Travis County Commssioners Court
August 26, 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 25
Now, number 25, consider and take appropriate action on the following recommendations from the Travis County fire marshal. A is use of life safety code by fire marshal as organized under sb 1460. And 25-b is adoption of proposed inspection fees as authorized by chapter 233 of the local government code.
>> thank you very much. I'm with emergency services and I'm the coordinator for that area. Today with me is alan (indiscernible), to my right. And to my left is the Travis County fire marshal, dennis hobbs. We feel like that it is now time to establish full credibility in regards to the fire marshal's office. And not that it has been credible, but it's been without a fire code. And so we are moving in the direction of where we are going to be establishing hopefully with your approval a standard whereby when we go out and we do things, then we have an adopted standard that can be used, not only for unincorporated areas, but as I had mentioned to you when I was become here before you talking about the fire code, we are now in the process of working with other fire agencies in the county in trying to look at a possible consensus of using -- of using one fire code for the entire county. We feel like that that is the best way to go. And, of course, we're going to be bringing you something back hopefully in the spring. But what do we do between now and then? With this particular senate bill, 1460, it does enable us to use without a fire code the county can use the state fire code, which is the life safety code. Along with that we would like for you to consider fees. And what we've done is given you an attachment b, a proposal. And I want to talk more about that in a moment. But attachment b basically will establish two things. One, it will revise our current fees, which we talked about the last time we were here. And then two, it's going to add those additional line items or those additional inspection areas that we feel like need to be added to the list. Now, what we're proposing to you today is that we come forward and not add staff or add resources, but simply use the life safety code, which we're allowed to under senate bill 1460. And establish and have you approve and establish these fees. That we continue to receive requests. I think the fire marshal will tell you that we receive up to this point this year 77 requests for inspections. And so we would not be going out necessarily and looking for looking the state fire code and attaching these fees for it. Now, just this morning we were in discussions with jim connally, who is over there right now getting ready to tell you something. And that is there are some different interpretations, perhaps, that we can use in regards to how we collect those fees. And I indicated that had we could use chapter 233 of the local government code, which basically allows us to recover our costs, and it also states that the money should be placed in a special fund. I'll let jim give you the interpretation there as to whether or not we really must use 233 or we simply use the senate bill 1460, which allows us to instead of adopting a fee, we're going to -- instead of adopting a code, we're going to use a different code, which is the state code. However we go about it, I think your going to come to the same conclusion, and that is -- the inspections need to be made and the money needs to be collected. Where it goes, that's why we're here is to let you decide that. We would prefer it go with the special fund because when we come up with the code, then the monies will automatically go back into the operating costs and be specifically used for fire marshal activities. One more thing and then i'll turn it over to jim and dennis. That is in establishing the fee, when I was working with the pbo as well as the fire marshal, and as you see on this chart, our fee that we're proposing here is far above what other people are charging. And the reason why I put that fee down is because I wanted to give you the highest fee that I could give you for you to consider, but I also have to tell you, I'm not comfortable with that fee. I don't feel light rite about the fee. I understand we're coming from because one of the things that made me change this fee to where we're seeing it before you today, is that in talking with christian and pbo, which I highly respect that office, they've given me such assistance since i've been here and direction and advice, but they used a formula. They're numbers people and so therefore that's their mission and charge is to come in and make sure that there's nothing out there that we're giving away free. That we are recovering our costs. And I'm for that. If you're looking at the fee and you're wondering why are other people charging such small amounts and you talk with them, they're going to tell you that the reason why they either charge a small fee or no fee whatsoever is because the taxpayers are already paying through their taxes these operations. And the main function and mission of the fire marshal's office is not to do investigations and -- is it not, is to do investigations and inspections. Therefore their salary is already being paid for by the taxpayer and so therefore for us to go and ask above and beyond in an extreme way a fee that goes -- in my opinion it kind of crosses the line here, which this $59 does, that's to me troubling for me, and I hope it would cause you to look at it in a serious way. So my proposal today and the fire marshal I think supports me, and alan might not, but $59 an hour fee -- owe we do believe we should go with an hourly rate because depending on what the job is, depending on how much time it takes, so we do feel like that's fair. What's not included in here, though, is the travel time. This 59-dollar an hour rate is simply looking at the salary and bringing them in direct. And this 59-dollar rate ask the division indirect. If you were to look at the county indirect, it would be $52.25. And so today my proposal is that we go with the $52 an hour. Just round it off $52 and hour and that we go with that particular rate and not go with the 59 and that we do not include travel time. And that we use that justification based upon the fact that they are already being paid salary and expenses for their mission, which includes inspections, but that the $52 is a fair rate because they don't always work between 8:00 and 5:00 o'clock. They don't always have the pleasure of dealing with regular hours -- well, I don't know if any of us in this room are dealing with regular hours, but there are some people that work 8:00 to 5:00 o'clock. And so I would like for your consideration to be given that we not overdue what we are doing here as far as our folks. And who are we talking about? I'm here today to speak on behalf of Travis County. And I represent the citizens who you do, but there are some voices out there that are unspoken and don't have the pleasure of coming here and standing before this microphone and talking to you. And that is, we inspect foster homes, we inspect nursing homes, we inspect hospitals. And there are voices there, young children who don't have the ability and the privilege of being able to say I want this kind of protection or I want this or that. There are seniors -- and as y'all know, in my activities I deal a lot with nursing homes and hospitals. There are seniors out there that need to have a voice here that say, we care and that we really do inspect the standards to be upheld in regards to inspections and making those facilities safe and appropriate. So the fee must be reasonable to where people are going to indeed come to us and want that inspection and that protection for their people. And so I'm now getting into the area of preaching, so I will now be quiet. And I would like for jim and then I would like for dennis and also alan, who is probably over here wondering what in the world, danny, are you doing -- jim, do you want to go ahead and give us your thoughts in regard to the legal aspects of this?
>> okay. I guess the difference that you alluded to earlier about chapter 233 or chapter 352, chapter 233 of the local government code allows counties to adopt their own fire codes and to set fees and collect fees for inspections that are conducted pursuant to the fire code that the county adopts. And I think that part of the backup indicated that the fees that they were asking for you to authorize and approve were going to be set pursuant to chapter 233 and to put in the special fund to be used for the fire marshal's office. Chapter 352 of the local government code provides an alternative for a county that has not adopted its own fire code and says that the county fire marshal can conduct inspections and that the Commissioner's court can authorize charging fees for those inspections and that in the absence of a fire code that the county has adopted of its own that they can use any nationally recognized standards that have been approved or adopted by the state. So they propose in the absence or until we get or adopt our own county fire code to do as the statute allows them to do and to conduct inspections based on the standards this the light safety code, which is a code that has been adopted by the state fire marshal's office by state regulation. And the statute, chapter 352, that authorizes fees for those inspections, the wording is just a little bit different than that set that appears in chapter 233, but it basically says that the Commissioner's court may authorize the fire marshal to charge a fee in a reasonable amount determined by the court to cover the cost of the plan review, that is, reviewing the plans in advance of construction or inspection of an existing structure. So it is a fee that the court would determine that would cover the cost of the plan, review or inspection.
>> does either of those provisions prohibit us from reducing the general fund contribution by the amount of the fees collected?
>> I'm going to -- I'm going to defer to (indiscernible). He knows more about county finance than I do. I know the statistic 352 doesn't deal with the funds and where they go. It doesn't deal with any special funds. Barbara?
>> neither statute refers to -- actually, come to think of it, 252 -- 352 talks about it from the standpoint as if all of the money that you collect goes into the general fund, and there's no -- nothing addressing the fact that you might be supplementing what you collect in fees to cover costs that relate to the inspections or the plan review. In 233, however, the wording not only being different in terms of just saying a reasonable fee, it says the fees must be set in amounts niece nes to cover the cost of administering and enforcing the subchapter. Now, that implies in it that if it's going to cover the costs of enforcing this subchapter to the extent that what the fire marshal's office does is covered by the subchapter -- in other words, if they don't do anything else but enforce that subchapter, then there should be no funds come frg the general fund, it should all be coming from those fees. But we're night doping a fire code -- not adopting a fire code, we're going under the 352 version which says that a reasonable cost for, which leaves it open to you to decide whether part of it will be subsidized by the general fund. Actually, it will all come out of the general fund and -- whether you limit the amount of money available that's collected from fees or not is under the 352 version as cared compared to the 233 version.
>> so the answer to my question is no? Because as it is, the general fund is picking up 100% of the cost now whereas in '04, whatever fees we collect we'll simply reduce the general fund contribution. So neither of the two provisions --
>> will reduce the general fund.
>> now, as to the amount, the others are saying basically -- well, they're saying our fees are intentionally set low, I guess, because these tax taxpayers basically pay taxes, but they are charging a fee.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> so the $59 the maximum fee?
>> it represents the maximum salary fee. It does not have connected to it the travel time.
>> the mathematical calculations using the salaries of the fire marshal's office developing a hourly rate and applying indirect of the it doesn't cover the operating time or travel cost or vehicle cost. It's simply salaries plus indirect of the fire marshal's office.
>> how long will the routine inspection take?
>> how long?
>> yes, sir.
>> well, obviously, judge, that depends on the specific type of inspection. For example, a foster home or an adoptive home, this is basically a single-family residence in which the state mandates that we inspect that for the safety of those children that are going to be in that home. It will take a half an hour to an hour depending on the size of the house. Whereas if you go down the list to -- a good example would be del valle high school, I believe it was, or middle school, we performed an inspection that they requested earlier this career that took two days. So again, it depends on the facility and the type of inspection that we're doing. I think the jail this year when we did it took three days.
>> is that three days of eight hours?
>> yes.
>> so that's 24 hours times whatever?
>> yes, sir, that's correct.
>> I don't see those on the list here.
>> me earth.
>> the jail?
>> and the school.
>> well, we don't inspect specifically just for the school building in particular. The type of inspection that we did at del valle was they had a new alarm system put in and they are required by the state to have that alarm system approved by the local fire person having jurisdiction. So that would fall under an alarm test or a sprinkler system test. Those are the types of systems that are -- we frequently receive requests for because they are required to be signed off on by the authority having jurisdiction.
>> but then we have the commercial applications as well and that may be one building or a very good example, if somewhere like a strip center has now opened up and they put in a sprinkler system, one of the requirements is that that sprinkler system has to pass a two-hour test in order to ensure that it is leakproof. Do we charge for that two hours that they basically have it air pressured and are waiting in addition to any other --
>> okay. On that --
>> it could last for days.
>> on that situation, typically it takes two hours. That would be $100. If 15 minutes you got your inspections in, say, the day care, home care, 50 bucks. Our 15 minutes, 50 bucks. And I guess I'm wondering, the inspectors arrives, looks at his watch. He's time conscious, I guess he's running through it. I'm not doing it so I guess it doesn't matter one way or another to me except in terms of simplicity, it would seem to me that if on these commercial buildings that we know would take a couple hours, we just tell you a $100 fee. Day care centers, 30 minutes to an hour, 50 bucks. I'm looking at the others. Looks like they all kind of charge flat fees for the day care center, the adoption home, except bexar, and they charge $30 an hour.
>> my original proposed fee schedule did attach a one fee -- especially for these like foster homes and adoptive homes because we pretty well know that we're going to be able to do those within an hour. It was actually at p.b.o.'s request that we change to an hourly rate in order to ensure we're offsetting our complete costs.
>> yes, and part of the reason for that was the discussion on such as the del valle school he mentioned and also the fee schedule for hospitals, I think the -- some level of maybe for a smaller building having a flat rate, but for larger more vague jobs of an in determine nature amount of time, it was our recommendation to go to an hourly rate. We saw with the foster homes they were likely to take an hour so for practical purposes we were charge ago hourly rate anyway. From our perspective we thought a hospital with 20 beds versus a hospital with 300 beds, we thought there might be a difference in how long to recover the fire marshal's cost.
>> if you look at the column that says harris county, I have a great deal of respect when it comes to these issues. They have led the step every step of the way related to the law [inaudible], et cetera. And they have got like a two tiered system. Basically everything from hospital beds up on the chart, it's a flat fee. Judge, I hear you loud and clear. Folks ought to have a certain amount of certainty as to what something is going to cost. But if you notice the things that are really more flexible, like, well, it just kind of depends because it's a lot more complicated, then they have an hourly charge. And that seems to be an approach that makes sense to me, that there would be certainty on the certain kinds of flat things like a foster home, like your idea, 150 bucks for this or 100 bucks. Just translate that. But on the things that you really it's like who knows how long it's going to take where there's an incredible flexibility, I like the idea of an hourly charge, and for us to figure out what that ought to be, whether it's 52 or just flat out 50 like what harris county is doing. And again, much more complicated kinds of things, there really ought to be an hourly fee.
>> I spoke with mike montgomery in harris county yesterday afternoon actually and he sent me an e-mail to address why is it that their fee is lower than their hourly rate. His explanation is that their Commissioners court felt like that under 352 with what they were charged with was recovering a reasonable rate. And that they do have, as you said, kind of a two-tiered system to account for the fact on these very large complexes, we have some way to at least recover the majority of our costs.
>> is there a hurry that we have to do this like today?
>> yep.
>> okay.
>> this is posted for a public hearing tomorrow at 6:00.
>> it's related to what we're putting on the [inaudible]. Because I really do like the idea of kind of a two-tiered thing. Certainty of costs on that first small grouping there, foster homes, adoption homes, health care, day care, hospital beds. Certainty of costs. Because we pretty much know how long it's going to take. But down below it really be more of a per hour situation. And if it's something simple, it won't cost you much. If it's something extraordinarily complicated, then they will know what that rate is and it is accordingly.
>> and I agree with that.
>> we will not recover our costs, right?
>> that's correct. Not by the fee alone.
>> unless the number of inspections really increases dramatically.
>> I don't think we'll ever recover all of our costs because, as I was explaining to allen, we were discussing the other day is for a person who has a foster home in spicewood, virtually the travel time for me to be out there and back and do the inspection is two and a half hours or three hours. And I certainly don't think it's reasonable to charge 150 to 200 dollars for that inspection. And so I don't ever see us recovering all of our costs.
>> but I guess --
>> what I'm seeing here too as well though is in terms of consistency out in the county, e.s.d. 2, 6 and 9 have all flat fees. It is exactly the same dollar amount. Will be just slightly less than the kind of numbers we're talking about, and really the only changeout is on nursing homes. If they each have that same flat fee and there's a slight differential related to how many identify kwrers you have. They give us no guidance on hospitals because they don't have any.
>> right. And I would offer too that originally that's what I proposed, and, again, I do understand recovering our costs and took p.b.o.'s recommendation that we move to more of an hourly rate.
>> and I see the city of Austin has an interesting way of doing their related to those other things. It's a per bed charge. And if it's under 50 beds, just a flat-out figure. If it's over 50-bed, it goes back to that per-bed charge. Why don't we take some guidance from city of Austin relative to big stuff and e.s.d. 2, 6 and 9 related to the flat fee stuff, guidance from harris county related to the stuff that's really flexible and we come up with what is a reasonable per-hour recovery.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> there's a bigger deal to me with regards to recovering costs. I mean, I'm not looking for a way for business to have to take on additional expense. I don't think that -- I don't think that the government ought to be in that business. Now, if your time is so stretched that you can't do what we're really paying you to do, then I think you get into where you are trying to recover some costs. I mean if you are saying, you know, I'm working 80 hours a week because I'm going to firework blastoffs and all this kind of stuff and all these crazy hours, and I remember when danny told me that you all were out and that was certainly above and beyond the regular eight-hour workday. If you factor that into this, then I'm more inclined to say, okay, we need to have the fee, you know, because we're basically doing more work than what, you know, we're taking care of in the tax rate. I mean because we do take that into consideration. Especially given that to date, I mean, all of your expenses are taken out of what we collect ad valorem-wise, tax-wise. Now, if we're looking for a way, and all of us, you hear on the street people really get irked by the fact that everybody is trying to -- I mean the municipalities are always looking for a way to get in your pocket. And I can remember going to city council meetings and people say why would you go and talk about the transportation tax. Because it was a tax to my electric bill. And it basically was a way of it just raised the taxes if you wanted versus feeing me to death. I would -- I mean one question that I have is what percentage is the businesses that you would go and inspect would have everything that they needed, which you signed off out and you were gone? I think what people fear inspections is because somebody is going to come in and say, oh, you don't have this and this and this, and by the way, you need to get those. And you know what? That necessities me coming back again and charging you another $50 because if I'm telling you you don't have something, before I can check you off, i've got to come and see if you've got this. So I mean I want to be real careful with -- I mean, you know, small businesses, I mean really, you know, hinge on really being able to just make ends meet. Now, I realize that we have a fiduciary responsibility as well to the taxpayer to make sure that our expenses don't get out of line as well. But I sure want to be apprehensive about -- or careful, not apprehensive, I want to be careful before I just arbitrarily go, you know what? You know, let's just recover some money. I mean, I'm for trying to find some money for the general fund. Before we just get out here and lop on expenses on people that are just trying to make a buck, and they are trying to make a buck so they can pay our ad valorem taxes. So I want to be very mindful of that before we, you know, get too far down the road with this.
>> I'm kind of looking for a blended approach. You bet, the general fund needs to support the general structure of the fire marshal's office whether utilized or not. But if you utilize it, that is a user fee, and the general taxpayers ought not to be paying for part of what it takes to run a business. In the same way subdivision fees. It is part of putting it together. And why should the general taxpayer, me, I'm sitting here in central Austin, why should I be paying for development that's occurring out there and I'm not the one utilizing those services. Park fees. If you don't go to the parks, you know, there's a general amount of support, but if you use them, there ought to be some extra amount that you add on there. So to me, some of this is the responsibility of business. It just is. And some of this is the responsibility of the general fund to basically make sure that the support system is there. It's kinds of like the courts. The general fund takes care of the courts. We provide the structure, the judges, et cetera. But only if you access those courts, you are going to have the extra filing fees and things to help pay for you accessing those services. So in this case, it ought to be that that hospital or nursing home, they are the ones accessing the services. It's up to the general fund to make sure that there is an office for them to access. Because we're not going to be able to recover 100% of their costs. But if you utilize their services, it is certainly, I think, justified for a user fee like subdivision fees, like park fees.
>> well, I --
>> but could the site plan, though -- the site plans, maybe that's where we ought to charge to look at what they are going to be doing, you know, all together. But, you know, then for purposes of safety, yeah, you've got to go out there, and I guess it's built in where you have to inspect certain things annually to make sure that people keep them up for the safety of children and elderly who will be there. But is it possible to take care of, like, subdivisions and the building plans, the site, the preliminary plans, and then not try to, you know, those you don't have to go back and inspect annually.
>> what we could do, what Commissioner Sonleitner just suggested awhile ago, and that is -- or just suggested now, and that is look at the model between now and the time we come back to you with the full plan of the international code, look at the harris county example and simply go back and do what you suggested, judge, and that is go with the top portion there of where we charge -- I would recommend the $52, not the 59d $39, but charge the $52, just the fee, except when you get to the breakout of the health care column and the 75 to 150, adopt those as harris county has them. Take the hourly rate off, just charge the $50 -- or $52 fee, and then when you get the planning reviews and below, go with the hourly rate.
>> a couple of questions.
>> I'm okay with that, but, you know, when I was in the -- with the constables offices as well, they don't pay their way either. And so county government has to carry those offices as well, but they are constitutional offices and it has to be done. But I'm kind of -- I keep hearing from people as well that, you know, we're going to fee them to death. And when they've already paid taxes. And so that concerns me as well.
>> I might add too that the -- I mean the statute says that the fees shall be set in a reasonable amount determined to cover the cost of the plan review or inspection. Obviously the fire marshal's office is involved in other activities other than plan review and inspections, and I think, dennis, what you said you've only done 53 inspections or something like that so far this --
>> 76, 77.
>> okay, less than 100 --
>> excluding fireworks stands, I might add.
>> okay. So obviously the office is involved in a lot of other activities other than reviews and inspections. And this statute does not authorize you to set a fee for those that would subsidize the other activities of the office. And I don't know whether the $59 per hour cost that has been proposed takes into account or recognizes that review and inspections are only one part of what the fire marshal's office does.
>> of course if it's based on hourly rate, I think it does since they only spent an hour on inspection, you would only get charged $52. While if they spent on other duties, it wouldn't be [inaudible]. That's why we were recommend ago hourly rate simply because we were trying to only cover the piece of it that would be related to the cost of an inspection.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge. I really appreciate that. I'm not having a chance to talk this morning. That's unlike me. Just a couple of questions I need to ask. The chart broken down. I'm looking at the e.s.d.s, 2, 6 and also 9 who have their rates. And my question to you is, let me give you a example say I have a business that needs inspected, may be a nursing home, a day care, whatever, and I need an inspection. How will I go about that? If I'm in a jurisdiction of a e.s.d., Do I call them, the city of Austin? Who gets the first bite of the apple as far as inspections are concerned.
>> that's a very good question.
>> thank you.
>> currently the way we've been handling our office is we currently have four e.s.d.s which have their own fire code and fee structure in place. If the citizen is unsure, then if they call my office, i'll immediately refer them to e.s.d. 6 or 9 because they are doing the service and they have their own fee structure in place, and so there's no real reason for me to, you know, go into that area, so to speak. We've operated under the agreement, so to speak, that the e.s.d.s can take care of themselves and my office fills in the gaps in the k. So in answer to your question, if they call my office, I refer them to that particular e.s.d.
>> even though you may refer them, but let's say they become aware of the fact that your office, the inspectors are cheaper than one of the e.s.d.'s that aren't listed that do the same service. Because if we decide to go with the fees generated, and if I'm out there and I have a business and I look across the spectrum and say, well, what does the city of Austin charge, what does e.s.d. 2, 6 and 9 charge, and also, wait a minute, the fire marshal, they got a new deal over there, they are only charge ing this amount, if I'm running a business, I would definitely go with the one that's the cheapest, if it was me.
>> you can't do that.
>> well, I don't know if you can or not. Let me find out whether you can do that or not. You say you refer them to that. But is that something that they can do, they have an option? In other words like I said, the first bite of the apple. If they are prohibited to do that, somebody needs to tell me legally are they prohibited not to do that.
>> we may need some clarification.
>> from a legal point of view.
>> e.s.d. 1, 2, 6 and 9, they currently have their own fire code adopted, which is a greater standard than what the county currently has. So I wouldn't -- I don't believe that I have the authority to go in there and enforce their fire code.
>> okay.
>> so that's why we've been referring it to those e.s.d.s.
>> okay. Then the second question -- is that legal? As far as a legal interpretation? I would like to hear from legal.
>> I haven't looked at that question, Commissioner, but I would be glad to do that.
>> I think it would be very appropriate if we can research that. Number 2 is the amount of money that we are -- that we are talking about here, do we have any idea that maybe there may be other e.s.d.? If you have several of them in Travis County that will say, wait a minute, we want to go ahead and go ahead and adopt our same fire code and also do the same inspections that you are asking us to structure fee around, how would that impact your office, per se. Would the e.s.d.s that come on board, would that increase your involvement as far as inspection if you are not allowed to cross jurisdictional lines and do the inspection?
>> potentially, yes. E.s.d. 11 currently is -- they are wanting to per sue their own fire code in their district. I think that will have to work out with the adoption of a county-wide fire code, which is adopted by the entire county including the e.s.d.s, then we'll have to work out some responsibility roles, and what I hear the court has been telling me is that those e.s.d.s that are self-sufficient will -- the court would like to continue to see them to do so. And again, my office would fill in the holes for the e.s.d.s which don't have the personnel to perform the services.
>> so everything outside of those e.s.d.s [inaudible].
>> at least, again, that's my understanding that the role of the court would like my office to take.
>> because what you don't want to have, Commissioner, is where I come in with a plan, instead of asking for three people, I'm asking for ten because i've got to take care of the e.s.d.s and all the other areas. We would want them if they can be self-sufficient to do so so we don't have do come up with the staffing. That's why we this this county-wide plan or code is the best way to go. We already have did resources out there that we don't have to supplement ourselves.
>> I guess what I'm looking at is those particular e.s.d.s that would become independent in the future. In fact, you mentioned e.s.d. 11 maybe even coming -- so I'm just looking at future roles of e.s.d.s as far as becoming independent or either becoming a part of the overall scheme of things as far as some type of uniform fire code.
>> and that's why it's more important, I think, than ever to try to build consensus to where if people are making decisions like they already have to use a fire code, then let's all be on the same page.
>> the law clearly allows them to adopt their own code and enforce it themselves.
>> exactly.
>> so if I heard your question correctly, potentially the e.s.d.s could take that role on which would lessen the inspection burden on my office.
>> exactly. That's what I wanted to really get on the table. That hadn't been flushed out yet and I wanted to make sure we flush out as much as possible so these decisions would be adequate based on what I'm hearing. And I guess again I still need to get a legal answer on the question that I posed to the county attorney's office, and they are going the research that and give me an answer. Those right now are just some [inaudible] think need to be added to the conversation that we're having this morning. Thank you.
>> I think the judge and I have a suggested approach, and I'm just kind of hearing everything everybody is saying here. And that is if you are looking at the hymnal, starting at the top, foster homes, adoption homes, day care, in-home, day care under 25, day care over 25, health care home and nursing home under 50 would be a flat $50 rate. And that is consistent with what our neighbors at the e.s.d. Are, it's pretty darn consistent with what is going on there, flat rate. Nursing home over 50, hospital over 50, the remaineder in that block, would all be at the hourly rate of $52 an hour. And then everything below that is $52 an hour, which is the harris county approach of its flexible, it needs to be the time at a reasonable rate, and it would be that lower end rate in terms of where we think we could say that that is a reasonable cost of recovery and by no means is 100% cost recovery.
>> Commissioner, you were saying that top portion was $50 or $52?
>> $50. I like even numbers.
>> and the rest would be $52 an hour.
>> yes. So the idea is hospitals, even though there are some under 50, that's a much more complicated kind of a thing, more regulations, et cetera. Those are different than foster homes. That would be an hourly rate no matter how many beds you have.
>> if I might clarify, would you include the reinspection fee on an hourly rate or a flat rate? Commissioner Daugherty's question regarding going back several times, do we want to attach a flat fee to that as the other jurisdictions have rather than an hourly rate? Which would lessen, I think the burden on burden if we had to go back -- burden on industry if we had to go back two or three times as compared to an hourly rate.
>> that's the choice by the -- charge by the hourbgs charge by the hour, whether it's one visit or ten. Presumably you don't go back more than once unless there's reason to. Something having to do with the inspection, right?
>> that's correct.
>> and on the flat fee, in my view, the flat fee ought to be for the inspection, period. It's kind of like at the end of the inspection you give some sort of certificate.
>> yes, sir, we will -- we will have a form that we leave with them showing that they have met the minor, you know, that -- the minimum or, you know, they've met all the recommended standards.
>> so if you arrive and do you your inspection and the facility fails, and you say, okay, do you want me to come back in a week, let you take care of this? I mean, how do you treat that?
>> in most cases this top group again are those inspections that are mandated by law. And we are required to go back as many times as is necessary in order for them to pass because the state mandates that they pass those inspections. Usually it will not take more than one reinspection because it's in their best interest as well because they lose their license if they don't pass. So generally one time will do the trick, and we'll schedule that with them based on the amount of time they need to correct whatever deficiencies we may find.
>> did I hear it right or have we done, dennis, around 70 for the year?
>> I broke them into two groups because firework stand inspections, which we did include this year, because they are feed by the state and by the e.s.d.s, I didn't feel that it was prudent for us to, you know, show up and, again, attach a fee to that when they've already been feed twice. So excluding those, talking about primarily inspections we've done this year, we have done -- this budget year, we have done 54 inspections required by law. That's day care, foster home, adoption homes. And we've done 23 other inspections, which may include sprinkler systems or alarm systems, that type of thing.
>> do you think that you have handled that within the scope of your job where it didn't take you beyond the normal work hours to do those?
>> most of those, yes, sir, are scheduled during the normal eight-hour period. The only deviation from that would be -- I tried very hard to meet the requests of those individuals, especially foster homes and adoptive homes where they may work all day and they may need an inspection at 4:30 or 5:00 in the evening because of their job. And so we tried to accommodate that. However, most of those will fall between the normal 8:00 to 5:00 workday.
>> then I can see where somebody couldn't make it during your normal workday that you say this costs you this. But if you do this and you give knee the flexibility of saying, you know what? I don't have anything on the schedule for next week, I can do this. I guess my overriding issue and I think you can see where I'm headed with this thing is that this is not something that we are not handling at this stage, especially given the fact you've got the e.s.d.s that's in the business of doing this as well. Is it additional dollars that we bring in? You bet. But I'm -- you know, I'm not comfortable putting a price on this thing for something that we are basically doing out of our tax base.
>> we charge some fees now.
>> yes, sir, and that's what I was going to say, I might add that --
>> hold on. Day care over 25 we charge $50.
>> right now we've been charging $25 per inspection. Just a flat rate.
>> this says day care over 25, $50.
>> yes, sir, but when I first came here, no one could find this fee schedule so we've been charging --
>> are we charging $50 today or not?
>> if I do an inspection today?
>> is this correct or not?
>> this is the correct current fee schedule for Travis County.
>> so if you go out there first time and you pass the inspection for day care over 25, it's $50.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right. So if you fail the first time and you go back a week later, what's the total charge?
>> we don't have any reinspection fee at this time.
>> it's $50 then.
>> no, sir, I wouldn't charge them a second time out.
>> it's $50.
>> yes, sir, it's $50.
>> just say yes.
>> I'm trying to keep this simple. I mean that's -- we charge fees already.
>> right.
>> and I don't know if there is rhyme or rhythm. I see what the others are doing. The e.s.d.s are charging $45. I would keep it simple. And was that a motion you made?
>> yes, judge, I would move that the chart be reflected that in terms of the proposed rates for Travis County that the foster homes, the adoption homes, day care in home, day care over 25, health care home and nursing home under 50, that it be a flat fee of $50. For everything else below that on this chart, it would be an hourly rate of $52 an hour.
>> okay. Second that motion. And if this passes, I think what we ought to do with attachment b. Is to change it to reflect whatever action is taken today. So that those who inquire could be given a copy of this. And then at the public hearing at 6:00 tomorrow, those who want to come and give comments can basically give comments on it. This will give them an opportunity to see what we do today and what the recommended changes are. And they can compare us with the other jurisdictions here.
>> let me ask this question. Can someone tell me how much money are we generating right now if we are charging fees on the current fee structure, and what's been proposed here, what would that amount be if this motion is to pass? Number 2 is still directed at legal. When can I have an answer on if someone was to shop around to look at the best deal to end up -- because of all the business [inaudible]. That would be [inaudible] to shop around as far as jurisdiction as far as who I would like to do my inspection.
>> the issue in terms of shopping around is that the jurisdiction can only do an inspection in [inaudible] jurisdiction. So somebody out in the county cannot come to the city of Austin to get their inspection done because the city does not have jurisdiction out in the county. The extent to which there might be a possibility of shopping around would be between county and esd in the sense that the county has -- the county has jurisdiction within the e.s.d. But if you are living in the e.s.d. And the e.s.d. Has a fire code that they have adopted, unless that e.s.d. Is entered into an interlocal agreement with us to ask us to do the plan review as it relates to the fire code they've adopted, an inspection by us would not result in an indication that they had complied with the fire code which they have to comply with within that jurisdiction. So they really wouldn't have the option of coming to us for a certification that they had complied with the e.s.d.s fire code. They would only have a certification [inaudible].
>> but [inaudible] -- the reason why I ask that question because let me give an example of what I'm trying to say here. In precinct 1, we have a segment of our community out there that is not being served -- well, let me put it like this. They haven't entered into any type of agreement with an spells e.s.d., And yet surrounding e.s.d.s continue to provide service to those residents there which the other residents are actually paying for that service that's [inaudible] tax base that these other folks are paying. And it's really an issue of first response type situation out there, and of course the residents have not yet agreed to sign off on getting service from e.s.d. So there's a service provided by the e.s.d. Even though it's out of the skwrurts dicks. I'm beginning to wonder if you are going to look at crossing service lines, jurisdictional lines that provides a service. And so I'm beginning to wonder if if this may be the case so that's why I'm posing this kind of question; this an iron clad situation where that might happen. I don't really know because I know it's not in all instances as far as the e.s.d. Or other areas that they provide service. But anyway, that's another -- maybe another issue for another day, so that is what I'm kind of concerned about is that and the question as far as generation of revenue, I would like to get a response as far as generation of revenue. Where we are right now as far as how much revenue we're currently generated and if this proposal goes through, how much revenue would it generate.
>> I can give you our figures for this year, Commissioner. At the current fee that we're charging, we've generated about $1,200 worth of revenue this year is all. That's based on the 54 inspections that we've done, required inspections. And that's the only thing that we're charge ago fee for at this time. If those same numbers had been done under the new schedule, including the 23 other inspections that we've done at no charge this year, then we're talking about $5,000 or a little over for the year.
>> any discussion of the motion?
>> judge, would your motion be that if they had to go back -- because right now on a revisit there's no charge. But your motion would be on a revisit it would be another 50 bucks?
>> no, sir. No, sir.
>> hourly.
>> my motion would be that if you are in the top category up there, I'm not suggesting we change the practice. If it's a $50 fee, it's a $50 fee. On the hourly fees, the hourly fee takes care of itself. But we -- the time starts running when we arrive at the location, right? Whether it takes an hour and a half to get there, we don't charge for that. We arrive at the premises, basically the clock starts running.
>> yes, sir.
>> looks like most of these an hour or so will take care of it unless it's a big facility with a whole lot of devices to inspect.
>> yes, sir.
>> so a flat fee is a flat fee no matter how many times it takes dennis and his folks to go back. On an hourly, the clock keeps ticking until that person has completed its hourly duties.
>> that's why I asked for the clarification on the reinspection fee.
>> the thing about the reinspection is if you are already on an hourly tab, the hourly tab is continuing. But a flat fee is a flat fee and it includes -- is inexclusive of the reinspection.
>> same as you say you do today.
>> yes, sir.
>> how many times do you give -- dennis, if you have to go back this amount of times, do you just say close your door? You haven't passed this deal.
>> well, fortunately the way the licensing agency works is we provide the inspections to ensure that they are compliant, and we will continue to go back however many times it takes. However, the state licensing agency will yank their license probably -- as soon as it becomes delinquent whether they are in compliance or not until such time as they do become compliant.
>> we may want to kick this one more time and make sure it's dead. [laughter] or are we ready to vote? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> consensus, yeah.
>> there is one other request that I have here or that we had here and was that we be able to enforce the life and safety code, and we would like to do that.
>> move approval. That's a statement.
>> yes, sir. .
>> and that won't have any effect on the e.s.d. If we do that.
>> no, sir.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Did somebody second that?
>> yes, sir.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. I believe, right?
>> let me ask this question before you leave out of here.
>> hold on.
>> did you vote for that?
>> unanimous vote.
>> yes. I voted for a. You remember I described the situation earlier of we have e.s.d. 2 and 12 sitting out here actually serving an area outside of that jurisdiction, we have some folks out there in Travis County, but they are not a part of the e.s.d. They don't want to be included. However, they continue to get services through the e.s.d. For whatever reason they don't want to become a part of it. But these two e.s.d.s are still responding to the needs of those residents that don't want the service. Of course, it's a inspect jurisdictional -pbt at this time, the e.s.d.s are, we have no control over them. Travis County doesn't, per se, and this is a real big concern of ours, so in this particular thing that we're voting for, this fire code and all these things, would that area that do not want to become a part of any e.s.d., The residents, will they come up under this fire code protection? Uniform fire code. Even though they are not a part of a e.s.d.
>> the way the statute was written, if I understand it correctly, and the county attorney may correct me if I am wrong, is that in the essence of a fire code -- absence of a fire county code, I can enforce any nationally recognized standard in the county.
>> so they are a part of the county so they would be applicable to that portion even though they are not in a e.s.d.
>> that's correct. The county fire marshal can inspect and the county fire marshal would use the life safety code which is a nationally recognized standard developed by the state and that would be the standard that would be used for the inspection.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> wanted a little claire toy that.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:52 AM