been a policy and practice in the wrong direction, but -- but I don't know that it does great harm to us. But you add these amounts of money up and the total is what? Leroy? $3 million?
>> $3 million.
>> yes.
>> question?
>> we have a discrepancy on the resolution that we have before us simply related to the cars, the copy and we all just said 1.122750. But on the next page, exhibit a it says 122750. May we please pick one, whichever is the correct one.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> exhibit a is wrong.
>> yes.
>> okay. This is why I work here.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> what's the down side of doing this from your perspective? Is there one?
>> the down side is that you expend the funds more quickly than waiting on the co proceeds coming in. We have been doing --
>> I don't see that as being incredibly efficiency.
>> right. I this the upside in the case of automobiles that ha to do with the vendor supplying the vehicles more quickly. So I think that's the two sides of it. We -- we have a 16-point of million car, $17.37 million co. We have a great deal of need for capital this year. In addition to the car funds this year include that approximately 2.5 million for -- I don't have the exact number in front of me which could not be cooed. Things that previously I tried to take off the co list like vehicles this year got put on to the co lest. That's one of the reason that's you are seeing them this year as well.
>> certainly related to some of the things related to the building requests. These things have multiple effects. If we delay getting the improvements made to the ruiz building at 555 airport boulevard, it means that is that much more time that we cannot take care of the renovations of the gall building so that the da can move over to there and appropriate changes in the tower. So we have got to get it going sooner rather than later or there are huge consequences in terms of multiple projects.
>> is p.b.o.'s recommendation yea or nay? Or we don't know?
>> we have posted the reimbursement resolution -- generally the reimbursement resolutions are posted by -- we have posted subsequent budget amendments and transfers related to those reimbursement resolutions. Speaking specifically to the three reimbursement resolutions posted, post road, 5555 airplane and the vehicles, there was positive recommendations as far as we concurred with if the court wants to proceed and expedite these projects this is the way to do it.
>> so yes we stand behind the court, if you want to do this. That's p.b.o.'s position? I'm assuming you all are in favor of these projects since they are facilities projects, right?
>> yes.
>> a and b, you all are in favor.
>> get them done --
>> move approval of a, b, c, reimbursement resolution.
>> second.
>> is there a second.
>> I will second.
>> Commissioner Davis seconded it. Now let's discuss it.
>> these are projects that have been presented to the court on numerous times have been approved. This is just the funding in fact to make them happen. You don't sell bonds until -- don't get the proceeds usually until March or so. So this is just a method. By which we borrow money from the general fund cash money. So that we can award the contracts.
>> we need the money to award the contracts because it's county policy.
>> yes, sir.
>> we do not approve contracts unless we know there is money available. Right? And the money availability will be delayed unless we executed a reimbursement resolution and borrow money from the general fund then when we issue the debt require that money to be reimbursed to the general fund basically.
>> yes, sir.
>> roger, you have any problem with that?
>> not at all. As long as I get the money to move the project forward
>> [laughter]
>> what a way to put it, roger.
>> anything from the court? On the motion?
>> judge, when are they going to order the vehicles? I didn't hear exactly what month --
>> as soon as we pass this motion.
>>
>> [multiple voices] date that you are going to get --
>> right now as we speak I should have some prs in probably next week.
>> next week. All right.
>> has to go through this process.
>> thank you.
>> it will be done.
>> I think folks want to know. Let's go.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all.
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, November 22, 2006 10:29 AM