Travis County Commissioners Court
January 23, 2007
Item 5
Five is to consider and take appropriate action on update to request update on request for services for collection of delinquent criminal justice fines and fees by a 30 party vendor and request for guidance on extension of the current contract in justice of the peace precinct 3 office.
>> members of the court, as you recall, senate bill 1863 became effective April 1 of '06. As a part of our proposed plan for compliance with 1863, it provides in that statute the capability of utilizing a third-party vendor for very delinquent fines and fees. Precinct 3, the elected official and the Commissioner for presyringe three were very proactive in setting up a pilot program to test the thid-party collection of those fines and fees prior to us being able to get our central collection unit that we set up in the tax office to process initially those fines and fees. And I do have dusty knight here from the tax office with us, I have diana ramirez and travis gatlin that has worked on the fines and fees collection process. As you recall, when we came before you in August of 2006 to put together basically a framework for all of the jp's to get an rfp out on the street, we had hoped to get one out there sometime late calendar year 2006. We actually pushed that to January 31st. And we have essentially run in to a few challenge that its and the tax office and the auditor's office and pbo are working on in order to interface with a think party vendor, the hammer system that we use on our central collections. We do have the current pilot program in jfks p 3, -- jp 3, we have it expiring I believe January 31st. And that we do want to ask the court to extend that on what the newly elected jp has recommended for a 60-day period as opposed to what we had recommended based on some brief discussions with the jp earlier, but when we actually had though conversations previously, she had not taken office, she had not had a chance to read the contract with the third party vendor. So we would like to amend our request to a 60-day extension, at which time we will be briefing the jp in more detail and going through that thid-party contract. Now, dusty's here and he can give you a little bit of yoaf sight -- oversight on what's happening prior to in central collections the even consideration of sending something out to a third party vendor. So dusty, could you give us a little thumbnail summary of what we're doing in central collections?
>> on the majority of individuals that are coming from the jp's offices, they do show up, we are able to do the partial pay agreement water and wastewater them. Some of them make all their partial payments without problem. Some forget, so we have to get back and start writing letters, contacting them to get them to come in and finish up their partial pay agreements. If they had gone to the jp, didn't show up to our office, we then start sending letters to both the jp to let them know the person didn't show up and to the individual f we hear no response or get back a return mail, we do some skip tracing, attempt to contact the person via telephone that has turned out to be in our short time frame doing thrks the telephone has gotten the best response from people. Get them in, make their payments and go on down the road. We're assuming that we would continue to do this under this new third party plan thaks we would do all efts until we had done everything we could and just couldn't get any response. That we would under the guidance of the jp's, we wouldn't be turning them over to a third party.
>> hold on. What would be the intervention with the third party?
>> if we can't get the people to come in via letters, phone call, we've turned it back over to the jp's, which it gets turned over to the constables to put warrants out. If none of this has done for us whatever the guidelines the jp's would set up, we would then turn it over to a thishd-party -- third-party collector after we have exhausted what were all our remedy.
>> within your shop.
>> these are both civil and criminal fines and fees, correct?
>> we're talking at the jp level. They're just criminal.
>> so they're class c misdemeanors. So there's the power to issue a warrant. I would imagine there's also power to revoke driver's license for some of these types of fines, is that correct?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I would imagine some of these fees, even though they're criminal cases, are civil in nature. Is that true?
>> I'm not sure. I'd have to check on that. I thought they were all criminal.
>> well, even though the underlying offense is criminal, some of the fees associated with it would be civil in nature?
>> yes.
>> so there would also be the power to take a judgment against them and seize property to satisfy the debt, correct?
>> I'd have to --
>> I don't know.
>> I'd have to defer to legal on whether or not we can seize property on class c misdemeanors.
>> I think you can in execution to secure payment of fines and fees in class c's as well, I believe.
>> my point here is that we've got some pretty big hammers to do collection. I'm concerned about inserting a profit motive into the collection of delinquent fines and fees because it feels like a candle mel's nose under the tent for other fines, fees and taxes that the county levees.
>> but are they people that really can't afford to pay because they're indigent? And what do you go after? They don't have any property.
>> if they're indigent, we go to the jp's and they deal with itable take the fine away. Most of these are people that don't show up and we can't find them.
>> they forget or whatever.
>> what part of this, if any, is required by law?
>> I don't think there's anything that's required by law. We currently have a pilot project in precinct 3 that was started back in 2004 and 2005.
>> but in the other part, didn't the state mandate a central collection?
>> they did mandate a central collection.
>> if we pull the jp piece out, that pilot program has been in place and so the question today is whether we extend it or let it drop dead. I suggest that we agree with the new jp and extend it just 60 days and let you chat with her. If we need to ternl nate it in 60 days, do that. If we need to extend it, fine. But on the other piece, that is not mandated by the state?
>> the thid party portion isn't.
>> we were following the oca standards of making the telephone calls, the follow-up letters and whatnot. We're following 1863 with what we're doing currently. This is just another avenue.
>> our problem here is that we had -- we were sitting here with thousands of cases that were anywhere from a few months old to meabl, many years. So the question was what sort of collection activity could we put in place? And my thought is if the jp's stay current, then on stuff older than that we need a new strategy to collect it, that's how all of this got started. Why don't you visit with Commissioner eckhardt and if we need to review the whole deal we can do that under another posting. I'm certainly -- at some point the question is do you spend $500 to collect 100? And that's what it boils down to. Even if we gear up for community service frks , ifyou cannot pay 350, can we come up with that much community service to make it worth while and to make the public benefit match what we have to put into structuring the program? So this is a big deal and we're kind of chipping away at it. Why don't they would that. You visit with them and if we need to review the whole strategy, fine. What we had in mind, in my view we ought to try to put the five jp noose a position where they focus on the current staff and that means one day to three or four months. Then the question is from day one what do we do with the stuff that's a year old, four action five years old, in addition to omni. Omni work if you of need to get your drive's license renewed and we've seen excellence results there. But if omni doesn't pick you up, what do you do? The strategy was to use an outside vendor for assistance? But if we can do it in-house, let's do it. But if we cannot, rather than let it language wish, let's kick it to a third party vendor and let them do whatever needs to be done. The purpose of the r.f.p. Was to see what kinds of proposals we get. So we have not issued that yet.
>> no. And we had indicated in August that once we got a draft that we would come back to the court with that draft r.f.p. And we'll be glad to get with you one on one before we even come back to the court and explain that. The idea is that once central collections has done everything and perhaps Commissioner we need to look if there are some other things that we can do about attaching property and thing that are economical to do in order to collect these debts that the citizens have prior to going to a third-party vendor just to give you an idea in precinct 3, since 2004-2005, the first year the outside collector collected 2 $228,194, we did not have central collections they believe. So that would have been money that didn't come to the -- I think that's a combination of state and county money. In 2005-2006 they've collected 149,660. So over that less than two year period of time they've collected about $378,000. And as you know, the statute allows for an outside collector to tack on a percentage for complex fee, so it doesn't cost the county anything to collect those. And the proposal is to have central collections do the standard collecting.
>> that's even a bigger call. I'm sorry, judge, go ahead.
>> it may be that the responses are ina quat. But back to my other dwe. In the back of my mind there's a state mandated central collection system. It does not apply to jp cases.
>> it does apply to jp cases, but it does not mandate that you use a third party vendor. It allows you --
>> you have to have a central collection in place in order to comply with 1863, which we do have in the tax office run by nelda and her staff.
>> but if that law applies to these, either we get a private vendor to do it or we have do it ourself. We're trying to use a hybrid action right? We're trying to say let's get the low hanging fruit and let's kick to the private vendor the other stuff.
>> our intention is to use them after the jp's and constable have not been successful in collecting the due fine and fees. And the system that we currently have, the computer system, the haimer system, is the only system that allows partial payments to be received. Once facts comes up in the jp's, and I think that's -- September is the current schedule. They just brought up the county clerk, criminal. Once the facts comes up, that system will allow the partial payments, but the initial recommendation is to feed those cases as we're doing currently with all the jp's into central collections. I think that dusty has how many cases in the system now?
>> about 11,000 for jp.
>> and as the backup indicated, on an analyzed basis based on October, we're going to be collecting about $1.1 million through central collections.
>> what you need today though is one a response to the recommendation to extend the pilot program in precinct 3.
>> thook.
>> for 60 days.
>> then you report back to us.
>> then we will report back to you. And --
>> all right. And the other part is to extend the deadline for issuing -- get court approval of the r.f.p. For yarn 31st. -- January 31st.
>> we are not ready to -- the computer system still needs modifications that a third party vendor would need to feed into. That has been the delay in putting together the final recommended rfp to the Commissioners court. It sounds like to me that we need to visit with you even prior to bringing it back to court on a one on one basis to the new Commissioner.
>> the problem is in a the court has voted and directed to issue an rfp. It would be to all jp's.
>> that is where the money is. And the county and the district levels are less. But your point is well taken, judge, and we will be glad to brief Commissioner eckhardt on the third party collections and we will bring back a draft r.f.p. That we just have a skeleton of right now. I wouldn't think it would be in the next week or two. We met with a subgroup of the jp's yesterday in the tax office, and we intend to be on the jp's February meeting and discuss this draft r.f.p. And then we will --
>> but in term of the technology solution, we've been talking about this thing a long, long time.
>> I understand.
>> I'm tempted to say forever, but it hasn't been that long. But either we can get a fix or we cannot. But we really -- we've been at a stand still on the other jp offices.
>> let me just explain. I agree, it has been a long time. And I did notice that I had a memo to the court six years ago that deanna drafted for me. We have been working on this a long time.
>> [ laughter ] the technical delay currently is that we need the interface with the haimer system from the jp's in order to collect partial payments. And we're doing partial payments on a piece of it, and dusty can tell you we are on its other piece. Once we get that technical hook '-up, because on the precinct 3, that vendor does not remit partial payments. They remit only full payments because our computer system will not authorize -- allow to us accept partial paints.
>> can you --
>> hold on. Even so -- judge, I'm sorry. Were you finished?
>> I'm done.
>> okay.
>> I've run out.
>> we have been dealing with this for awhile, but even with this conception, and I remember very, very clearly, when we looked at Travis County fines and fees, Commissioner dougherty and i, we sat right there where you are with all the folk with what we're seeing in fines and fees that were delinquent for Travis County because we start coming one some solutions action yz back then as far as -- ideas back then as far as outstanding debt that folks owed Travis County. However, with this new bill's coming with 1863 and also getting a central collections effort in place by law, which we can do, that still brought other challenge, but on the technical end of all of this, there are some very serious challenges, and I think you hit the key and it's been a -- something stirring this up in our face for a long time, and frowning at us. And that is the interface of all of this. Having all these didn't systems and none of them really able to talk to one another at this point. And I understand -- dusty, can you tell me right now there's a request for a new module that is supposed to be introduced to the haimer system. What will that actually do to maybe help provide a better connectivity interface I would like to say with the current jp. What would that actually do with this new module?
>> currently the module that we're working on, as it stands now the jp's send us a paper document from the jp courts, which of one it is, to my office, and we sit there and data enter that data, hopefully correct the aim way that that -- the same way that we got it sent over. So the very basic statistic of this is to be able to take down -- automate that so we don't have to do data entry. So it would come straight from the old system and come to the haimer system and download it so I'm not having to do the data entry. That would eliminate that portion. To go one step further, that's similar and we can do that today. We've tested that. The problem that I'm having, the technology behind this whole thing, I'm not complaining. This is a statement of fact, it is doing everything so it is gasb compliant. And you have payments that were made into the jp's offices that we have not tested, the auditor has not tested to know that this would all flow with the gasb 34 stuff. So we're trying to make whatever we're doing totally gasb 34 compliant. That's what our problem is. We've tested it, just haven't got it approved that it will meet gasb 34 compliance. That's where it is. We can collect the money action collect partial pays. We've seen that we can take jail credits and turn those into all the little different pieces that the money has to go to, although it's the nonmonetary thing. The same thing with partial payments. The is same thing that we can do years ago when the jp's were taking partial pays. We've got to get it through the rest of the testing faces through the county. Then we will be able to download automatically, download partial payments that have come in, those that have come in from jp 3's system. Be able to allocate it, keep up with gasb 34 and keep one it. That's where we are.
>> how long will it take to do that?
>> if we had the county staff -- right now the county clerk is going through transition to the facts system. And the --
>> who can answer the question how long will it take? Whose question is it?
>> it's how long is it going to take, is with the auditor's.
>> what we need is some indication of when will we be able to do facts? We're not hearing that today.
>> no.
>> I just heard you say we can do all of this.
>> yes.
>> six years is a long time.
>> it is.
>> I would like to say we haven't been involved with six years. We got called into this two weeks before we put a pilot together. We didn't have a slab on the ground, we've been working on this. This has been a wok in progress trying to catch up with this. We were asked to do this two week before it was I am plementd. I haven't spent six yeez on this particular part.
>> I hear what you're saying. I know that the old system, I think part of this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the experience with pulling up cases off the cjs, you can't really search it to see who all has 500-dollar fines for truancy out standing in the last five years and certainly you can't tell whether they paid 50 bucks a year ago. So I get it. Can you walk me through for a moment just for real world exasm example, take that person who has a truancy fine from five years ago and the failure to appear, what happens under the proposal? Jane doe owes 500 bucks from a five-year-old case.
>> I'm not a court person, so please bear with me. Has this been adjudicated?
>> you're right, you cannot do this in five minutes. You can't do it in an hour and five minutes. This is something that we do need to get with sarah and go over because I don't think that we need to spend an hour only to have more questions by the time you get through giving her the explanation. She does need to be fully informed on this thing.
>> am I the only one who needs to be fully informed? Am I just behind the cufb here and everybody else gets it?
>> the new justice of the peace needs 60 days in order to contain disbhain knowledge on what's happening here and why. So I think --
>> let me just say one thing. And my understanding of a lot of these cases are not things that can be turned over to a thid party anyway. They have not been adjudicated.
>> I only have a one word question. When? And if y'all aren't the ones to answer that, then who? I don't need a long explanation on it, I just need a date.
>> I will get with all the parties involved and we will get our best estimate of when we can have the testing completed and then we could transfer these cases into haimer. Because that is the fis first step that has to happen. There's nothing that can happen to cases that aren't in haimer.
>> judge, I move that we do the 60-day that we are being asked to do and have staff get with Commissioner eckhardt. And I know that they've got something set up with judge teak to do that.
>> second.
>> I just need clarification. You're saying you want to extend the current contract for 60 days to continue collections?
>> (indiscernible).
>> my only comment is I don't think we'll have an r.f.p. Out and someone picked in two months, so would you like for me to extend it just for two months?
>> the jp wants a two month extension so she can get updated.
>> and then we'll look. We undoubtedly will need an extension --
>> if after six months the jp says two and let me get brought up to speed. That's where that came from. There's a second to that also. Now, a one page memo is fine with me. Any member of the court that have questions and want to meet with you is fine with me also.
>> I definitely would like to make sure that Commissioner eckhardt gets her questions answered. She was asking I think some very relevant questions and I know that we are sometimes kind of go through things, but sometimes I think we need to kind of sit back and listen to what questions are being raised. I think there's been a lot of good questions raised here today because I remember very distinctly when we got into a whole budge of this stuff I proposed to go with another database other than what we're dealing with now, but it didn't happen. Now we're behind in a lot of situations, but those questions that I think were posed even then are still valid now. But I do reserve a set back to what the will of the court is going to be. I think the question that needed, I think the when that the judge brought up as far as the timing of all of this, we need to have more concrete information as far as me making the decision on this before we go forward because there are still a lot of loosens. And I think the when of this and a lot of other things that need to be brought up, need to be brought up in a timely fashion so we can move fwampltd so that's basically my only comment. I want everybody to respect everybody's opinion when they've got questions.
>> are you insinuating that we're not giving her the ability to get that information?
>> I never insinuate, Commissioner, I just tell it like it is.
>> then tell me what you're talking about.
>> actually --
>> there are six years of history here.
>> of course.
>> and from a purchasing perspective, I think that the background is -- the backup material that is provided is pefbly fine frvment a purchasing perspective I get it. Do we want to spend $500 to collect $100. But what I'm asking about is something more policy and procedure oriented regarding how we track cases under the cjs and fact that we don't have facts on the ground action what are the capabilities now, what its capabilities will be, why it has to go into haimer. I think I know the answer to that. And like I said before, I think we have some very big hammers here in order to do this kind of collection and I am concerned from a policy perspective about inserting a profit motive because the proposal here is for an additional fee placed on ton of the fine that the delinquent pays.
>> but you've got to understand here the history here is thousands of cases simply sat in some file.
>> that's right.
>> and our challenge is to figure out a way for somebody to open thowz files and try to collect that money. And when we looked at the office of the jp and the small staff, they have a hard enough job keeping up with current staff.
>> they can't keep up with current.
>> and I am only looking for tools to keep up with that. I'm not looking to shoot down the jp's.
>> we were trying to help the jp's. All in favor of the motion to extend the 60 days, raise your right hand. Show Commissioner voting against action -- Commissioner eckhardt voting against. Commissioner Davis abstaining?
>> no, I voted for it.
>> 4-1. Thank you very much.
>> we will --
>> but I think we need to adhere to what's been said here today. And I understand that things get lost in the shuffle sometimes, which is really not proper.
>> we will get a short summary for the court on the issue and we will brief Commissioner eckhardt and any other Commissioner that would like a briefing.
>> there are interesting questions and the answer s to which we ought to hear, I think we ought to hear them. But at some point we have to move this to the next step:
>> and we are steamenting to move it to the next step.
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, January 23, 2007 8:33 PM