HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-26-0900AM-Regular01
•
i
t
4
r
,
g i
3 ;
i'
t
f
4 �
t
1
3
e
7
y t
7
s
I
BRAZOS COUNTY
= HRYAN. TEXAS
AGENDA
± , ` �: 0
t.
gg rlRY 21 PH Il: 34
r,�:.�....... , tLM
efti.ZQS coua� ti' . :�: NOUSE
. •r„H. � X;.�
8Y }.DUTY
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY,
MAY 26, 1998 AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM OF THE
BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 300 EAST 26TH STREET, SUITE 115, BRYAN,
TEXAS.
1. invocation - Judge Jones.
2. Pledge of Allegiance - Judge Jones.
3. Citizens input and/or concerns. At this time, the Judge will open the floor to citizens
wishing to address the Court on county- related issues not scheduled on the agenda. Please
limit subject matter to five minutes. The :.ommissioners will receive the information,
conduct research into the matter, and/or place the matter on a future agenda for
discussion. (A record is made of the meeting; therefore, please give your name and
address for the record.)
Consider and take action on agenda items 4 - 19:
4. Approval and presentation of Proclamation for "National Relay for Life Month."
5. Budget Amendment 97/98 -30.
6. Personnel Action Forms.
7. Payment of Claims.
8. Implementation of new salary structure for County employees.
9. Contract with Brazos County Emergency Communications District for service for the
Brazos Valley Narcotic Trafficking Task Force.
10. Quitclaim Deed and authorization for County Judge to execute quitclaim deed for
.0039830 Royalty interest , C.W. Moody #1 Well, BWU Tract #59, Bryan/Woodbine
Field, Moses Baine League, Abstract 3, City of Bryan, to Julie Anderson.
11. Appointment of an interim administrator for the Purchasing Department.
12. Appointment of member to the Rural Fire Prevention District #1 Board of Directors.
13. The Final Plat of Whispering Ridge, 23.056 acres, Stephen Jones Survey. Site is located
in Precinct 1.
i 14. Blanket Purchase Orders.
ti
i
7
F:
■'M
Commissioners Court Meeting Agenda
May 26, 1998 1
Page Two
0
15. Requisitions from Capital Projects Fund:
a. Radios for Constable, Precinct 4
b. Fuel tanks with pumps for Road & Bridge
c. 7' rear blade for Road & Bridge
d. Server located in Auditors Office
e. External tape drive for server located in Auditor's Office
f. Intranet 10 user additive license for Auditor's Office
g. Replacement printer for County Attorney
16. Requisitions from General Fund - Capital Outlay:
a. MS Office Profession '97 for Constable, Precinct 6
b. MS Office Profession '97 for Purchasing Department
17. Contract with Tanner Consulting for Electronic Records Management Consultant Services,
RFP #98 -018.
18. Revised Policy and Procedures for Capital Asset Acquisition and use of Capital Project
Funds.
19. Revised Policy and Procedures for Purchasing Manual:
a. Rescind current manual dated 1996
b. Approve resolution adopting Purchasing Policy
c. Acknowledge Purchasing Procedures
20. Acknowledge receipt of monthly reports from department heads and elected officials.
21. Call for citizen input.
22. Announcement of interest items and possible future agenda topics.
23. Adjourn.
The Courthouse is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request
for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements,
call (409) 3614102.
r VO L 9 T
WAN
•
*I
w
Y
X
4
ti
t
r
I;
f
f
t
Y,
t
r
a
t
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 26, 1998
A regular meeting of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos
County, Texas was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom in the
Courthouse in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas, beginning at 9:00
a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, with the following members of
the Court present:
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding;
Tony Jones, Commissioner of Precinct 1;
Wm. S. Thornton, Commissioner of Precinct 2;
Randy Sims, Commissioner of Precinct 3;
Carey Cauley, Jr., Commissioner of Precinct 4, Absent;
Mary Ann Ward, County Clerk.
Attached is a list of the citizens and officials in
attendance.
The County Judge gave the invocation and led the pledge
of allegiance.
There was no citizen input and /or concerns.
The County Judge read aloud a Proclamation designating
the month of June, 1998 as "National Relay for Life Month ".
The Court joins with the local American Cancer Society in
urging citizens to join in the campaign to save lives, create
awareness and continue the fight against cancer. On motion by
Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioners Thornton, Sims
and the County Judge, the Court moved to proclaim the month of
June 1998 as "National Relay for Life Month" throughout Brazos
County. The County Judge then presented the signed
Proclamation to Mrs. Sutton Pitcock, representing the local
American Cancer Society.
The Court next considered Budget Amendment #97/98 -30.1
through 30.6, which would increase funds budgeted for
Agricultural Extension Services, Road & Bridge, Juvenile
Services, reallocate funds for the Purchasing Department,
Constable Precinct 6,; and create a line item in the County
Records Management Fund. On motion by Commissioner Sims,
seconded by Commissioner Thornton, the Court voted unanimously
*J lu ry.++� r
i
i
I •
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
to approve the budget amendment as submitted, a copy of which
is attached hereto.
The Court proceeded to consider the change of status of
the following employees.
NAME DEPARTMENT REASON
Holzfaster, Jerry Bldg. Maintenance Retirement
Murphy, Joe Brazos Center Resignation
Jobe, Hudson Brazos Center New Emp Temp
Zweifel, Shawn S BVNTTF Resignation
Smith Portia Juvenile Serv. Lat Tran n /Dept
Munoz, Patrick Juvenile Serv. Lat Tran n /Dept
Earp, Jason Road & Bridge Promotion
Cole, Marlin Jr. Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Castillo, Domingo Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Toliver, Alfred Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Guyton, Terry Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Stanfield, K M Tax Office New Emp Temp
on motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Thornton, the Court voted unanimously to approve the changes
as submitted.
The Court next considered the following Claims as
submitted by the County Treasurer for payment:
98- 006356 through 98- 006606
On motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner .
Thornton, the Court voted unanimously to approve the Claims as
submitted.
The next matter for consideration by the Court was the
implementation of a new salary structure for County Employees.
The new salary structure resulted from the study done by Ray
and'Associates. On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by
Commissioner Jones, the Court voted unanimously to approve the
implementation of a new salary structure for County Employees
effective May 29, 1998 at 5:01 p.m. and amend the budget
appropriately with funds from contingency. Demetrios Basdekas
requested a copy of the salary structure.
The next matter before the Court was the approval of a
contract with the Brazos County Emergency Communications
District (9 -1 -1) for service for the Brazos Valley Narcotic
Trafficking Task Force. Commissioner Sims moved to approve
the Contract. The motion was seconded by the County Judge.
1
j
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
Commissioner Thornton noted that the contract did not state
4
what it accomplishes. Commissioner Sims withdrew his motion
and the County Judge withdrew his second. On motion by the
x
is
County Judge, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Court voted
t
unanimously to table consideration until this could be
clarified.
The Court next considered a Quit Claim Deed to Julie
Anderson for .0069830 Royalty Interest, C. W. Moody #1 Well,
BWU Tract #59, Bryan /Woodbine Field, Moses Baine League,
Abstract 3, City of Bryan, to Julie Anderson. Commissioner
Thornton asked why this was being done. The response was to
correct and omission. On motion by Commissioner Sims,
seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Court voted unanimously to
authorize the County Judge to execute the Quit Claim Deed for
.0069830 Royalty Interest, C. W. Moody #1 Well, BWU Tract #59,
Bryan /Woodbine Field, Moses Baine League, Abstract 3, City of
Bryan, to Julie Anderson.
The next matter for consideration was the appointment of
an interim administrator for the Purchasing Department. On
motion by the County Judge, seconded by Commissioner Jones,
the Court voted unanimously to appoint Becky Stephens as
interim administrator for the Purchasing Department.
The Court next considered the appointment of a member to
the Rural Fire Prevention District #1 Board of Directors. On
motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sims,
the Court voted unanimously to appoint Mike Herron to fill an
unexpired term on the Board of Directors of Rural Fire
'
Prevention District #1.
The Court next considered approval of the Final Plat of
3
Whispering Ridge Subdivision in Precinct 1 Richard Vance,
County Engineer, stated that he had reviewed the plat and all
appeared to be in order. On motion by Commissioner Jones,
seconded by Commissioner Thornton, the Court voted unanimously
to approved the final plat of the Whispering Ridge Sub-
s
division.
tog
f
S
_ .al....wr+ 1.....
ta._ - — :.._rl.r.r• -Yr _ - _�_— _...��f..i_��iOr�a —ice- '— '+".'.�.r.d' �JIV•iYY TW uWa aJ+r.W /�—
t
,t
i
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
The Court proceeded to consider the following blanket
Purchase Orders:
Americlean Jail $ 500
Sysco Food Jail $7,000
Scarmardo Prod Jail $1,500
Alliant Foods Jail $5,000
LaBatt Foods Jail $1,250
US Food Service Jail $1,750
Ben E. Keith Jail $3,000
Buttercrust Bakery Jail $1,300
Lilly Dairy Jail $2,300
Cain's Coffee Jail $ 500
Brazos Wholesale Jail $ 500
On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Jones, the Court voted unanimously to approve the Blanket
Purchase Orders as submitted.
The Court next considered approval of requisitions from
Capital Expenditures for the following purchases:
a) Radios for Constable, Precinct 4 $959.85
b) Fuel tanks with pumps for Road & Bridge
$1,889.94
c) 7 foot rear blade for Road & Bridge
$659.00
d) Server located in Auditor's office
$4,535.00
e) External tape drive for server located in
Auditor's office $1,242.26
f) Intranet 10 user additive license for
Auditor's Office $875.00
g) Replacement printer for County Attorney
$1,299.00
On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Thornton, the Court voted unanimously to approve the
requisitions to be paid from Capital Expenditures.
The Court next considered approval of requisitions from
the General Fund for the following purchases:
a) MS Office Profession 197 for Constable,
Precinct 6 $834.00
b) MS Office Profession 197 for the
Purchasing Department $556.00
On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Thornton, the Court voted unanimously to approve the
requisitions to be paid from General Fund.
V0
i rrbs. - - - •.. - - . . -
� +1
I/— 1\
0
i
1
t
i
t
i
E
f
t
f
I
•
L
.,
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
The next matter before the Court was approval of a
Contractual Agreement between Brazos County and Tanner
Consulting for Electronic Records Management Consultant
Services, RFP #98 -018. Tanner will perform all services
necessary for electronic records management. The cost to
Brazos County will be $75.00 per hour plus direct expenses.
The contract will remain in effect from the effective date to
project completion. On motion by Commissioner Thornton,
seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Court voted unanimously to
enter into contractual agreement with Tanner Consulting. A
copy of the contractual agreement is attached hereto.
The next matter before the Court was the revised policy
and procedures for capital asset acquisition and use of
Capital Project Funds. Commissioner Thornton commented that
in the paragraph under "Purpose ", the term "rural areas of the
county" should be replaced with "Brazos County ". On motion by
Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Court
voted unanimously to adopt the revised policy and procedures
subject to the conditions stated previously. A copy of the
Contract is attached hereto.
The Court next considered the Revised Policy and
Procedures for the Purchasing Manual:
a) Rescind current manual dated 1996
b) Approve resolution adopting Purchasing
Policy
c) Acknowledge Purchasing Procedures
On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Jones, the Court voted unanimously to approve items "a through
c ". A copy of the Purchasing Policy and Purchasing Procedures
are attached hereto.
]W
�s
I]
i
W
,V
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
The Court acknowledged receipt of the Extension Service
reports for April 1998 and acknowledged receipt of reports
from the following County and Precinct Offices showing
revenues collected and remitted to the County Treasurer:
County Clerk
District Clerk
Justice of the Peace Precinct 2
Justice of the Peace Precinct 3
Justice of the Peace Precinct 4
Justice of the Peace Precinct 5
Justice of the Peace Precinct 6
Constable Precinct 4
Constable Precinct 5
Constable Precinct 6
Brazos County Events Facilities
County Attorney
Road & Bridge
Tax Assessor /Collector
A copy of the Officials' reports can be viewed in the County
Auditor's office.
The following comments were made under citizen input
and /or concerns:
1. Sheriff Chris Kirk commented on the
complaint voiced at the previous
Commissioners Court meeting in which a
citizen complained about conditions at
the Minimum Security Jail. Sheriff Kirk
stated that the alleged problems have
been investigated, and that the Jail
Commission and Health Department have
both inspected the facility and found no
problems. The Health Department will
inspect the facility on a regular basis.
He went on to say that no written
complaints have been filed.
The County Judge made the following comments:
1) There will be a meeting at the Brazos
Center at 12 noon today to discuss the
Highway 6 Coalition.
2) The highway bid was $7.5 million for
Highway 21 East. $25 million was set
aside for possible rail relocation. Mike
Parks, the MPO, said that the money could
not be spent until studies are completed
and he estimated the studies will take 1i
years to complete.
3) Commissioner Sims is reaching the end of
his second 2 year term on the EDC Board.
The appointment of a new representative
will be on the agenda of the next Court
meeting.
4. He will be sending out letters to the
outside agencies asking for their budget
requests.
to
.. q
i
1
F
I?
�j
1
t
P
r
s,
0
9
. ... I
Commissioners Court meeting May 26, 1998
There being no further business to come before the Court,
the meeting was adjourned.
V 0, '. L� 1, Y.,4, ni p i � 9 1
�c
.,
MW
r
i
M�
'�1
mm
If
M�
The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court meeting
held May 26, 1998 have been examined and are approved in open
Court this the /,? .9 day of A•4� , 19 9F, in
Bryan, Brazos County, Texas.
Alvin W. JOrWs
County Judge
Wm. Thornton
Commissioner,
Precinct No. 2
Carey Cauley, Jr.
Commissioner,
Precinct No. 4
4-X -
To Jon
Commissioner,
Precinct No._ 1
Commj,dsioner,
Precinct No. 3
Xle a- � d2? n W
Mary A n Ward
County Clerk
VOL �� �✓ oZ.�
I�
/--,
t; BRAZ0S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ON Iri 2 �, I -1 8 AT I ` A.M.
S
1 '
1
• 1
I
e .
i
t
7
i
i
IS
T` r
C
e '
i
e
r'
a �Y�
1 I ».r/va
X93,.. -
IILIE♦ •
.
NMW��� , /
wi
WNW
f1
r
• �� �/
1 I ».r/va
X93,.. -
f�
' ' t
;BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ON %hl�y ��G; 1 cl
.c
�i
It
}
AT /' A.M.
)
1 ,
i
1
t
1
I�
4
• • I
1 ,
i
1
t
1
*I
•
•
i
i
i
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
7
BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) FOR THE 1997 -1998 BUDGET YEAR
i
NO. 97/98 -30.1 through 30.6
t
On this the 26th day of May 1998 at a regular meeting of the
Commissioners' Court, the following members were present:
S
R
r
Original: County Clerk's Office and attached to the original
budget
Copies: County Auditor
County Treasurer
Commissioners' Court Minutes
Budget Amendment File
VOL
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding
Tony Jones, Commissioner, Precinct 1;
Wm. S. Thornton, Commissioner, Precinct 2;
Randy Sims, Commissioner, Precinct 3;
Carey Cauley, Commissioner, Precinct 4;
Mary Ann Ward, County Clerk.
The following proceedings were held:
THAT WHEREAS, on May 26, 1998 the Court heard
and approved a
4
i
budget amendment for the 1997 -1998 budget year for
Brazos County,
i
Texas.
WHEREAS, an expenditure is necessary due to the necessity to
meet unusual and unforeseen conditions which
could not be
reasonably included in the original budget adopted
September 23,
1997 the following amendment(s) to the original are hereby
authorized, as described on the attached page(s).
s
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this the 26th day of May 1998.
THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.
By: Alvin W. Jones,
County Judge
S
R
r
Original: County Clerk's Office and attached to the original
budget
Copies: County Auditor
County Treasurer
Commissioners' Court Minutes
Budget Amendment File
VOL
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
f - _ BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. • 97/98 -30.1
5/19/99
FD DIV ACCT PROD DR/CR ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease
45 630005 613250 370098 Dr Furniture - Minor 327.00
45 630005 809500 Cr Exposition Ctr(Contin enc) S 327.00
Capital Pro'ects Fund
Agricultural Extension Services - To increase the line item budget to allow the purchase of
one cost share computer and network equipment through the Extension Information Technology_
Department of the Texas Agricultaural Txtension Service
;Prepared i3y:. mkw' ,Approved By:'
Dates 5/19/98; Date:: VOL L 3L
1
1
1
I�
•1
01
Y�
r
P
/1
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. 97/98 -30.2
5/19/98 1
FD DIV ACCT PROD DR /CR ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease
45 630005 802890 560098 Dr Equipment R &B Heavy 20,072.00
45 630005 809500 Cr Exposition Ctr(Contin enc) $ 20,072.00
Ca ital Projects
Road and Bridge Projects - To increase the line item Equipment R &B Heavy to cover
items purchased over the initial budget. I I
Prepared By:.'t ''� ''�nikw `, prove : •7�
�.. Approved• By:�_�/_� _
Date: };, ', ; _ 5/19/98 iDate•
.i.�. �..a,.�cS.J..u..w•
1 '
7
'n
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. 97/98 -30.3
5126/98
FD DIIV ACCT PROD DR/CR ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease
01 165001 802110 Dr Computer - Software 574.00
01 165001 615000 Cr Printing $ 574.00
t=FlurchasingDepartment
To reallocate budget to allow for the purchase of 2 software upgrades to MicroSoft Office '97.
Prepared By:` r inlcw *p'icoved Byi
Pate: ; w �, 5/21/98 ;pate:.
•
7
r
•4
i
r
Y
f
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. 97/98 -30.4
5/26/98
M0
:i
• - i�•�Mh� -;. � . • ;.r. .. . • i.• ..w 1 1
Prepared By: "'' -" : mkw rApproved By �,.: ° :� r ="?-�'ii�i:
Date:" ? :�.� �' S/21/98 Pate:,- .. ' _. �:� 2 ' .x •:;�
.. �t
l
Equipment Maint
Miscellaneous Expense-=!
M0
:i
• - i�•�Mh� -;. � . • ;.r. .. . • i.• ..w 1 1
Prepared By: "'' -" : mkw rApproved By �,.: ° :� r ="?-�'ii�i:
Date:" ? :�.� �' S/21/98 Pate:,- .. ' _. �:� 2 ' .x •:;�
.. �t
l
I..
t,
F:
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
_ BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. 97/98-30.5
5/26/98
FD DIV ACCT PROD DR/CR ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease
01 310001 710400 DR Contract Placement 200,000.00
01 110015 611300 CR Contingency $200.000.00
Juvenile Services - To allow for an increase in Contract Placement expenditures.
Funds were informally desi natcd in Contingency during budget preparation.
{Prepa'r'ed'By: Approved By: ',�;; �r�•� .,;
$ate:,....w,:.._. Date:'.;...v �.... ff .k
101
i
J
J
r
c
I
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
No. 97/98 -30.6
5/26/98
l
VOL
APPr'oved
;Date,
111111111110
ACCOUNT NAME
1
m
1111
•11
-�
' • O
. llvcoxail
,
M
1111
11
m
1111
.1.111
-�
•
111 11
m
1111
• 11
-�Miscellaneous
11 11
m
1111
• :1
�11&111 11
m
1111
11
-�
Microfilming
.-
111 11
l
VOL
APPr'oved
;Date,
111111111110
i
TANNER CONSULTING
ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT SERVICES
et
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 'L day of . 1998. by and bctwcm
TANNER CONSULTING with its principal office at 547 Contour Drive', dranite Shoals, Texas, 78654 -3001.
(hereinafter called "CONSULTANT") and BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. acting by and through its duty
clectod Commissioner's Court, with a mailing address of 300 East 26'" Street, Bryan, Texas 77803 (hereinafter
called "COUNTY ").
BACKGROUND
Tanner Consulting is in the business of providing electronic records management consultant services and
desires to act as the exclusive Company to provide these services. County desires to retain Tanner Consulting
to perform said services.
THEREFORE, the parties agree to be legally bound as follows:
I . Definition of Agreement. For the purposes of this contract, the tarn" Agreement" as used herein, shall
include this document together with Brazos County Proposal No. 98 -018, Tanner Consulting's
response to Proposal 98 -018 dated March 6, 1998, and the subsequent Revised Proposal dated April
29, 1998 from Tanner Consulting. In the event there is a conflict between the terms of the Proposal
and the Revised Proposal of Consultant, the terms of the Revised Proposal shall control.
Consultant agrees to perform all the work and services described in the Agreement.
It is expressly agreed that the provisions sct forth in the Agrocmcnt constitute all the understandings
and agreements between the parties. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representation
not expressly set forth in this Agreement arc of no force and cfi'ect.
2. Personnel. Consultant agrees to assign qualified personnel for all services provided under this
Agreement. County recognizes that Consultant may perform similar services for others; nothing in this
Agreement shall prohibit Consultant from performing similar services for others, nor shall it prohibit
Consultant from using personnel working under this Agreement to perform services for others.
Consultant will make every effort consistent with sound business practices to honor County requests
regarding assignment of Consultant personnel; however, Consultant reserves the right to determine
Consultant personnel assigruncnts.
3. Confidentiality. Consultant agrees to preserve confidentiality of all County information gathered as
a result of providing services under this Agreement. The confidentiality of County 's information,
business methods and procedures is fully understood by all Consultant personnel.
4. Data Rights. All reports, correspondence and work products developed by Consultant under this
Agreement become the joint property of both Consultant and County.
Bravos County Agreement
Page I of 3
4
12. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect from the effective date specified above until project
completion or canceled by either party. Notice of cancellation must be in the form of a written
instrument signed by the canceling party, sent by U.S. Postal Service, return roceipt requested, to the
addresses listed above. The date of cancellation shall be tic date that notice of cancellation is dclivcrcd
to the recipient. If canceled by County, County shall pay Consultant for services rendered and direct
expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. Consultant shall provide to County all work
products generated through the date of cancellation.
Brains County Agrocmcnt Page 2 of 3
3 Var.
i
I
i
County is prohibited, without consent of the Consultant, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld, from distributing or otherwise disclosing to other panics, except as required by regulatory
authorities or Icgal proceedings, any reports, correspondence and work products prepared for it by
•
Consultant under this Agrocmcnt.
Any ideas, inventions or methods formulated as a result of services provided under this Agrocmcnt
become available to both Consultant and County.
3. Work Product. Upon completion of any modifications required to the draft report, a final report, as
dcscribod in the proposal attached to this Agrocmcnt will be printed, bound and provided to County.
f6. County RcsMnsibility. Satisfactory cornplction of the scrviccs provided under this Agrocmcnt Lcguircs
the timely and complete participation of County personncl. In the event that project schedule or cost
limitations arc affected by County caused delays, Consultant shall notiR, County in writing of such
tdelay, and after consultation with County , will reschedule completion dates and/or adiust costs
accordingly without rccard to prior limitations. The total amount of charges for services performed
hereunder shall not exceed those set forth in the Rcviscd Proposal unless agreed to by the County.
7. Time Recording. Consultant personncl shall maintain daily records of time charged and expenses
incurred in providing services under this Agreement A summary of these records will be included with
each billing to County . Detailed records will be available for County inspection upon request.
' 8. Charges. All services performed by Consultant under this Agreement will be charged to County at the
• basic rate plus direct expenses. Rates shall be based upon a basic rate of $75.00 per hour, unless
r otherwise agreed by the parties hereto, and shall remain in effect for the duration of the project. County
will reimburse Consultant for direct expenses incurred in completion of this project.
f
r
9. Payment Tcrms. Charges will be invoiced by Consultant upon completion or monthly (whichever
comes first), in arrears, and arc duc and payable within 30 days of invoice to County . Balances not
paid within thirty (30) days of invoice date arc subject to a finance charge of 1.0% per month (an
annual percentage rate of 12 %) on the unpaid balance. This finance charge shall be included on the
next invoice, and shall be levied without regard to prior limitations.
10. Amendments. This Agrocmcnt may be amended. subject to the writtcn approval of both Consultant and
County , to include additional services. Any sclicdule or cost limitations included in the original
Agreement do not apply to any amendment.
c
11. Completeness This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the panics, and shall not be
modified except by an instrument in writing signed by both Consultant and County .
12. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect from the effective date specified above until project
completion or canceled by either party. Notice of cancellation must be in the form of a written
instrument signed by the canceling party, sent by U.S. Postal Service, return roceipt requested, to the
addresses listed above. The date of cancellation shall be tic date that notice of cancellation is dclivcrcd
to the recipient. If canceled by County, County shall pay Consultant for services rendered and direct
expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. Consultant shall provide to County all work
products generated through the date of cancellation.
Brains County Agrocmcnt Page 2 of 3
3 Var.
MM
�o
13. Retention Schodulc Disclaimer. In the cvtxtt that R000rds Retention Schedules arc dcvclopod.undcr this
Agreement, Consultant will make a good faith effort to identify all applicable fcdcral and State of
Texas legal requirements pertaining to record keeping. However, legal requirements arc subject to
frequent change; therefore, any retention schedule work products delivered under this Agreement arc
for research and reference only. No part of the work products should be construed as providing
legal advice. All legal decisions related to records retention and record keeping must be rcvic%Nod and
approved by County's Icgal counsel.
Therefore, Consultant shall not be liable for any charges, including any fines, penalties, loss of rights,
or other incidental or conscqucntial damages arising out of the implementation of any Records
Retention Schedules developed as part of this Agreement.
BRAZOS COUNTY. TEXAS
98-()S()/
Agreement
Judgc (vin . Joncs, ounty Judge Eric C. Tanner, CRM
57�- Ze. O5Z/SZ98
Date Date
5
Brazos County Agrocmcnt Page 3 of 3
- vc�
t _� S r'Y.n :'- ��idli' '��4iO` -n_c J .•w.l..._ �•
r .
k
1
a
n.
r
•• i
'[ 1
11.
• 1
REVISED Proposal to Study, Plan and Implement an Electronic
Document Management System for Brazos County, Texas
Introduction
We believe that Brazos County is taking a prudent approach to this project by combining the
development of a retention program with the initial implementation of an electronic document
management system. This approach ensures that the county only maintains the records required to
meet its business objectives and comply with law and regulation. This means lower cost of operations
for the county, enhanced staff efficiency and effectiveness, and more responsive government for the
taxpayers.
By being able to utilize retention requirements as one factor to consider when implementing an
imaging system, the county will be able to:
• reduce the initial size (and cost) of the electronic system,
• reduce the scope, labor, time and cost of back file conversions to the imaging system,
• make more important information available to more people sooner.
Tanner Consulting is pleased to respond to the Request for Qualifications issued by Brazos County.
We offer an extensive array of services that provide clients with a comprehensive, integrated
approach to document and records management for records on paper, microfilm or electronic media.
That approach is reflected in the project methodology outlined below.
Scope Item Number 9 - Survey
A Prepare/Update Records Control 5chedule�
Based upon data collected during a recent visit to Brazos County and information subsequently
provided by the county, Tanner Consulting proposes the following alternative approach to records
control schedule development. This approach recognizes and takes advantage of the work already
done by the county, and will shorten both county staff and consultant time required to develop and/or
modify schedules. It will also significantly lower costs to the county, without arty reduction in quality
of the control schedules.
Tanner Consulting will develop Records Control Schedules for Brazos County using the following
methodology:
1. Hold Project Kickoff Meeting.. This is anticipated to be a 1 to 1.5 hour meeting with the
records officers and designees in all departments participating in the project, and is designed
to explain the process, identify what is expected from the staff, and to answer any questions
they may have regarding this project or records management in general.
Braws County RFQ
April 1998 1
!1() 3 AU
/
1,
A
J
•
•
2. Establish Schedule. Working with project sponsor and appropriate representatives from
Brazos County, Tanner Consulting will establish an inventory schedule which meets priorities
established by the County, and makes for the most efficient expenditure of travel expenses.
3. For Those Departments with Draft or TSL Approved Records Control Schedules.
a. Obtain copies of all Brazos County Records Control Schedules in whatever stage of
j preparation, from draft to TSL approved.
b. Obtain most recent TSL guidelines, both in paper and electronically. (This has already
been completed.)
e. Copy and distribute TSL guidelines to departments, asking coordinators to:
• Highlight or check off the records listed on the guidelines that the department HAS,
• Draw a line through any records listed on the guidelines that the department DOES
NOT HAVE,
• On an attached sheet, briefly list any records series that exist in the department that
are NOT on the guidelines,
• As required, interviews will be conducted in departments that have identified records
series that are not on the guidelines. The interviews will focus on those records series.
4. For Those Departments without any previous Records Control Schedule work.
Conduct Inventory. We propose to conduct the inventory using the interview method,
supported by appropriate established retention guidelines published by TSL and an inventory
data collection form (a copy of the form is included with this proposal). This method provides
_a fast, economical method of conducting a records inventory.
The interviews will also be used to obtain information beyond that which is required to
establish records retention schedules; it will collect information which will be critical for:
• identifying potential electronic document management/document imaging applications
• identifying all users of individual records series
• identifying unique document characteristics and usage characteristics which could impact
on the specifications for technical requirements for any electronic solutions proposed as
a result of this project.
For those organizational units where there are multiple departments, Commissioners,
Constables, District Judges, etc., we will attempt to combine interviews in order to save on
time and costs.
2. For All Departments. Develop Records Control Schedules utilizing the data collected during
the steps listed above. The: control schedules will be:
• formatted in a manner acceptable to both the County and the Texas State Library
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998 2
Ac
i
f'
s _
1
• provided to appropriate County personnel in each department for their review and
concurrence
• edited as required after this review
• provided to the Texas State Library for review and approval
• provided to the County for implementation in both hard copy and electronic format.
We would suggest that the county consider grouping related departments into fewer control
schedules. This will not save us any work, but may possibly speed TSL approvals if they have to
review and approve fewer schedules rather than more.
Work Product
In addition to Records Control Schedules, the work product from this part ofthe project will also
include the following procedures for implementing and managing the retention program:
• Records Boxing Procedure
• Records Transfer Procedure (and related form)
• Records Destruction Procedure (and related form)
• Retention Schedule Modification Procedure
B. Review Existing Systems. Tanner Consulting will review existing County recordkeeping systems
in order to assess their suitability in an electronic document management system. Particular focus
will be paid to staff efficiency and effectiveness, compliance with state law and regulation, and
whether these information systems support the County's business activities.
Work Product
The work product for this stage of the project will be a report which consists of a series of
findings and yecommendations, including assessments of physical layout, equipment and supply
utilization and related factors.
C. Determine User Requirements. Data from the records control process and the review of existing
systems will be analyzed in order to understand user requirements for various new systems and
applications that may be proposed as a result of this project.
Part of this analysis will also focus on those areas where the output of one process or department
becomes the input of another process or department. In such instances, the needs of both will be
considered whenever preparing the report detailing user requirements.
Tanner Consulting has a unique philosophy regarding systems design - that systems should be
based on what users need, not-what vendors state that their hardware and software systems are
capable of. We believe in searching out appropriate solutions for problems, not offering solutions
in search of a problem. We are also completely independent, with no ties or encumbrances with
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998 3
I
•
f
1
i
Q
f
l
a
• v
---------------
1
,
any vendor of filing equipment or supplies, computer hardware or software. This independence
allows us to work strictly on behalf ofthe county, recommending cost effective and operationally
efficient solutions that are in its best interests.
Work Product
The work product for this stage of the project will be a report listing user information
requirements for each department included in this project.
D. Establish Organizational Requirements. The user requirements identified above, and County
technology architecture plans and strategic information plans, if they exist, combined with an
understanding of the legal and regulatory framework in which the County operates, will lead to
the development of organizational requirements for hard copy and electronic recordkeeping
systems. When compiled, these requirements will be reviewed with appropriate County staff, with
an intent to assess their impacts on any solutions proposed as a result of this project.
Work Product
The work product for this stage of the project will be a project report that consists of a
consolidated list of organizational requirements for current and proposed hard copy and electronic
r
recordkeeping systems.
E. Review Literature. Traditional journals and publicatiotis and the Internet will be searched for the
j latest technical literature pertinent to this project in order to ensure that any systems proposed
for the County take advantage of the latest proven advancements in information technologies.
This review will include, but may not be limited to:
• Electronic document management software
• Electronic imaging hardware and software systems and subsystems
• Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
} Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR)
i Workflow tools
! Inter/Intranet based document and image management tools
As appropriate, selected portions of the literature will be copied, compiled and provided to the
County for its review.
Work Product
f Following this literature review, Tanner Consulting will review the findings with appropriate `
County personnel to achieve consensus on whether the findings require modification of the
organizational requirements established above.
Braws County RFQ
April 1998 4
VOL
y�.
e
la
' 1
F. Visit Other Sites. As deemed appropriate by the County, Tanner Consulting will participate in site
visits with County personnel. It is expected that the County will pay travel expenses for such
visits.
Work Product
The work product for this portion of the project will be a series of debriefings and related notes
about each of the sites visited. These debriefings will include information on specific hardware
and software tools in which the County may be interested, as well as strategies, techniques and
operating methodologies used in each of the visited sites. We believe strongly in learning from
(and not repeating) the mistakes of others.
Scope Item Number 2 - Electronic Document Management Feasibility Study
Tanner Consulting is a strong proponent of electronic recordkeeping systems, including:
• document imaging (for hard copy documents)
• electronic document management (for documents that already exist in electronic form)
• COLD (Computer Output to Laser Disk - for computer reports)
However, having said that, it is important to note that there are records whose most appropriate
media is, and may continue to be paper or microfilm. We believe in recommending appropriate
information technologies, and will recommend electronic conversion/storage only for those records
,I
series which meet stringent criteria, and which are cost effective.
The data gathered in Phase 1 will continue to be used in this phase of the project. Tanner Consulting
will follow this methodology.
A. Identify Applications. Using the data gathered during the records inventory, records retention
schedules, and user and organizational requirements, Tanner Consulting will develop a list of
proposed applications for the County. These criteria will be considered in determining whether
a particular records series is recommended for conversion to electronic format:
• Document volumes, currently in the County's possession and daily processing volumes I
• Document physical characteristics (i.e. size, color, single or double sided, printed or handwritten,
etc)
• Document processing requirements
• Document usage characteristics (who uses, why, how often, requirements for simultaneous
access, etc.)
• Retention Requirements
• Vital records status, and suitability for electronic copy to provide disaster recovery capability
Other, related criteria
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998 S
13' -gyp
' 1� yr' •V ,
(1
I
•
i
i
I
The list will focus on those applications which are believed to have a high probability of success as
immediate electronic imaging/document management applications. Other records series, not included
on this list, will continue to exist in hard copy form for the immediate future, until the first
applications are implemented and operating as planned.
Then, as technology, price/performance factors, and the County's needs change, the remaining
records series can be prioritized and converted according to priorities appropriate to future County
staff.
Work Product
The list will be complied in a project report and reviewed with appropriate County staff to reach
consensus on each potential application. This information will also be used to provide critical input
to several remaining project tasks:
} "sizing" the system in terms of numbers of users and document processing and storage capacity
• develop the conversion schedule and time line
{ establish the project implementation strategy
identify two primary candidates for a pilot test.
B. Size the Project. The next stage of the project will begin to establish the parameters of the
proposed system. "Sizing" includes determining the number of concurrent users, number of
scanning stations (including scanner throughput), number of Quality Control / Indexing stations,
t size of storage subsystems (optical and/or magnetic), number and location of system printers,
numbers and types of servers, cabling, as well as software for operating systems, all document
management and imaging functionality, database functions, backup and disaster recovery
'functions, etc. -- _
Work Product
Again, the initial sizing of the system will be put in report form, reviewed with appropriate
County staff and concurrence achieved.
C. Consider Tradeoffs. Where there are existing paper, microfilm or electronic systems which are,
and will continue to be, fully adequate, the tradeoffs between continuing current systems and
methods or converting to new systems will be discussed with the County. The County will make
the determinations which technologies and approaches will be utilized.
D. Develop a Timetable. Working with the County, and considering needs, operational and
budgetary considerations, Tanner Consulting will develop a proposed timetable for:
• development of one or more RFP's to acquire the proposed system(s)
• evaluating and selecting vendor(s)
Bravos Coun(y RFQ
April 15M8
f. C
,4
6
j,
x.
x
r. .
r
• installing selected solutions
• Preparing for implementation of pilot test
• evaluation of pilot
• prioritizing and developing implementation schedules for subsequent applications
E. Establish Technical Requirements. The data collected from the tasks iisted above will lead to the
development of technical requirements for any proposed solutions. The technical requirements
will be:
• performance based, operating within the County's established/proposed systems environment,
• expandable (in terms of functionality, i.e. workflow, Optical Character Recognition, Intelligent
Character Recognition, ctc.) and
• scalable (in terms of being able to be expanded enterprise wide in the County).
Solutions that do not meet these criteria will not be considered.
F. Consider Legal Issues. All proposed technical requirements will be provided to the County
Attorney's office and to the Texas State Library for their review and approval.
G. Consider Standards. Tanner Consulting strongly believes in establishing standard systems and
methods for the management of records and documents. Only those systems which are open in
architecture and conform to industry hardware and software standards will be considered.
H. Obtain Commissioners Court Approval. Tanner Consultingwill be pleased to make a presentation
of the recommended solutions to the Brazos County Commissioners Court, and will work with
the commissioners and county judge to ensure that there is clear understanding regarding the
capabilitiefand any limitations of any proposed solutions. _
Scope Item Number 3 - Systems Overview
A. Establish a Strate After receiving the approval of the court, Tanner Consulting and the County
will work together to develop a strategy for the implementation of the recommended solutions
across the County's operations.
B. Develop a Detailed-Des . The work completed to this point will lead to the development of a
detailed design specification and one or more RFP's for the acquisition of hardware and software
components of the proposed systems.
C. Select Solutions. Working with the County, Tanner Consulting will evaluate vendor responses
to the RFP(s), and assist the County in selecting one or more vendors for the proposed solution.
D. Conduct Pilot Test. Tanner Consulting will work with the successful vendors and the County, to
conduct a pilot test of the selected solutions. The pilot will be an application which is small in
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998 T
VOL-Uz� PAGE,
1
I
scope, has applicability across departments, and is not mission critical. This approach minimizes
the risk to the County in the event that the pilot does not achieve its stated objectives.
S
i
f
L
x
.'It
E. Develop lmr)lementation Plan. Based on the success of the pilot, the timetable developed in Phase
2.D. above, and any subsequent considerations, a plan will be developed for the implementation
of the first applications on the list developed in Phase 2.A , above.
F. Develop a Disaster Plan. Recovery from disaster will be one of the key technical requirements of
any proposed solution, and will be included in the RFP. Beyond having the capability to for the
electronic record system to recover from a disaster. Tanner Consulting will provide the County
with a disaster recovery/business continuation planning framework that the County can use to
develop a comprehensive disaster recovery plan.
Scope Item Number 4 - Installation Monitoring
Tanner Consulting will work with the County and the successful vendor(s) in seeing that the systems
are installed as specified in the RFP, that the training meets the County's needs, and that the County
accepts the installation as complete.
Scope of Work
A_ Mannnwer
'TASK
HOURT.Y
HOURS
>:COST
Project Kickoff Meeting
$75.00
1.5
$113
Records Control Schedule modification data
$75.00
10
$750
collection (for those offices with some type of
Records Control Schedule, estimated at +/- 18)
Records Inventory Interviews (for those offices
$75.00
25
$1,875
with no Records Control Schedules, estimated at
25 +)
Records Control Schedule development /
$75.00
45
$3,375
modification (for all departments). Potentially
includes: initial draft, review with department,
revised draft, submission t TSL, final draft after
TSL review & final TSL approval.
Existing System Review
$75.00
40
$3,000
Determine User Requirements
$75.00
40
$3.000
r
r
Brazos County RFQ
1 April 1998
8
1'" 1
AS1C ;r • '(, 't`'
'J�h ^ /�I .Y 574 .`^ •t (. •F (• %`/may I /''••
•> `� rli.A N ,w� ^1> y. •i . l�Y.. :> xIi= /,ik`
. HOUiLLY; -
RATE
HOURS"
i- is
`COST Y
..
Establish Organizational Requirements
$75.00
32
$2,400
Review Literature
$75.00
16
$1,200
Site Visits (assumes three)
$75.00
24
$ 1,800
EvaluatelIdentify Applications
$75.00
24
$1,800
Size Pilot Project in No. of users and processing
and storage capacities
S7�.00
24
S1,800
Consider Tradeoffs
$75.00
24
51,800
Develop Timetable for implementation of pilot
$75.00
24
$1,800
Technical Requirements (specifications)
$75.00
96
57,200
Evaluate Legal Issues (w/ county attorney &
TSL)
$75.00
32
52,400
Consider Standards
575.00
16
$1,200
Obtain Commissioners' Court Approval
(preparation & presentation)
$75.00
16
$1,200
Establish Strategy
$75.00
24
S1,800
Develop Plan
$75.00
32
$2,400
Select Solutions (evaluate and select vendors)
S75.00
40
$3,000
Conduct Pilot
$75.00
40
$3,000
Develop Implementation Plan
$75.00
16
51,200
Develop Disaster Plan
$75.00
32
$2,400
Monitor System Installation
$75.00
40
$3,000
•:: .. '.a.= .�.;.�,.^° �.i,I-
TOTALS
702
$52,650
The "Totals" figures above are "not to exceed" figures. In the event that we are able to complete the
project in fewer hours, Brazos County will only be billed for actual hours worked, and would retain ;
the savings.
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998
8 � i
b
yt
rdrR
i
t
X
t
F
i
t
Y
i
•
•
t
}
i
i
f
Travel Expenses
The manpower costs listed above do not include any required travel costs, which will be required
during the on -site portions of the project and for any site visits which are requested by the county.
Travel expenses include:
Transportation:
Air, train or bus fares to site visits,
t local bus, shuttle or taxi fares at site visit locations
auto rentals at site visit locations
f personal automobile mileage expended in completion of this project
Lodging:
Hotellmotel lodging required during on -site portion of this project and on s;te visits
Meals:
Meals while in transit, on -site or at site visits
Communications:
long distance calls, FAXes and express packages required during site visits
In order to keep expenses to a minimum, we would propose to limit project work in Bryan to the time
required to collect data, review with county personnel, and provide reports and presentations to
county staff and/or the Commissioners' court. Analytical work, Records Control Schedule
development, and report writing would be performed at the offices of Tanner Consulting.
In the same vein, we would also propose to consglidgte as much on -site work together as possible,
in order to have one travel cycle fill up a complete week. We would propose to arrive on -site mid
morning on Monday and depart at close of business on Friday afternoon. (We would, of course, be
in attendance at Commissioners' Court meetings on Mondays whenever needed.)This would limit
hotel costs to four nights on those weeks where on -site work is required. As stated during an earlier
meeting, we are pleased to stay in moderate lodging facilities.
t Regarding meals, a review offive months ofexpenses for recent project work in Dallas for Southwest
Airlines revealed the following daily average meal costs:
t breakfast $4.00
Lunch 4.25
Dinner 10.30
Total 18.55
In order to meet County requirements, Tanner Consulting can operate on a per diem basis, or on an
actual cost basis, supported by copies of receipts.
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998
VOL-.:-
n
M
10
P
B. Sundry Expenses
It is estimated that sundry expenses, for printing, long distance phone, FAX, etc. should be less than
$250.00. Whenever possible, we will utilize county photocopiers and E -mail to reduce thb number
of long distance phone calls needed. Also, if possible, we will utilize the capability to attach electronic
files to E -mail; this will speed the distribution of project information, and will reduce nrinting/copying
costs.
We at Tanner Consulting are very aware of overhead and expense costs, and we will work with the
county in every way possible to keep these costs to an absolute minimum.
4. Pr( ect Timeline
TASK
WEEK
NUMBER(s)
Project Kickoff-Meeting, Records Control Data Collection and
Inventory Interviews
1
Records Control Schedule Development & Modification
2 -7
Existing System Review
4
Determine User Requirements
5-6
Establish Organizational Requirements
7-8
Review Literature
8
Site Visits
9
Identify Applications
9 -10
Size Project
10
Consider Tradeoffs
10-11
Develop Timetable
11-12
Technical Requirements (develop draft RFP)
12 -14
Evaluate Legal issues
15
Consider Standards
15
Obtain Commissioners' Court Approval (issue RFP)
16
Establish Strategy
16-17
Brams County RFQ
April 1998
Ou 3 JU'
11
1
i
t ..
t
1
i
a
i
Develop Plan
17 -18
Select Solutions (allowing vendors 30 days to respond to RFP)
21 -23
Conduct Pilot (allowing minimum of 30 days for delivery and
installation)
27 - ??
Develop Implementation Plan
20
Develop Disaster Plan
21 -22
Monitor System Installation
dependant upon
installation date
With this new approach, it is estimated that most of the effort in this project can be completed in just
over 5 months. However, due to lead times of 30 days or more required for vendors to respond to
RFP's and for delivery and installation of hardware and software, the entire project cannot be
' completed in that'S month window. While waiting for delivery and installation, we will concentrate
t
on developing a wider implementation plan and begin to flesh out the disaster recovery plan. Given
the uncertainties inherent in this type of project, it is not possible at this time to determine a firm end
time for the project.
i
s
s
Brazos County RFQ
April 1998 12
f IU
W�
ti POLICY AND-PROCEDIIRES
FOR
CAPITAL ASSET ACQUISITION
AND USE OF CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY AND RELATED PROCEDURES IS TO ESTABLISH
AND STANDARDIZE AUTHORITY FOR USE OF COUNTY RESOURCES TO PAY
FOR EXPENDITURES WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BUDGETED AND
ACCOUNTED FOR WITHIN A CAPITAL PROJECT FUND OF BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS
THE FOLLOWING POLICY AND PROCEDURES WERE ADOPTED BY THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT ON THIS THE 26 DAY OF MAY, 1998 AND
TAKES THE PLACE OF ANY PREVIOUS COUNTY POLICY WITH REGARDS TO
THE EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS.
Alvin W.-Jones, C unty Judge
Purpose
It is normal for any county government to be called upon at different times to
replace capital assets (i.e. vehicles, buildings, office furniture, equipment, etc.)
Also, it is not uncommon for county governments to be called upon from time to
time to buy land, build facilities, remodel facilities, and replace or improve
existing infrastructure within BRAZOS COUNTY. Many times the demand for
capital improvements comes between budget periods. if contingency plans have
not been made, the Commissioners Court is required to seek funding for the
expenditure. Budgetary restraints and fund balance restrictions govern the
allocation of available funds for fixed asset acquisitions 'and must be considered.
A management tool for such occurrences would be a capital asset acquisition
policy.
Capital Asset Acquisition
A policy for the acquisition and replacement of capital assets is one of the tools
most commonly used for long range planning in many industrial and
governmental programs. The one year budget is a short term plan for the
1,-1-,
"{� 1 =t -�Jyeut.�,L.�..1'i►�1"iF l .0 %A.i•s1 u.n r4td Nla.! et.: �{L wl _ �V.. wts.�i)w�+41i 4nL :b� '��.R K 'L i LJ,J ,l K
jl
•
•
t
a
k
t
CAPITAL ACQUISITION POLICY
PAGE 2OF5
funding of the operational cycle of the county. Capital acquisition Is-long term.in
that it plans for the use and acquisition of fixed assets in the future, usually for a
period past the one year operational cycle.
In governmental programs the funding for the plans and programs developed is
usually accomplished with the use of debt instruments or unrestricted fund
balances. In the 1960's government units observed that to maintain a competitive
advantage, long range strategies for funding the expenditures for capital
acquisition and replacement of fixed assets needed to be developed. Once the
policy for providing financing to meet the capital needs of the entity was
established, it needed to evaluate three critical issues:
(1) Is the acquisition and/or replacement essential, and Is it in the best .
Interest of the taxpayer?
(2) What impact will the decision have on the current tax rate ?..Future
tax rates?
(3) How will financing of capital assets be accomplished (i.e. debt or
equity)?
Several funding programs have been developed over the years. The Capital
Project Fund is probably the most widely used. Capital Project Funds are
established for a variety of reasons:
(1) construction of new facilities,
(2) acquisition of major equipment,
(3) new computer systems,
(4) replacement of existing fixed assets, etc.
Historically, a separate capital project fund was established for each type of
acquisition In order to allow for "separate accountability" and budgetary
evaluation, Le. source and application of funds.
A capital projects fund is, in substance, a form of a Special Revenue Fund, but
the resources accumulated In the Capital Projects Fund are used to acquire
capital facilities rather than finance current operations. The accountability focus
of a capital project fund is upon compliance, and the period evaluated may be
more than the current accounting cycle (one year). When bonds are used to
provide the funding for the project(s) a separate fund is usually proposed to
enhance the credibility with the bond holders and the bond agents. When grant
funds are employed as the resource for the project separate accountability Is
normally required.
Currently, a newer concept is the Acquisition and Replacement Fund. The fund Is
established for the purpose of providing resources for current and future capital
needs. Capital needs are Identified with each budgetary period. As needs
A
I
�5
r
F
i
i 4+
j1
rr-
X ,!
C
�t.
4..
S '
s
CAPITAL ACQUISITION POLICY
PAGE 3OF5
change or projects are re- prioritized,_the -budget is amended to reflect the current
position of the Commissioners Court. All available funds in the replacement fund
are budgeted as either being consumed in the current period (twelve months or
less) or in future periods (beyond the current twelve months).
Resources used to fund an acquisition and replacement fund can come from
various resources:
(1) Taxes can be levied on an annual basis and designated for capital
project purposes.
(2) General obligation or tax revenue bonds can be sold for the specific
purpose of funding a project. Funds may be secured to fund current.
as well as long term programs.
(3) Certificates of obligation can be issued to provide the resources for
a specific project.
(4) Grant funds may be secured to fund a project.
(5) Residual equity can be transferred from a fund into the acquisition
and replacement fund to provide resources.
Historical Background
Currently, Brazos county has two capital project funds. One is set up to fund
expenditures and projects related to General Fund activity, and one is set up to
establish funding for Road and Bridge infrastructure additions and replacements.
The Capital Projects Fund in support of the General Fund has received resources
from bond issues related to courthouse and facility expansion and improvement
projects. In addition, the General Fund has transferred residual equity into the
Capital Projects program to provide assistance in the funding of future projects
designated and approved by the Commissioners Court
In the early 1980's the voters of Brazos County established a unitized system for
management of the Road and Bridge program within the County. This created a
centralized fleet ownership of all Road and Bridge equipment To facilitate
funding for extraordinary capital needs with the Road and Bridge Fund, a Capital
Project Fund was established. It was funded through the issuance of certificates
of obligation. Additional funds were acquired through the Commissioners Court
approval of road crossing fees to be accumulated for capital needs and not for
operations.
4
13 AUQ.a p
a. � . may: ,4 .;� • •,.5, __..,.•,.�_.,2,t.. :'� y:.�'. -�r' �t_ f.�._� _ 'ri ,� '
�1
i
CAPITAL ACQUISITION POLICY
PAGE 4 OF b
/ D
r
In both funds, resources are budgeted for expenditure on specified projects. The
projects have been prioritized and approved by the Commissioners Court. In
both funds, resources have been received through residual equity transfers.
Thus, even though the resources have been set aside for a particular capital
acquisition and /or replacement, the Commissioners Court may by a vote of the
majority of the Court amend the designation and the budget. In doing so, the
Court may then transfer the residual equity funds (or a part thereof) back to the
transferor fund.
0
Policy and Procedure
Access to the expenditure of the funds in the Capital Project Fund(s) is limited.
The policy with regards to the encumbrance of the resources is as follows:
(1) The policy would govern the encumbrance and expenditure of
County funds for all capital acquisitions (over $200 and with a life
expectancy of over three years).
(2) All requests for Captial Project expenditures must be approved by
the Commissioners Court during the budget process, or if not
specifically budgeted, shall be approved by the Commissioners
Court in open session,
(3) All resources available would be budgeted either during the annual
budget period or as the Court permits.
(4) The Commissioners Court would make the determination during the
budget hearings whether an expenditure for fixed assets was to be
considered operational (paid from the current operating fund) or
long -term and paid from Capital Project.
Example: Construction of a wing on the Brazos Center would
be considered an expenditure which would provide use for
many years, therefore, It would be paid for through the Capital
Project Fund.
Example: The roof on the Lilly Building made need to be
replaced. The Court may decide that it is proper to account
for this expenditure as repairs, thus included In
the budget of Buildings and Grounds. However, the
replacement may be considered to be significant and thus
funds are made available through the Capital Project Fund.
VCS' 3 �AC�o�,,.�! �.
= Al
CAPITAL ACQUISITION POLICY
.'.Z . PAGE 6OF5
Example: Annually, the Court approves the replacement of a
limited number of vehicles assigned to the Sheriffs office. Is
this replacement an operating expense (budgeted in the
general fund) or a capital expense (paid from Capital Projects).
Ideally, the expense should be considered a long term
investment and thereby a Capital Project Fund expenditure
and not an operating expenditure. The vevhicles once
purchased will serve the County for a longer period of time
than just the one year operating cycle.
(5) All land and building acquisitions will be made through the General
Fund after Commissioners Court approval.
(6) Commissioners Court or the Purchasing Agent, as agent for
Commissioners Court is the only authority for the issuance of a
purchase order with regards to encumbered project funds.
(7) All purchase orders will be issued through the Purchasing Agent.
The procedure for a department to receive permission for expending the funds is
as follows:
(1) The project for which an expenditure is requested must first be
placed before the Commissioners Court (either during the annual
budget hearings or as permitted) and prioritized by the Court as to
whether resources would be made available.
(2) Once authorized for expenditure and a budgetary control account
has been established to fund the project, a requisition must be
approved and converted to a purchase order by the Purchasing
Agent and transmit same to the vendor.
(3) All requests for the use of Capital Projects Funds that have not
specifically been approved and budgeted or those requests that may
exceed budgeted allocations must be presented to Commissioners
Court for approval.
(4) If a contract is required, the Purchasing Agent will be responsible to
see that a contract Is developed and submitted to the Court for
approval.
(5) When the goods or services are rendered the receiving department
will Insure that an authorized receiving report is initiated.
f .
i
1
r
y
f
9
r
r`
•
S
i
s
i
}
i
3
7
i
CAPITAL ACQUISITION POLICY
PAGE 6 OF 6
(6) The Auditor's Office will be responsible for matching the approved
requisition, the purchase order, the receiving report with the invoice
on receipt and processing for payment.
The Commissioners Court has exclusive oversight authority for the use of these
funds. No elected official or department head can act independently in their use
or encumbrance. No elected official or department head can change the use or
budget of the funds.
Originally Adopted: November 7,1994
First Revision: May 26, 1998
G: %PubfileslWordlPolicieslCapital
0
r
1
i
1
K '
F �
•'i
'3
• A
I :•.5
{ ;rC
III a
f
1
.i
. 1
- t
13
SAQ MIL4,-
3