Travis County Commssioners Court
June 17, 2003
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.
Item 42
Number 42 to discuss and take appropriate action on amendment 1 to interlocal cooperation agreement between the city of Austin and Travis County for emergency medical services and helicopter services. Commissioner Sonleitner, part of these negotiations --
>> we are trying to resolve a funding dilemma, which is basically we need to pay the city of Austin of what we properly owe them under the interlocal. The way that the interlocal currently is mentioned is it mentions last year's payment information and it does not have an automatic refresher clause in it that basically says we pay them what this Commissioners court establishes in the budgetary process. So we have been unable to pay them the amount and they have been shorted in effect every single month, we need to get this fixed. Now in the meantime we are going to begin work shortly on the total rewriting of the interlocal. So this is just a -- i'll call it a quit and dirty fix to basically allow us to pay the city of Austin what they rightfully are owed for the services that they have rendered and it matches exactly the budgetary number that we did last September. It also includes a catch-up provision to basically catch up on those six months when we were not paying them the true amount that they needed to be compensated for. So this is a quick fix to get the money in place, the budgetary impact is exactly as this court authorized last September, but one other little cleanup thing is that it was on an exhibit related to training classes, again, no budgetary impact. Was just to recognize these training classes as a reimbursible expense that was already happening, just agents cleanup thing that we theetded to have clarity that that was a reimbursible expense but does not increase what we do by a dollar. So that is what barbara drafted was just get the city of Austin paid because without a revised interlocal, the auditor's office has to go off of the old interlocal which has an incorrect budgetary figure in it. And I hope that I have explained that --
>> so what's the old rate? And what's the catch-up rate?
>> oh, I am --
>> are we talking about one rate or two?
>> there is a catch up lump sum and then it says that we pick up -- I should have these things medical more rised. Here we go. In 8.02, it says that we acknowledge that payments have been made for services between October and may at the rate of basically 614,000. We should have been paying them about 14,000 more. So basically we are going to catch up and then it will be the correct fee for June on.
>> okay.
>> richard -- ah barbara.
>> hello, barbara.
>> I was watching, took a run to the xerox machine and that's when you started.
>> it's a $14,000 a month I would call it a shortage and then times the six months that -- is that going to get throughs?
>> that won't get through.
>> let me get richard up there for numbers. These were all done by barbara in connection with the city of Austin about what we properly owe.
>> 14,000 a month at 8 months that hadn't been paid, so it would be 119,000 [indiscernible]
>> 119 what now.
>> 119,439-point [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> I have three questions that are end twined. What was the old rate, what's the new rate, and what's the new rate based on?
>> the old monthly rate was 614 thiewrks 563.50. 614,563.50. The new rate is 629,493.42.
>> that's 14,900 some change difference.
>> 929.92.
>> so what's the difference based on?
>> he know it's additional costs but what cost.
>> I think the single biggest cost was health insurance. I would prefer that richard go into the details on that because that was negotiated between he and diana. I wasn't privy to the differences of what the details were comprised of.
>> richard herring ton deputy director of Travis County e.m.s. The difference is based primarily on the personnel increases for health insurance, some other fees are added into there for increased fuel costs in '03 compared to the '02 approved budgets. Just a monthly difference of -- just cost of doing business primarily. There were no additional employees added. Primarily health benefits, some increased comold tees cost. Commodities cost, fuel cost, [indiscernible], the big three drivers of it.
>> okay.
>> it would have been simplified if that had been in the backup.
>> did you have the letter, judge?
>> there it is.
>> okay. (microphone feedback).
>> I didn't see the answer in that, though.
>> okay, that's fine. This was in the budgeted amount that the court had approved last September. So --
>> we anticipated increases but we thought that we would see supporting data.
>> the court had the backup for all of this stuff when you approved the budget. This was all provided. We fully expected to have the interlocal renegotiated in the fall and because of some -- of some other issues that we have cited to allow the esd's to have input into it and star flight independent panel, we are not there yet. This is just really the numbers that were provided to the court and to the p.b.o. And to the city finance office during last year's budget negotiations. All of the backup justification is in those documents.
>> so in the budget process we approved a monthly increase of the 14,900.
>> you approved the total difference between the '02 budget and the budget for current year of the 14,929 a month more. It wasn't broken out, but you approved the total amount of the budget. That's the monthly difference.
>> is the maintenance a current number that happens on a lot of these interlocals in terms of since we have an existing contract in pace, the new maintenance, current numbers put in there, that is what diana and gang plugged in and was part of the preliminary budget actually. We took it straight off of --
>> so the increase -- the increased amount is based on last year's numbers?
>> based on the budget we submitted I guess to diana and the Commissioners -- the -- but to diana at the county about this time last year, I guess.
>> we had these numbers during our budget process.
>> yes, part of your budget process.
>> were they based on actuals up to that point or projected numbers for this year?
>> they were based upon the costs for the city to do this business. Which is the -- the city's cost, same number we budgeted for the city fund aside, for benefits, for fuel and all of those other things that go along with the budget.
>> the contract would be setting aside whatever amount it would be necessary to fund in the year I guess. We anticipated interlocal coming back. What this does, though, is to pay retroactively back to what date?
>> pays back to the beginning of this current fiscal year.
>> what date?
>> October 1.
>> October.
>> of 2002.
>> judge apparently what happened, since I wasn't here, go back to looking at it, since the 2003-2003 contract wasn't renegotiated. There was apparently language in the 2001-2002 budget that said that the following 2002-2003 budget will be increased by this amount and there was justification for that. And since we didn't have a signed contract, that's the reason we were paying less mope. We were paying the 2001-2002. In order to catch up with what really was in the contract with the 2002-2003 that's where the 14,929.92 comes into play.
>> actually in the first quarter, of this current fiscal year, we invoiced at the 2003 approved budget and we paid for those first three months. Then did some catch up and realized they couldn't be paying because we didn't have an interlocal that -- that reflected that new increased cost as approved during the budget process.
>> two questions, I guess. One is so -- so we pay the city actual costs plus overhead.
>> the interlocal is mostly direct cost of 109.33 employees.
>> okay. So our planning and budget office will have actual figures and monthly totals for 14,900 and some change, right, allen?
>> yeah. We --
>> is there a question or no to that one.
>> be improved by the [indiscernible] budget. We don't actually have a budget total from the department on a given month to make sure it equals 14,000. We approved an annuallized budget based on the salary and benefits scheduled as provided by the city of Austin and brought to you all during the budget process.
>> okay. We are working to put the interlocal in place?
>> a brand new one, yes. That's -- I know that Commissioner Daugherty tee and I are starting up with chemical burn and esd's next week. It grows from there. It is our hope that it is something that is in place by the new fiscal year and if nothing else, this is one of those things of we may need to have a refresher clause in it that basically says whatever the budget amount by this Commissioners court, that may be one of those suggestion that's -- so we don't have to keep amending the interlocal to reflect what we do during the budget process.
>> [indiscernible]
>> we will start that possess next week. We have our first meeting with e.m.s., With esd, Commissioner Sonleitner and myself. I can't imagine that we can't have this thing done in time to get our new budget. That certainly is going to be my intention.
>> the problem is that our original interlocal was basically cobbled together anticipating a combined system with in clauses, out clauses. The reality is that anticipated system is now a reality. Therefore we need to clean it up to reflect the reality as opposed to the dream of a consolidated e.m.s. Make it much simpler for everybody to go through and we have learned a lot in the last four years as well.
>> I have my questions answered.
>> yeah. I think we just have to [indiscernible] that last statement by Commissioner Sonleitner and Daugherty.
>> judge, I would move approval of amendment number one related to the e.m.s. Interlocal.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> good job.
>> thank you, barbara.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:52 AM