Travis County Commissioners Court
August 28, 2007
Item 5
Number five is to consider and take appropriate action on request for services for third party collections of delinquent criminal fines and fees for justice courts.
>> planning and budget. I have with me to my left dusty knight from tax office, deanna from pbo. We are hear to answer any questions that you may have on our recommended rfs for the collection of delinquent criminal fines and fees for the justice courts. We did raise a couple of issues last week.
>> what number?
>> number five.
>> that we would ask guidance from the court. I might say that the date, one question was raised as to what date that the old cases would revert to Travis County paying the 30 percent, and that date is June 18 of 2003. So anything from that date forward, the collection agency, the third party collector would be able to assess a 30 percent collection fee. Any cases that we referred prior to that date, Travis County would be responsible for paying that. Essentially our recommendation, everyone that worked on it, was that on those prior older cases, that we limit the three percent to the fine amount only because a lot of the fees go to the state. We didn't want to get into a situation where we would be paying more collection me than what we would be receiving.
>> we can legally do that.
>> yes, it's our an understanding that we can legally do that.
>> so let do some math here. Let's say that somebody owes 150 bucks. We first determine of that 150 bucks how much is going to the state. So let's say it's a hundred bucks. So we're saying that we have $50 left and we would put the 30 percent of the $50?
>> no. Let me walk you through an example. Let's say it's owed in fines and fees and let's say 50 percent are fees, not fines. Let's further say that 50 percent of the fine is state.
>> $25.
>> $25. So what we are recommending is that you only assess the 30 percent on those old cases, if you decide to include those in rfs, on the fined amount. That would be the entire fine amount. I don't think we want to get into sorting out whether or not the fine is Travis County or the state.
>> what I am saying, leroy, so that 7.50.
>> that is 30 percent of 50. The entire fine in that example was $50 okay.
>> so you could only do 50 percent of that which takes it to $25.
>> the 50 percent would be Travis County's part in that.
>> the $25.
>> right. But our recommendation is to assess the 30 percent on the entire fine amount, whether it's Travis County's or the state. And you know, we can revisit that. One of the things we need to approach the legislature in the next session is to change the fact of the state, we need statute that would allow counties to recover any collection fees that they have paid in the collection of the state portion of fines and fees. I mean, if we can get that statute through in the next session, then it's fine. What I would suggest, since the rfs allows us, allows the jp's to determine which cases that we refer to a third party collector after we've done all the due diligence through central collection, is to leave this provision in the rfs. We have the ability to refine what we want to do on these old cases and we don't tie our hands but not including it in the rfs.
>> okay. But I want to go back to the math to make sure it makes sense still. So we have 50 bucks of a.
>> fine, right.
>> we can put 30 percent, so we can put $15.
>> that's correct.
>> and what we are going to say is that we ultimately will be responsible for the $15 payment for that third party doing that thing, so we have netted $35.
>> well, we have netted, in that example, our piece of that fine was only $25. So we would net $10 above the collection fee. But we are still netting, I mean we are still netting some money on these old cases.
>> yeah, I mean some percentage of something is better than, you know, 30 percent--
>> and it is true that the collection of the older account assists in the collection of currents accounts. A lot of these are the same people we are going after on a current basis.
>> the fact that we would have a third party that would be interested in doing it, and we're not going to lose money, then it's crazy for us not to try given that we are allowing our system to do everything within its power for us to do.
>> that's correct.
>> it's kind of like you might as well try to get something if you have some third party vendor that is willing to go after the business.
>> yes.
>> the state fees that we are collecting, do those include driver responsibility program fees?
>> do you know, deanna sm--deanna?
>> I don't know after the top of my head. I'm not surei --
>> I have not seen them in central collection. We have not seen them. Those cases have not been turned over to us yet by the jp to my knowledge. That is something we would have to check and give you an answer about.
>> that would be something I would like to know. Wholesale I'm mindful of what Commissioner Daugherty is saying if we can do a better job of collecting using a third party, my concern is that there will certainly be a third party willing to do it if the state driver responsibility program fees are included. Those are pretty hefty fees. If we are putting our 30 percent on both the state and the county portions together, that is a nice 30 percent.
>> the state driver responsibility fee is a thousand per year for three years.
>> we know what that is.
>> for dwi, that is the fee?
>> yes.
>> I can tell you the state has a contract with msb currently to collect those. So those are not going through us.
>> that is correct.
>> they are going straight from the state to msb currently.
>> and the reason why there's a third-party collector more than happy to collect those fees for the state.
>> absolutely.
>> yeah. I can tell you for a fact, those fees are not going through the jp's courts, not going through central collections or the county.
>> those are the ones that bps used to handle and take them through the jp and constable. Now they just go through to ms b?
>> msb has a state contract to collect those fees.
>> hmm.
>> okay.
>> my concern is, like I said, I'm mindful if it is more efficient for county government to do it this way. My concern, though, is that the 30 percent fee for the collection is essentially a tap on that person to collect the feement we are figuring out another way to move our cost from collection to a specific population and it's happening at our level, it seems rather small and innocuous. And why not have the debtor pay the cost of collection. But it's happening on such a grand scale at the state level that it makes me a little questionsy to be a part--queasy to be a part of it.
>> I think I understand how you feel. It probably is a problem for some folks. But you are trying to get something that is due you, due the publicbut the question is--
>> you have a--
>> but the question is--
>> you have a fine. If you pay your fine, which is what everybody is expected to d.
>> if the fine becomes so height and the collect --collection rate so low, sometimes it's appropriate for us to stop and say wait a minute, this is really a fine to punish and deter or is it a hidden cap.
>> I understand the philosophical point. Some people would probably agree with that. I'm just trying to find a way because we do have a responsibility to collect something that is due us. And I'm willing to not charge you one extra penny from what is on the citation that you get. That is the fine for what happened to you when you to this. You don't have to pay anything extra. But you know, unfortunately, we have a society that unless you have a club and force people to do what they should be expected to do, and what the majority of us do whenever we get a parking ticket or a moving citation, then I mean, we have the responsibility. I think we have the responsibility as government to do whatever it takes. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way you can do that is to make it a little more excruciating than what most people would want. I mean, just pay, the word ought to go out, just pay whatever you owe. Work out, I mean with us, we are talking about things that by this time, this deal gets to this purchased party, I --third party, I mean, the kids graduated. The thing goes on forever. People think, maybe if I don't pay any attention to it the government won't come after me. Which is the reason you go to jp courts you have 30,000 cases, I mean, in arrears. If you just collected the dougl that is due because of people doing unlawful things, you probably could set the tax rate at ten cents.
>> unlawful things you are talking about are traffic. Their truancy cases. We are not talking about big hairy scary criminals in the back door. We are talking about garden variety, oops, messed up, let me pay my debt. I think actually Commissioner Gomez has had personal experience with the constable. She can speak to this. A lot of these people that you are talking about forgot they had a traffic ticket, moved away from the university of Texas and are now working in dallas.
>> forgot.
>> that's it.
>> years ago we look at this. I remember pbo distinctly discussing collection. I remember meeting with leroy. We looked at the amount of money that owed Travis County for outstanding fines and fees that haven't been paid. In fact, it ended up coming to the court during that time. And Commissioner Daugherty and I kind of jumped out and looked at this at the will of the court. And we had meeting right here on this floor, right here. I can stel recall the different department heads that came in. We had the audit, district clerk all these folks sitting here out here discussing the outstanding fees. And it was a substantial amount of money that's owed Travis County. We are still working towards that end of trying to find out and go about a way to collect those fines and fees. Now, I really don't remember and recall how much money was owed then. It's been a few years ago, Commissioner. But it was a lot of money. I don't know what is owed the county right now as far as the outstanding fines and fees that are owed at this moment I don't really know what that figure is but it's a lot of money. What I'm saying, we need to get something in place to make sure we get some of this money back to the county, which is owed the county. And I have no problem going forward with this to move forward with it and collect some of this outstanding debt that is owed the county. But on top of that, it's another question I need to ask. And that is the hamer system that's being utilized in all of this my question with thehamer system the new upgrade and software, things like that, that's being looked at to make sure it's more efficient, it will do what as far as upgrading? I thought some of this stuff was maintenance and things like that no license agreement, all this other kind of stuff. But with this hamer would it still be able to move forward with con juckion of what we are dealing with the rfs? Is that everything still? Stride and step with this?
>> not a problem.
>> can somebody help me with this.
>> the current hamer system, let me answer that. I'm going to take just a moment.
>> thank you.
>> this does involve the hamer system? I'm trying to figure out whether this is related to the item.
>> it's related to the third-party system here.
>> go ahead.
>> in another county 60 days after you get the ticket it's automatically triggered to go to a third pnve party vendor, electronically transferred by the hamer system. Obviously it works with that third -party because they are getting it. Here we are not triggering 60 days after the ticket. Here the jp's look at these things and turn them over in the case that we are dealing with in precinct three, the constables are trying to collect individualsment I think stacy turned some over again yesterday. It goes back to the j p. The jp then sends them to us. We do multiple things. We sends out letters and postcards. We do skip tracing and telephone calls. At that point in time when there is nothing left to do, we then will talk to the jp and say this is where we are prepared to turn this over to the third party. I have, with the third party that we are using, which is not the one that they are using down in cameron county that is already working that I first talked about after 60 days, I have talked to they will and the --electronic files work fine with the third party vendors. That's two that we know that will be able to send the data to them if you all decide to go with the third-party vendor. Yes, sir, it has been tested, we are prepared. Reare ready. Sorry to take so long.
>> that's all right. Get explanation.
>> we have to pay 30 percent on the old cases? Why wouldn't we throw something out there like 15, 20 percent?
>> we leave it open and they tell us how much they would be willing to charge for those because there is not a 30 percent absolute set there.
>> the rfs.
>> our goal, if we select a vendor to collect the new stuff, we would expect to give the vendor, the contract for the old stuff too.
>> that's correct. That's the intent.
>> so the cherry, if there is any, would be the new stuff and the better part might be taking some of the old stuff too with a reduced rate, maybe make money there, maybe not.
>> that's good.
>> a couple other things that I saw in the backup. We say maintain full electronic patability with the county's computer system. We think that the doable.
>> that's what we're driving atwe.
>> we would work through the vendor.
>> in the hamer system. And the hamer system, the jp has that? They won't have to interact with the j p. They interact with you?
>> yes, sir, that is what the jp's requested.
>> we talked about that committee. Did we invite all the jp's to be on there?
>> the evaluation committee?
>> right. Our recommendation was to have, the jp's have elected judge bambry to represent them dealing with this, and can I go back and--
>> did we invite the jp's to be on there?
>> I did not.
>> I would extend the invitatoin. Because they are elected officials. Historically they have gotten together and selected a representative. If there is anybody that would be impacted at the county, it's probably them more than anybody else. Right?
>> 2508, the--well, actually the person that is going to be on impacted is to my left on central collections.
>> are you on the committee sh.
>> extend the invitatoin to him.
>> I'm just trying to collect money.
>> leroy, we're talking about tip --diplomacy here in pop ticks.
>> I understands. We worked over several of these issues. The answer six I do not need the court to designate the evaluation committee today. We have proposed this go out for three or four weeks on the street. You know, if the court is okay with rfs, and I'll defer to see it on how long she would like to keep it on the street for bids, then we would have it coming back the first part of October.
>> who is on the evaluation committee? Then cyd.
>> we haven't pick the evaluation committee yet. It committee has not been pick yet.
>> does the court approve that?
>> if you would like to, but normally you do not. You defer to the purchasing agent and the using department to decide who needs to be on the committee.
>> I think the court ought to approve this time.
>> and in my August 14 memo to the court, I did say the Commissioners court may desire to appoint the membership of the evaluation committee, and we are fine with that.
>> and we do need to know who that is before we put out the rfp so that they are added to the key list.
>> okay.
>> and the ethics policy. So if you are going to appoint them, we do need to know that prior to me issuing the rfp.
>> the recommendation was to have the tax assessor collector's office represented, the justice of the peace, we had indicated precinct 2, but we will follow all five elected officials, a member from the jp accounting staff, the auditor's office, its and pbo.
>> okay. Do you need offices listed or persons from there? We will need individuals. Then I went on to the say that the court may want to actually appoint the individuals to be represented on that evaluation committee.
>> I don't have any interest in pointing them. I have interest in approving them. I think we need to know the people. I mean, a lot of these offices have just numerous employees.
>> let me comment on that. With the exception of the issue on the jp's, our recommendation was to have judge b ambry serve for the jp's, dusty knight from the tax office, beth blanken ship from the auditor's office, lizmen from its and myself from pbo. Those are the individuals--
>> and joe.
>> and joe from the accounting staff. Those are our recommendations for the evaluation committee. We are glad to add or replace any of those members. Those are just the people that have been intimately involved in this entire process over the last six years.
>> I think you need to either invite all the jp's or you need to ask them to designate a representative. I'm thinking they will designate probably judge bembry anyway.
>> we can do that by anyway.
>> if those are the people. I don't have any problem. Those are the people that have committed to spippeding the time--spending time necessary to do the evaluation.
>> yes.
>> last week I asked can we get in writing from the elected officials, the ones that want to designate judge bembryation the person that needs to be a part of this. I didn't know if it had been followed up but the question was askedless week as far as the jp's were considered. I really had some concerns,ation the judge is stating here, by the elected officials. Was that done?
>> yes. I will be glad to get the jp's. I feel very comfortable speaking for the individual elected officials, that can I get each one of them to agree in writing to the designation of a representative or themselves serving on the committee.
>> we can do that by e-mail today.
>> I can tell you that it is a significant, a very significant amount of time that's going to be involved in the evaluation as we, several of us at this table, spent the last time that we went out for a similar rfi. And I can tell you that judge bembry has been using her visiting jp in order to spend the amount of time on this rfs, and the collection in general. But Commissioner, I'll be glad to follow up.
>> we don't have the authority to appoint somebody for the jp's since they are five elected officials. I would be surprised if they didn't designate judge bembry because she has been working on it. I would let them do it again.
>> we can formalize that very easily.
>> with that I move approval.
>> second.
>> I have just a few questions before we go there.
>> okay. Discussion.
>> do all the constables work the warrants the way precinct three does.
>> I'd have to defer to precinct three.
>> do all the constables work on warrant round up or is it just precinct three?
>> the majority of the constables offices are working the class a warrants.
>> they work them in their own office.
>> yes.
>> okay. When you do the warrants not all the constable offices work on the roundup, during the roundup?
>> the majority of the offices do.
>> but not all.
>> right.
>> the trend, I'm anticipating we will have 100 percent participation next year.
>> okay. Then when you all find somebody and they haven't paid, what do you all do with them?
>> .
>> check the money--
>> collect the money.
>> or?
>> collect the bond or jail.
>> okay. So we're going to have toe people coming to jail?
>> if they say they can't pay, then we refer them to Travis County collection and give them three days to work out a partial payment agreement with Travis County collections and the warrant gets recalled.
>> how many people do we think come to jail?
>> not very many at this point.
>> okay. They have to get booked but they don't stay?
>> no.
>> overnight?
>> no.
>> just wondering how that would affect the jail overcrowding issue for some fines and fees.
>> what happens is you have people with higher charges, say high checks, a's or b's or felonies, and as they are arrested on those charges or on traffic stop, the higher charges the class c charges get cleared on bill credit depending how much time they spend in corrections.
>> so if they can't pay, then they are going to be able to sit it out in jail.
>> our goal is not to have that happen except in the very extraordinary case. Because it doesn't make sense for us to lose the fine and fee plus spend $45. Historically we have tried to threaten more than carry it out.
>> uh-huh.
>> we put on you a payment plan and hopefully you keep your word on that. Every now and then, though, I guess we have to make an example out of a person or two. But hopefully that number remains very, very small.
>> that is the purpose of the warrant roundup.
>> and it does not work if we ticket them again in order not to be in jail. We need to kind of really take care of that issue because we don't want to have more people sitting in jail because they can't pay a fine.
>> our jailing rate is part of the collection process, is fairly low, we're able to work something out or make the collection or set up a partial payment plan that we have the tool at Travis County collections. A tool we didn't have several years ago. We have an extra ability in our collection arsenal now.
>> I guess, leroy, what I would like to have because I haven't heard nice these numbers in a long time,er how many warrants does each office have so we can kind of see the potential for how many would be sent to tax and then how many you all send to the third party. To kind of see what kind of, you know, what kind of numbers are we talking about here? Not only if what you think you are going to be able to collect but how many people potentially, could potentially wind up in in jail. You know, sitting out the fine and the fee. I'd like to have those numbers. I haven't heard them in a long time.
>> the outstanding warrants in each office?
>> the warrant workload that each office has. How many warrants do they have.
>> give her an example.
>> do you know how many warrants?
>> give her last month.
>> probably about 10,000 going back to 1989. 1800 of them prior to 2000.
>> one other thing, dovetailing with what Commissioner mez is --Gomez is saying, do we have collection rates for 2006?
>> we have the collection--
>> the purpose in hiring the third party is to do the collection that we would otherwise do (inaudible). Right?
>> yeah. And what was attached to the backup were the collection rates since January of '07 through central collections. Obviously, those are after the jp has done everything he or she can do. The five con stables, everything they can do. And then dusty gets it at central collections. And since January we have collected $921,000 through that process.
>> that is exactly what I was asking. It only goes to what (inaudible). After the jp has already worked it. After 2005, the jp mostly, with one exception, three of them were above the 90th percentile and two were below that. I think it would be valuable to know because we are essentially using the tax office and the third-party collector to do what used to be the jp's domain, that final ten percent. So I'd like the current collections. I don't want to see a circumstance where rather than funding the jp and the constable appropriately we start relying on the third party and we see a collection rate at jp of the 90th percentile or above go to 80th percentile. And now we are relying on third-party collector and (inaudible)
>> I would be surprised if the jp collection rate doesn't go up. This is the jp golden opportunity to get the low hanging fruit. Why spend time with the old stuff when you can send it out?
>> there's been an increase in the jp collection of fines and fees, the total amount. Because what the jp's will tell you is that once they get the packet to fill out to go to central collection and apply for a payment plan, now that we have credit cards the first time in the last year, they pull their credit card or their mother's or aunt's or uncle's and pay the thing so the total collections are going up. Otherwise they go over and pay partial payment. So the jp collection rate that's collected inside the jp or the constable is not going to be apples and apples. Now that we have a central collection.
>> I see what you are saying.
>> they are pushing as many people that can't pay the entire amount to dusty's group to set them up on a payment plan. And so we can get you whatever statistics that would give you more comfort in proceeding with this. You tell me which statistics you want.
>> that's why I was asking for the constable workload on warrants. You know, we do allocate staff to work on warrants. So that might be helpful too, the workload of warrants that each constable's office has and how many fte's they have dedicated to criminal division. That would be kind of helpful to see. Then the other reason why I think it would be helpful to me is to kind of see the potential, and we'll know how many paid when they go over to the tax office. But the ones that get send to the third party, that is the potential for people going to jail if they can't pay and they don't have a credit, they are not going to have credit cards, y'all.
>> but those people are not likely to go to jail. It's not like the msb or whoever it is goes out there. They are more likely to go to jail if they have an issue with the constable than they are, it's not like msb has somebody out there.
>> okay.
>> bringing you if.
>> what happens when msb handles them and they can't pay and they go talk to them and they can't pay? What do they do with them?
>> they keep calling you on the phone. They keep calling--
>> they call you or they call the constable?
>> they call the individual.
>> okay.
>> you need to come in and make a payment. You need to come in and make a payment.
>> okay.
>> they have people to work to whatever the law allows, to nine o'clock at night. If I can find you, I may call you every night. Ma'am, you told me you were going to come in and do something yesterday, and you haven't done it.
>> they send it back to you.
>> eventually, yes, they it back to me. We sit down and do a partial pay. As soon as they don't continue to do that, third party, you need to get back on these people. We are not sending the constable out to arrest.
>> okay. There's a good chance they will get a warrant roundup card. And what Travis County cleb shunce is doing.
>> --collections is doing.
>> shall not initiate contact with the defendant in person outside of the contractor's place of business. That means basically contractor can stay at the office and make phone calls all he wants to. She is not supposed to go and fine the defendant. That is for the constable.
>> okay.
>> how long, let me just finish.
>> go ahead.
>> if you have the warrant, if the person either when I receive it or if it goes to msb and the person starts making, makes partial payment, we identify back to the constables so they are not going to go out and arrest the person because they are abiding by it and making partial payment.
>> do you want to take more time? We can provide more information off the neck few weeks while we are waiting for responses to the rfq, rfi, rfs, whatever rf this is.
>> how long will this process takes in the court decides to vote in favor of moving forward with this item? The process itself.
>> as soon as the court, the court will need to take action on the membership of the evaluation committee, which I assume would be next week because I do need to poll the jp's and follow up on that.
>> if a motion is made today to move forward--
>> right.
>> what I'm asking for is how long will the process take, including what your input is as far as the evaluation team, as far as coming back to the court. How long are we looking at with this thing here?
>> I'll let travis answer that.
>> can somebody tell me?
>> sure. If we come back and get approval for the committee, the membership, and that is released sometime that week, we will put a target date of October 9, a little over four weeks, depending when it would go out next week. If it won't out exactly on Tuesday, that would be five weeks. I spoke with cyd, normally once the court approves they get it out within a few days. Somewhere between four and five weeks the vendors would have an opportunity to take a look at that. And turn the information back to us on October 9. We can extend or shorten depending what the court's desire is.
>> why don't we approve the committee that you submitted including judge bembry, or bring back and changes. The names are fine by me, instead of the departments a name is better, and a person committed to work on this is even better.
>> rightif that.
>> if that is the case. If we get everything resolved this week and cyd can get it out we can have it back as soon as October 2, which would still give them a little bit over four weeks.
>> that's fine with me. I think the most ought to include those names and if there are changes bring it back.
>> I have no problem.
>> a second?
>> have I no problem.
>> anymore discussion? Anything we possibly did not say? All in favor show Commissioners dougherty, Davis, yours trily voting in favor, voting against, Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner eckhardt. Thank you all for your fine work. See you soon. Move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> sorry, the rest of you, we take you this afternoon. If you get back here at two o'clock, you are probably in good shape. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
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, August 29, 2007, 18:30 AM