Travis County Commissioners Court
April 15, 2008
Item 21
21. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, Travis County 457 deferred compensation plan investment policy; b, prepare and release a request for proposals (rfp) for plan administrative services for the deferred compensation 457(b) plan; c, contract with the retirement store to assist in rfp preparation and review; and d, proposed time line for rfp issuance, review and contract award.
>> good morning, alicia perez, the court last December, really of '06, authorized the -- the formation of a committee. -- the 457 deferred compensation program is a -- is a program where employees are allowed to defer tax free funding. We have had this program since about 1978, 79, at this points in time, there is about $31 million worth of assets that belong to -- to employees of Travis County. The committee that is overseeing this particular fund consists of 11 members and they represent various departments, management, employees, employees that participate in the program, and employees that don't participate in the program. We have been working with -- with mr. Al decristofara of the retirement store providing consulting work and this is the first time that we've come back to the court with recommendations. The committee did elect a chairperson in norman mcree I知 going to turn that over to him, he can go over the rest of the report and the recommendations.
>> thank you. Judge, Commissioners, we have been meeting regularly since October and since that time the committee has been educated to a great degree on our plan thanks to our consultant al and we've come to the conclusion and recommendations that you have before you that we believe that we should go out for an rfp for this plan. We started with an investment policy statement that we developed using a model and we -- we discussed that thoroughly, we think that we have a good policy statement here as part of this -- part of this item as well that we would like you to approve. We have -- we do want, also, to -- to continue with -- with al's assistance or retirement source assistance if you approve to go out for an r.f.p., his assistance in developing that and reviewing it, also attached a time line here to give an idea to the court on -- on the time line, we would like to have this process completed as early as possible, September. So that we would have time for transition if needed. And you have your backup and any questions?
>> do you think this time line for this r.f.p. Is aggressive? Do you think that it's -- is this something in your opinion or anybody's opinion on the committee, is this going to frighten anybody to see that this is the reaction time that you have to deal with? This kind of project?
>> it is aggressive and there may be a couple of changes on the time line. The -- the r.f.p. Release date may be changed from Friday to the following Monday. That was -- that was a note we got from lollie in purchasing that that would be more reasonable for them to do that. So if we would make that one change on the r.f.p. Release date and if there are other changes necessary as we go through the process we will bring that to your attention. But it is an aggressive, it is aggressive, it's necessary in order for us to have this process completed. The -- the current contract expires December 12th. So -- so we need to have a decision made if we need that transition period.
>> why wouldn't we have started this earlier?
>> we did.
>> why -- then why -- then why didn't we start it and get it done in a period where -- where we might not have had this kind of a time line? Could we have done that? I mean, what I don't want to see y'all is somebody looking at this stuff and going I知 messing with that I mean this is a crazy time line we're not going to get there, I mean, --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> requirement the county put on itself. We were careful about the two things that were most important. Getting a good response. One of those things
>> [indiscernible] there are certain regulations --
>> please point the microphone.
>> microphone, please.
>> sorry. There's certain requirements that the sec has about notifying participants about changes. We have left enough time in there at the end for the switchover if there's going to be one so that all of those notifications can be done. That's the September, October, November, like three and a half months for implementation. So -- so we've also given the vendors what's it, six weeks or two months?
>> six weeks, I think.
>> six weeks to respond, that's what al said he felt was reasonable in the market. Where we will be pushed is internally.
>> we started working last October, the -- the policy that the investment policy that you see here took a lot of discussion. We had very good participation from all of the employees and so what you see here is a consensus of 11 individuals, very diverse folks and bringing forward a packet, not just one item.
>> okay. What was the vote on issuing the r.f.p.?
>> unanimous.
>> unanimous.
>> 11 voting members?
>> it's been the -- it's been the sort of a point of disagreement in the past, right?
>> not for the committee. We have had the same vote and the -- and the there has been consensus on the committee. Twice.
>> you say consensus. They say unanimity. There's been unanimity?
>> the current committee which began meeting in October is unanimous. The previous committee I don't know what --
>> I don't remember whether it was consensus or unanimous, but I知 thinking it was closer to unanimous than it was to consensus. I知 thinking there may have been one or two medical, but not -- one or two people --
>> I知 recalling knock town during out discussions up here in the courtroom. Are you blaming the Commissioners court?
>> from up here there was
>> [laughter]
>> never, judge.
>> [laughter]
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> democracy is never to blame.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> 1300 employees who are contributing to this fund and I do like the fact that on the investment objectives, item 4, it does say that participants and beneficiaries alone bear the risk of investment results from the investment options and asset mixes that they select. I think that ought to be prominent on the policy. I think it ought to be prominent everywhere. Although I have fiduciary responsibility for the funds, I don't have responsibility for the investment decisions that employees make and they need to really pay attention to this. The one thing that I do feel responsibility for is I -- I would like to have a statement that says that no one loses any money because there really shouldn't be any -- I think the expectation of some people is I知 a small investor, I知 putting a -- small amounts of money in there and surely we're not relying on this one fund to -- to provide us great retirement options. It should supplement and -- but surely we're not relying on this fund to give us all of the things that we need and -- in retirement. And but I think there are some -- some employees who see that as a -- I知 a small investor. I知 not choosing to take any risks on anything that happens here and I want it to remain that way. And so -- so I知 not -- those are the folks that I知 really concerned about. Now there will be some other folks who are really good at this. They -- they like to take risks and they will move their money around and -- and weekly, however weekly or daily basis that they are allowed to do that. So that they can realize bigger returns. And -- and those I知 not as concerned about, but I知 sure they will make decisions for themselves. But for the small investors, I am really -- really concerned that -- that we have the built in what, what do you call them, built in -- built in --
>> guarantees.
>> yeah.
>> ms. Wilson wants to add that point. To minimize the risk. I don't think people can guarantee that people don't lose money. For instance in the fixed fund as it currently exist, if nationwide were to go belly up, fixed fund --
>> I heard about that.
>> would be wiped out.
>> I know. I think that --
>> well not wiped out, but subject to -- to -- to bankruptcy, it would be proceeds of the -- of the assets of nationwide subject to the bankruptcy court.
>> we need to put that also out there. That there are some risks for everybody. Whether you are a small investor or a medium or big. We do a fiduciary duty to provide a menu of choices that are optimal for our employees. I don't think that there's any way that we could guarantee that their personal choices don't result in a loss of money.
>> but I think -- do we also, do we have -- do we have the ability to get information as to the -- to the financial stability of the different funds. That people are investing in. If we see that there's a real risk to -- to whoever, you know, whoever is holding that fund. Then I think we need to notify that's what I consider fiduciary responsibility then, for us to provide information to the employees and say guess what? You may have to do something different here. And so that you don't lose any money.
>> but Margaret, somebody is going to have to give that advice. And anybody that -- anybody -- the best expert in the milky way, I mean, doesn't know that. I mean, you -- when you put money in the investment, you have the potential of losing some money, period. Even if you take the safest and just put your money in a -- in an interest bearing cding the, it's not that -- that a -- cd account, it's not that a major institution can't go under and get caught up in, you know, bankruptcy and the whole deal.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... And that's where I知 calling them small investors, and where I think that we need to share this policy and share how this works with all of the employees, and is the committee going to do that? The committee that is in place.
>> that's why we started with this policy.
>> and that would be explained to all of the folks who participate, especially the small investors.
>> ms. Wilson is recognized.
>> the committee has struggled with exactly the issue that the Commissioner is concerned about, and the committee has looked at both sides, which said the problem is, as al keeps telling us, if you jump too fast to pull an investment off, that's the one that is doing to jump back and make incredible returns in the next quarter. But what the committee has decided to do is indicate that changes have occurred in a particular investment. For instance, one of the things that makes it important that you pay attention to an investment and how it's doing is whether or not the managers of the -- like a mutual fund have changed. If that happens, we're not going to put a note on the thing that says warning, warning, but we are going to say note that the managers of this fund has changed, so that anybody who has that fund will see that on that statement. And they can then watch it more closely to make sure. One of the companies, I can't remember who it was that we were talking about at the last meeting, the manager had changed, and that was a positive sign, because in the next quarter the earnings of that particular fund went up, but you just need to watch when that kind of thing happens. Another indication of a problem is that the -- it's fallen in its performance compared to its peers. That kind of comment will be put on there, the reason to look at it will be attached to the statement, but not an alert to, say, do something about it, because you're supposed to be watching. You're not supposed to be necessarily jumping too quickly because it may -- it may be very well that it's not a -- it's not going to be a permanent thing and in fact you would do better to say where you are than to move.
>> I understand that, barbara. It's just that not everybody will watch that every month or every quarter when you get that report. Not everybody watches that. They should, but they don't.
>> and so --
>> and you cannot -- and some people will watch it all the time. There's people -- we just have a different group of people in this 1300, you have a range of --, you know, a huge range of how people deal with this. I want to make sure that we touch base with all of these folks and let them know what changes are taking place here at the county, with the -- with the policy, with the rsp, with how to -- how to do better on watching your statement and evaluating that, and so that there are no surprises to people. What happened here, you know?
>> ms. Perez was about to speak a minute ago.
>> to that end, Commissioner, we've done several things. We have posted the meetings of the committee on the internet, the committee took a vote to have all the meetings opened to any employee who wanted to attend. We invited both associations and asked me to the meetings. We have and on site representative from nationwide that people can see and do see on a regular basis. Any company that we would consider to serve as the administrator for this program, we would also ask them to have and on site representative so that they will explain all the choices to employees, usually a risk assessment is done with an individual, if they decide to join the program, then that will tell them whether they are -- want to invest in cds or in mutuals that are tied to stock. So there's several things. The employee also gets a quarterly statement that will tell them what their year-to-date return is. We insisted on that, so that has been changed. So there's several things that we do to try to inform and educate the employee.
>> can investor meetings be held on county property like maybe in the evening or maybe -- I don't know, whenever it's convenient, to kind of have those kinds of meetings? I mean dell has some. Other companies have them.
>> we could have training.
>> okay, so there is a meeting people can -- okay.
>> I was just going to respond with the last discussion, of course done several things in the last couple of years, one is appointing a committee, and reviewing the plan last year, and the committee's first step was to do an investment policy statement so that we would have a document that employees could read and understand what the committee is -- the role of the committee is and what their role is in choosing investments and what their risk might be, and so I think that is an important step and we spent a lot of time on the policy statement and, again, it's unanimous document, and we would ask your approval of that.
>> now, can we delay action on the policy statement a week, but move on the other three items?
>> on the policy statement itself? I don't -- is there any issue with that on r.f.p. Development.
>> it should be part of the r.f.p. Process.
>> if they make a decision next week about the policy...
>> it would still be fine.
>> okay. We have not had a policy statement before, right?
>> that's correct.
>> okay. I will need another week and I promise to spend a little bit more time than I have already. So there are no policies, okay? So for the unsophisticated investor, like the county judge, we do provide some sort of -- provide some orientation before you sign up?
>> yes.
>> is there like a simple one-page sort of risk statement that we can hand to you? Because I do think you ought to know, I mean there may be circumstances that occur that cause you to lose your interest or... And I guess...
>>
>> [inaudible]
>> I thought that was part of the negotiation process.
>> it is.
>> yeah.
>> but I have a question simpler than that. And I do recall being told myself that there are no guaranties there, but the one with the annuity type one, where you guaranteed a certain interest, even that is based on certain assumptions, right?
>> right.
>> and on the other investments, you are really trying to make more but you risk more, and after the meeting, I thought I understood that, but at the same time I mean I do think it would help to kind of hand somebody something to bring home that point.
>> I don't have the documents or haven't seen the documents, but I know that we do have a representative that who attends the new employee orientations, and also is available for any employee interested in the plan to sit down, go over all the options and explain them, and I would advise employees who are interested in the program to take advantage of that.
>> what I have in mind is the court seeing that between now and next week.
>> the risk assessment.
>> and if what is being provided currently is not consistent with what you would like to see provided to employees, we can always ask our provider to give them an additional statement that we prepare and the community can work on that.
>> let me -- if we can ask if there's any f.c.c. --
>> it's not an f.c.c. Requirement, per se, but there is from an industry perspective, best practice is to use some type of a risk tolerance questionnaire that allows people to find out risk they're willing to bear in the program and then leads to selection of fund options that achieve that risk objective. And actually there are new products available in the marketplace, too, that we intended to ask for through the r.f.p. Process, and those products, what is popular -- what has become popular in the industry is a product called target date funds, so rather than going through the whole risk tolerance thing, an option available to people is simply to choose a fund that has a maturity date, so to speak, that is closest to their expected date of retirement, so for example, if you're planning to retire in 2015, you may put your money in the 2015 fund or 2020, or 2030, that -- and it's -- what I like about that, it simplifies this process immensely, and as someone grows older and more match in their career, then that fund is automatically balanced to take less risk than you were earlier on in your career. But like I said, it's a new opportunity available in the investment, something we plan to ask for in the bid process.
>> we'll get you what nationwide uses.
>> yeah, maybe get -- this discussion has sort of generated a need to see exactly what we do. The -- but, I don't know, it seems to me that on b, have we started preparing the r.f.p.?
>> no, we're waiting for approval to do that.
>> all right, then I think -- I mean I have no problem with doing that. We can do that with the policy, with understanding next week we can revisit the policy statement, try to land on it, may well not be any changes recommended. In fact, I had planned to ask that for our current policy statement so I could compare the two, but if we don't have one, that simplifies that.
>> naco had an investment policy, and we had depended on naco to administer or to develop that sort of policy for us, and I can get you that, if you would like to compare it to that one.
>> well, I mean, if we -- they sent us what we've been using?
>> yes, sir.
>> that's what I need to see, I guess.
>> why don't you get a chair and get a microphone where you can talk. We can't have you talk from over there.
>> the issue with the contract is we do not -- I haven't seen it. I got a verbal quote from al just now, and the court currently has a contract where you can pay them just hourlyor at I would prefer would be that he give us a cost proposal, and negotiate that, and then have you approve that.
>> okay. B is the r.f.p. We have to approve that for you to go ahead and start working on it?
>> yes.
>> I move approval.
>> before you know what it's going to cost you?
>> we need to put this together, come back to us.
>> so we're paying him to develop the r.f.p. --
>> it's a separate item, though. C goes to that. B goes to whether or not we're going to issue an r.f.p.
>> okay, and then if we're going to hire --
>> he's been working with us, what, two years.
>> three.
>> three years. We need to put together an r.f.p.
>> and you're confident that you can do that by next Monday?
>> no, I知 not. Not at all.
>> well, that is what that -- the draft r.f.p.s for consultant due Monday, next Monday.
>> right. We have been discussing this for three years?
>> uh-huh, yes.
>> get as much done as we can.
>> but I don't think --
>> we can't get done without moving to start on it. We'll get to your point, any discussion of b? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. B is a contract issue, what you're saying is you need to negotiate further with our consultant.
>> he is going to develop the scope of the work for the r.f.p., so he's going to have to -- we're going to have to decide on what we're doing to pay him to do that for us. Then authorize him to start the work, he's got to prepare the scope of the work and get it back to us, so we will not -- I don't see us doing that by next Monday. They're only giving al 7 days to do his part.
>> we've been working with al three years, I don't know -- you haven't received any new certification dramatically increase your fee, have you?
>> I mean people look at draft r.f.p.s throughout the year. This is not the first time we'll recommend it so...
>> let me ask you a question: do you think we're that far apart on what his fee will be.
>> I would like to negotiate the price down.
>> we have a current contract in place which doesn't cover the r.f.p., development or evaluation, but the current contract is authorized up to $50,000.
>> $175 an hour.
>> which we all approved and said --
>> right. But you said there was no scope that included r.f.p. Work. That was in the initial contract, and then the price came down and the subsequent mod that y'all did not approve, so we've got quite a variance, so I agree that does need to be clarified, but I don't see it as a -- I don't see it as something that could or should slow down our admittedly aggressive time frame relationship over three years.
>> you have a little less than $20,000 left, I believe, on this contract.
>> so is the question if he works between now and next week, what is he paid?
>> correct.
>> why wouldn't we continue the $175 an hour?
>> that is fine.
>> is that agreeable?
>> if that is how --
>> try to have a contract next week to approof and also try to have the r.f.p. Or as much work done as possible. Is that okay with you?
>> sure.
>> and we have funding in the account --
>> plus y'all can keep negotiating the contract, and what the issues are, next week we just try to blend them.
>> if that is how y'all want to proceed.
>> miss wilson.
>> to clarify, the current contract says that anything assigned by Commissioner's court, so the current contract could be interpreted to include preparation of the r.f.p., if that's what the Commissioner's court wants. What sid is talking about is that when we negotiated with al two or three years ago, he gave us a fixed price for the preparation and all the stuff related to the r.f.p. And she's looking at putting a maximum on him in relation to the r.f.p. , within the contract, in addition to what is already there. So we're both covers and not covered.
>> well, do we think we can get the r.f.p. By al for the remaining $20,000 that we've got under present contract?
>> uh-huh.
>> I mean it -- I mean that would -- would that work?
>> sure, if you want to pay him $20,000 or $19,000, or $10,000. We can pay up to --
>> allow me to ask this question of al. The original contract was a fixed amount. Am I correct in assuming that the subsequent contract was put at an hourly rate because this is taking far more time than you anticipated?
>> that's correct, Commissioner.
>> okay. And in light of the fact that this has been a three year project, it doesn't sound like we're that far apart. Can the remaining work be done within the -- the monetary constraints to have existing contract?
>> I believe so.
>> so for the $20,000 we think we can get the r.f.p.
>> I just did a very rough draft on taking the elements of the r.f.p. Process and -- and estimating a cost, and I came up with a total of 19,000. And that -- and honestly I did not know there was 20,000 remaining on the existing contract. And quite honestly, my -- my fees to do something like this are embarrassingly cheap. My competitors, who are primarily national in nature, but to go to bid process for a plan like this would typically cost you in the neighborhood of $40,000, plus so...
>> $31 million fund so...
>> the other interests have a different purchasing agent, though.
>> that's right. That's right. Because I did my own figuring and we do this -- I mean I have -- al has been wonderful. I知 not -- this is not about expertise or experience, this is strictly a business and how much we're going to pay for what I think is fair and reasonable. And it's your decision, so -- that you have brought to my attention, and this quite frankly goes maybe I need to talk to alicia or to al, is that you were fearful that this contract that we have had to date that we are going to get through this contract and still have to turn around and pay for an additional amount of money for al to do the r.f.p., what I知 hearing now is that we can get this r.f.p. Dealt with with this contract that we have now, which is roughly about $20,000 left in the contract, we started with a $31,000 contract and we spent about half of that, didn't do any r.f.p. Work, then we had another contract where we had al work with nationwide to get a much better deal for us and he did all of that work, the investment policy, then working with the committee, doing training, so when I looked at this, I thought we exceeded the contract amount, when we look at the specific wording, I did renew a new contract, did extend that four months ago and add another $20,000, so you did have $50,000, so we -- although we've paid him 32, we've not exceeded the 50, but when I first looked at it, looked like we had exceeded the 31,000.
>> well, that's what -- and that's the reason that you caused me to go, wait a minute, what are we doing here. But now this is not the case.
>> in the original contract with the pricing that he gave us to do some of these tasks, I think they're a little bit high, I would be willing to negotiate, if you're willing to pay him hourly, whatever it is that comes out at 50,000. They're different stages of that. They're issuing it, there's getting it back, there's evaluating it, so we include in all of that.
>> no, he's going to be an advisor of the purchasing committee to follow the process. Lolly will draft the document once he submits the scope of work and criteria, barbara will look at, in this time line we won't have time. Other committee members will evaluate proposals. He won't be the only person evaluating the proposals.
>> but he will help us through the evaluation process. All the committee will devote whatever time is necessary to review all the documents.
>> and another thing is the number of proposals we get back. If we get two back -- if we get five back --
>> what we need is for him, after we finish in court today, to start working on the draft r.f.p. For us.
>> uh-huh.
>> and the court, I think, is of one opinion on if you don't have that contract done next week, we'll just pay him the hourly fee for work that he does.
>> I ask legal, though, isn't the contract done, though? I mean isn't the contract in place, with the $50,000 cap? Although I completely understand ms. Grimes' concern. It does appear that the contract is in place although it doesn't have the language that I would prefer that is explicit in regards to the development of the r.f.p., it does have some catch-all language underwhich that activity can be described.
>> if you vote for him to provide r.f.p., you have provided instructions that fit within the catch-all.
>> I would have preferred that the subsequent contract exclusively laid out the scope of services regarding the consulting services around the r.f.p., but the catch-all language will do, and --
>> and we can amend the contract next week with that language in it to address scope of services, if you want to.
>> yeah, we ought to have that specific language, I think, if we can get it. Who approval of b. Is there a second.
>> I thought we did b, we're on c.
>> sorry. C.
>> second.
>> with the understanding that we -- today, we do need a --
>> the contract is already approved. We don't know what this piece of it is going to cost us. There's no language in the current contract.
>> come back with language next week.
>> but my understanding is is that this -- we're going to get al to do this r.f.p. And to take us through this process for the remaining money that we've got in this contract.
>> if you pay him hourly and don't know what it's going to take, you might spend it out. I知 saying he and I should agree to a lump sum payment based on how -- you know, based on one thing is the number of proposals, if you get ten proposals, going to take them longer, if we only get two proposals.
>> renegotiation of the contract.
>> no, no, just what he will do for this specific piece of it.
>> if y'all can get that done, my motion is get it done.
>> we can do that today, I think.
>> in the spirit of this, right, we need him to keep working for us to meet the schedule, hopefully next week you will come back with a specific contract that deals with all of the specifics of the scope of service and if there's a lump sum you've agreed on, fine.
>> well, my spirit of the second was because my intentions is for al to help you with this r.f.p., and to take this committee through the r.f.p. Process, period, and that's -- and we know not to exceed the $50,000, which we effectively got as we said about $20,000. You're sitting there shaking your head. Say it. If this is something.
>> I think we agree to a lump sum payment, if we disagree, we can bring it back. The contract is in place, I don't have to come back next week unless you want to know specifically what you're going to pay for this piece of it.
>> are you going to bring that back before lunch or before the end of the day? Because what I don't want to happen is great, she told me this is the deal, sid and I are going to be too different on this kind of thing, we get this deal back, we're already in a time line where we need to move forward, I mean and now if you can do that before lunch --
>> al said he was rushed down here and he wasn't able to e-mail it to me, so hopefully he can pull up his e-mail and get it to me. We can come back after lunch.
>> well, we've been working with him three years, I知 not sure I知 fearful of what will happen between now and next Tuesday. I feel a whole lot better giving y'all sufficient time to negotiate than insisting on getting something back within the next hour.
>> I mean -- but I guess, we need him to keep -- we need him to keep working.
>> we need him to start working. He hasn't even started on the scope of work.
>> and the r.f.p. Is important also for us to try to approve that next week, right?
>> and also considering our experience here today, I have sympathy for someone wanting to do this on an hourly rate instead of lump sum, and I will take him at his word that the remaining -- the remainder of the work can be done westbound the cap, I do think it would be good to have more explicit language for the contract, but I知 not fearful that we're going to bust the cap unless of course we spend a lot more days like today.
>> there is -- I just want to --
>> ms. Wilson, then ms. Perez.
>> I think in view of the way that most of our contracts are written, it's important that the court clarify in its motion that even if there's negotiation to be done on the pricing, any work that al does between now and the time that any amendment to the contract he's approved will be paid for and is to be included in the work that is talked about in any subsequent amendment, because there's a provision in the contract usually that says you don't get paid if it's before the modification or amendment is approved and what you're -- what I知 hearing very strongly from the court is that you want him to be paid for everything he does between now and the time that the contract is in a finalized form. His contract is in a finalized form.
>> I think that is right. This court is on record as being against slave labor.
>> [laughter] even by consultants. Now, we all seem to be in agreement on this. You'll keep working, try to come up with a lump sum contract that sets out specifics of a scope of service. Our consultant agrees to go ahead and keep working on not only that scope of service and lump sum negotiation with ms. Sid, but also to prepare an appropriate r.f.p. For our consideration next week, and if we need to fall back f. They're unable -- unable to achieve a lump sum contract by agreement, then we will simply fall back on the hourly compensation language in the current contract. That covers most of it, doesn't it?
>> uh-huh.
>> are we leaving anything out?
>> does your -- does the motion approve the modification of the contract to include the r.f.p., the current contract?
>> uh-huh. They will bring it back.
>> we should be able to see exactly what it includes next week.
>> okay.
>> but certainly our intention is, I think, just that. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. C?
>> the last item is the time line. Maybe some adjustments to that, we can bring that back next week with adjustments if you would like.
>> yeah, I think we ought to, and we ought to stick to this as closely as we can. Because it will -- each action here will have a ripple effect, right if.
>> exactly.
>> exactly.
>> but we ought to be realistic upfront.
>> the big change to the time line that needs to be made based on imhents of the our, is if the committee did not anticipate bringing the r.f.p. To the court before it was released, and the court has said in several comments, when the r.f.p. Comes to the court, so next Tuesday to review the r.f.p.?
>> I think the court needs to see it.
>> okay.
>> well, I mean I love y'all like...
>> let's not get a
>> [inaudible]
>> sownlds to me like we may get it Monday.
>> we will have to get it Monday. The time lines are moving -- we'll try our best to get done, we've got legal advertising dates that we have to meet, so a lot of things ping off of that date.
>> there's standard r.f.p. Language which we probably see all the time.
>> yes.
>> there's new and different language that really will pertain to this specific project, so if somebody could outline -- somebody could underline that for us, so if it's 50 pages but we really need to pay close attention to ten or twelve, we could do that, see what I知 saying, or putting asterisks in the margin.
>> we can put highlight on it, all in yellow or whatever color y'all like best.
>> anything similar to that is good, yes.
>> judge, I just have one other thing to point out to the court in terms of the time line, and the negotiations of the contract. If you look at the time line, go down to Tuesday, August 26th of '08, where the agenda items for the court consideration for award of the contract, that would be -- would end the services that ms. Grimes and mr. Farro will negotiate. We may need more services for the transition time, because you award the contract and then there's transition of all of the funds, if you have another contract, so just so you're aware of that.
>> which would not fall under the current contract? That would be a subsequent negotiation.
>> it's in the current contract, but you might not have the money to cover it. If you spend the money on the r.f.p. That is a concern for me, that the rolling nature of this, we need to be going in with our eyes fully opened as the cost of the consultant services, not that it isn't worth it, but just that we know -- we know what the costs are. I do get very concerned that we aren't 100% honest with ourselves about the cost of our actions.
>> and if we could have some of the committee members work that are familiar with transition, I think leroy is someone that is familiar with that, that would make sure that we cover everything.
>> then I would request that although it's not covered by the agenda item today, that perhaps we have a subsequent agenda item regarding if we don't need an agenda item, I知 great with that, to develop a prospectus for those services as well and costing them out.
>> right. And certainly at, you know, obviously at that last date here on August 26th, we would bring back to the court any contract agreements if needed at that point as we get down the road and see how much we expended of the current contract.
>>
>> ... (from 11:00 am until 11:01 am the remaindered of item 21's discussion was not captioned.)
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, April 16, 2008 8:51 PM